Summations Only

The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not, in fact, repeal anti-fraternization regulations for soldiers.You are, as always, an idiot.

The one where you made a comment on something without investigating it first. Funny thing about facts: conservatives are always wrong about them. Ya know that post of mine you are replying to? Ya, I pointed out that the MARINES (again, not soldiers) did, in fact, contradict the general in front of a bunch of reporters. You would have known that if you addressed the post you were initially replying to with your head instead of your conservative ass.

Even if Buz were right about the attitude of GIs, I would find maintaining DADT a reprehensible policy. I have no doubt that back in the late 1940s when the armed services were integrated, there were Buz-like people, perhaps including Buz himself, who felt the same way about having to serve next to colored troops and sailors.But we shouldn't let those @$#$^ attitudes dictate military policy.For what it's worth, my own experience suggests that Buz is completely wrong about the way most servicemen think. I served (pre DADT) in quarters about as close as it gets in the military; in a crew of 100+ men on a 400 foot long submarine. Yes there were gay men aboard, some openly and some in the closet. The effect on morale was reasonably close to zero. The most important issue about your fellow sailor on a submarine was whether or not he was qualified to stand a watch so that you could get into a three shift rotation so that you might get some sleep now and then.DADT makes servicemen and women blackmail targets, and is a huge security risk. It also fostered a situation in which gays were subject to abuse which they could not report for fear of being outed and expelled. It also required people to live and tell lies, when honesty and integrity were essential for survival. DADT did not work.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's true not just in submarines but everywhere.Submarines though might be one of the most extreme environments to test this.

"Test" what? The repeal of DADT doesn't suddenly turn anyone gay, it just makes it so they aren't discriminated against because of who they are. You guys act like there weren't already homosexuals in the armed forces.

And you are acting like a jerk. Your biases are showing.

Please oh please show me how I am biased..... Perhaps you could respond to at least SOME of the evidence shown that invalidates your position. Oh, wait, this is a political thread: you'll just duck, dodge and shout "SOCIALIST COMMIE NAZIS" any minute now and not actually bring a single fact to the discussion. I've been here for a while and never hidden the fact that I am rather brash or rough around the edges (compared to the rest of you sophisticated folks). However, this is one time where I have to say: "what the fuck?". How is me asking you a question being a jerk? I could see if you quoted the portion where I remarked your "conservative ass" as being jerkish, but this? Come on. Maybe if you addressed questions posed to you and held viable, logically consistent positions, you wouldn't think that people calling you out on them were "jerks".Now, would you mind addressing the topic, or at least the subtopics that have sprung forth? Maybe you could, I don't know, defend your position with evidence as we all know you are capable of doing in the science section....

But she's still funny.

Here's my size up (I am a centrist)IF:
Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Ron Paul get the nomination, Obama is in trouble because:
- Gingrich has balanced the budget and worked with Dems, despite all the skeletons in his closet.
- Huntsman is liberal enough to scoop in a good portion of Dems and GOP's
- Ron Paul will find out he has alot more supporters than first though because none of them believed he can win until now.IF
Michelle Bachman (I'll be Bach!), Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum gets the nomination Obama smiles and sits back because:
- Bachman is playing with the emotions of the American people, as most Tea Partier's do. And she has no solid plan.
- Perry just is not that bright. It would be like George Bush II.
- Romney is just a good ol' boy politician and will get creamed.
- Santorum is not even mentioned much anymore.Anywho, the Republican field is just a circus of people claiming the exact same thing then attacking each other's like vultures fighting over a carcass. The sad fact is that most politicians put money and their own hide's over the good of America.

You honestly believe the conservative base will rally behind a guy that cheated on his wife, been married 3 times, and thinks poor kids should work to eat? How are they going to put all the fags in prison if they voted in a president that can't keep his Willy in his pants?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

... wives ... ... is financially corrupt, politically unprincipled, looks like someone poured 200lb of mashed potatoes into a suit ... and isn't black?Yes. Yes they will. He'll appeal to their core values, namely whiteness, hypocrisy, and whatever Fox News tells them their core values are this week.It's not the base he's going to have trouble with.

I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the fact that they are rallying behind Newt Gingrich. Everything about this man is completely the opposite of what the conservative base have been claiming to be about. It's mind boggling that his numbers are dominating the others. I mean... do the conservatives know what they want anymore?Just a moment...Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Of course they do. Whatever Fox news tells them they want.

so far the only people on here that are quoting or even mentioning Fox News is you guys.a lil bit ironic, dontcha think?