Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell. Don’t Care?

I noticed that there were some discussions beginning on this subject in the threads today so I figured I would take the night to quickly open the subject for discussion. It is an area we have not tackled previously, and to be honest it is a subject that I have not had the time to research in depth. I had figured to cover it in the next couple of weeks since the President mentioned it in the State of the Union. But since I had no guest commentary submitted for this week, I figured I would throw it out there rather than simply going without another article until the beginning of next week. I am, as you can probably guess from the title, talking about the President’s promise to eliminate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuals in the military. I know it can be a sensitive subject, and one that is often fought on lines of very different perspectives (veterans have a far different perspective on this than those who haven’t served). But perhaps we can discuss this without allowing the religious aspect of things to cloud the discussion?

Now to be clear, the President said the following during the State of the Union:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

The first question that I ask is whether folks feel like this was something he was really passionate about or whether you think that this is the bone he was throwing to the gay community because he knows they are disappointed that he has not fallen towards pushing gay marriage as they had hoped he would. I tend to believe it is a bone he is throwing. I could be wrong, but in the end I guess it doesn’t matter. He is asking for it to happen, no matter the reason.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT from this point forward) was enacted under President Clinton in 1993. It was enacted while I was serving and I remember it well. He had campaigned on allowing everyone, including openly homosexual individuals, to serve in the United States Military. Congress struck down the proposal that would have allowed that to happen, DADT was the compromise Clinton signed, basically saying that they couldn’t serve openly, but the military was not allowed to ask, gays were not supposed to tell, and no one was supposed to dig to find out. Basically, they were saying you could be gay and serve in the military as long as no one found out you were gay. I personally always found it to be no change at all from the previous conditions where they simply were not allowed. Both before and after DADT was passed, if you admitted to being gay, you were out. The only different was you didn’t have to lie when entering the service because they were no longer allowed to ask. Wikipedia offers the following summary of DADT:

policy banning openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving in the United States military, as mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because “it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The “don’t ask” part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member’s orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through persecutions and harrassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy’s current formulation as don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass.

You can read the full history and details at: Don’t ask, don’t tell – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will do my best here to present two different arguments. There are those that support the lifting of DADT. There are many studies that have been conducted that sought to understand the impact of openly gay serving members on unit morale, effectiveness, and cohesion. The studies cited by this side of the argument show that there are no detrimental effects on any aspect of the unit’s ability to complete their mission. Additionally, this side points out (correctly in my opinion) that the GLBT community deserves every right and privilege that other Americans have, including serving in the US Armed Forces without having to hide their sexual orientation as though it were a badge of dishonor.

There are others who argue that allowing gays to openly serve hurts morale, endangers members in difficult situations, and puts soldiers into uncomfortable situations (as if being sent to a foreign land and shot at is NOT an uncomfortable situation). They argue that unit effectiveness is built on cohesion and trust and that the same level of each is not attainable when openly gay members are introduced. They especially have a distaste for the idea when so many deployed units consist of strictly men. I understand that my brief synopsis of the the two sides is clearly insufficient, but I assume that those that want to argue each side will expand enough to fill in the gaps.

Now I will add my thoughts, albeit briefly as I will save some for the discussions. I am very torn on the idea of repealing DADT. On one hand, I support repeal because I think that there is no place for discrimination of any kind in today’s America. I have gone on record many times saying that gays should have every single right and privilege that the rest of us have. And this is no exception. On the other hand, I oppose repealing it because I know first hand that in some situations, it will effect morale and effectiveness, regardless of what their bullshit studies say. I have seen it firsthand. And furthermore, I would oppose repeal because I think it would be dangerous for openly gay soldiers, males especially. So I will offer a bit more explanation of what I mean.

I have served in two very different types of units. For those who don’t know, you don’t sign up as a new soldier to do the job I ended up doing. You have to attain a certain rank before you are able to attempt to switch into that job. So for the first bit of my career, like everyone else, I was assigned to a regular unit. I was a Field Artillery guy, more specifically I was a crew member on a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS, big ass rocket launcher). I later went over to D13’s world, (where he was already probably an old as dirt Major or so at that point, JUST KIDDING brother), which was an ENTIRELY different type of unit and job. And the impact of repealing DADT would be different on these two jobs, in my opinion.

In an MLRS situation, I don’t see the repeal as that big of a deal. You operate in platoon size element and even though you are a combat arms unit, you generally sit about a mile behind the front line and shoot rockets. You can end up in combat and face enemy combatants (there were Iraqi’s surrendering to our launchers during GW 1). But the stress is not as high. I don’t fear for the morale too badly in a unit like this. But I do more fear for the gay soldier’s safety. Soldiers in this unit were far less disciplined and far more likely, given the high number of lower enlisted (E1-E4), to initiate violence against what they don’t understand or approve of.

On the other hand, you have a SF Team. Ultimate brotherhood, intense morale, and always finding themselves in highly volatile combat situations. Because these teams are so much more closely knit, you might expect that it would be more of a problem having a gay member. But I feel it is the opposite. Because, first and foremost, these are seasoned soldiers, all noncoms and above. These are professionals. And they are far more interested in judging you by how well you perform on the team than what you might be doing on your off time. If you can earn the tab and the beret, what do I care who you sleep with. Because they are professionals, they would for the most part be a far safer place for those openly gay members. Problem is, getting into a team is pretty tough. It is an exclusive group. I knew one man in my entire career that was gay and in SF. He never told although the people in his team knew. It was never an issue.

I will be very interested in D13’s opinion and perspective on this. We served in two different eras (meaning he served in his and mine, lol). So I don’t know how different it was in Vietnam. My observations only can speak to what I experienced. And I do know that some of the very old school guys I knew felt very differently than I did in terms of gays serving in the military. I am also very interested in Ellen’s perspective as a gay woman who, if memory serves me correctly, actually served in the United States Navy.

So you see, much like women in the military, it affects different units in different ways. I have no doubt that even if the military does repeal DADT, the rules will be written in a way that does not allow them into certain types of units. That is just my hunch.

Over my career, I knew several gay soldiers, both men and women. Rarely was it ever an issue. When it was an issue it was usually only an issue for one or two people who had grown up never being around them and really just weren’t given a chance to know them. I saw two of them, one of them an excellent soldier in the MLRS unit, kicked out of the military when their sexual orientation was revealed.

So in the end I am really torn on the subject. On one hand I think repeal is good. I don’t like to see anyone not permitted to serve in the military because I know what a good thing it was for me. On the other hand, I don’t know how the majority of the “regular” military would handle it because I spent so little time there and did so in a combat arms unit. I was never in a support unit or a unit that had women, so my experiences were limited. I can tell you that a lot of my apprehension comes from a fear for the safety of openly gay members. It has nothing to do with whether I think they can do the same jobs as everyone else just as effectively as someone else.

And with my non-opinion, I open the floor for discussion. And D13, brother, forgive my references to you being an old geezer. I know you know I meant no harm, but I mention it here so that everyone else knows that as well. And of course, since this is the last article for this week, feel free to use below for whatever else you want to talk about all weekend as well. I go now to prepare for the North Carolina Blizzard (we are expecting 5-7 inches which is a blizzard for us!).


  1. Good Morning!

    The POTUS said : This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

    The first thing I want to say is that serving
    in the U.S. Armed Forces is a PRIVILEDGE, not a right that this whackball proposes. I doubt many of them would be marching in protest in 1970 to be allowed to be Drafted to go to Nam. This is just one more reason why I simply cannot stomach the POTUS or his cronies. They have no idea what they are saying, and there is no truth in their words. I would say they lack honorability, completely.

    I view male and female gays differently. Why, because female gays are not, in my little mind, a threat. If need be, I’ll tell the story from yesterday as an example, and explain further.

    I will say this, male gays, who act as such openly, have no business in deployable combat units, mainly for their own safety, not because they are incapabale of being a good fighter. I will leave the female side of this to our resident ladies. Their perspective is far more important than mine.

    So, Am I prejudice against gays, no. Am I prejudice againts gays in the military, no, with exceptions as mentioned above.

    I’ll be following and ducking the flying stones throughout the day!

    Peace and Live Free!


    • And here’s the first flying stone, G.

      Two things come to mind. The first is this: if female gays are not a threat, the implication is that male homosexuals are a threat, obviously. But where I get off the bus in this argument is that males in general are a threat. I did not see the article you referenced yesterday, but if I’m guessing correctly, some gay soldier probably threatened/molested/whatevered some other male soldier? How am I doing? And I’d have to say that’s preposterous as an argument for them being a threat. There are many, many documented cases of males raping females in the army. Does this mean that we should ban all males because they’re a threat?

      The second problem is “mainly for their own safety.” Bullocks. By this argument, combined with the above, we should kick out all females to protect them.

      Inappropriate/illegal activity should be dealt with. The offending soldier should be kicked out and/or prosecuted. But to preemptively ban potential victims is absurd. It is like banning women from the workplace to prevent discrimination.

      There is nothing wrong with being gay, and people who have a problem with it are just going to have to eventually adapt to that reality. This includes people in the army would would have issues with gays. Once the underlying issues are gone (ie, latent homophobia, what else could be the root cause?), the unit-cohesion issue disappears. DOMA just institutionalizes this problem, so its repeal has to be a high priority.

      I am, however, a reasonable man. I’m willing to meet you half-way. From context from Weapon’s article, I got the impression women are not allowed into combat units*. I would be willing, for a time, to accept this for homosexuals until the bias fades more completely. After all, I don’t want to put anyone at unnecessary risk just because we’re in a big rush to change things.

      *women have better survival capacity in virtually every category. We males may be physically stronger, but that’s it. They have better endurance, heat/cold tolerance, longer survival and higher rates of recover from physical damage, higher pain thresholds, they are smaller targets, can go longer without food and water, they’re better multi-taskers, have lower incidence of color-blindness, can go longer without sleep (and lose less functionality when tired), etc. Since we’re not fighting hand-to-hand anymore (mostly anyway, I imagine this happens from time to time), the fact that they can’t layer on striated muscle as well is somewhat mitigated. Frankly, I think an all-female army would kick an all-male army’s rear end. But I guess that’s an argument for another day..

      • Matt:

        I don’t know where you got that stuff in your footnote but I can personally attest to the fact it is a blatant over generalization.

        Men on the whole have far more endurance if tested against the same standard. For example, carrying an 80 pound pack over great distances and withing certain time frames. It is not a reletive matter as has become the rule of mixing gender. Your gear that you NEED weighs 80 pounds.

        I would also argue that responses to sleep deprivation depend on whether “children” have been introduced to the equation. Young ladies who have never been subjected to sleep deprivation responded no better or worse to that stress, in my experience.

        There are good points in your list, and that is why women are in fact in the combat zone these days, despite OFFICIAL policies.

        Now, there are some women who can out shine some men in all categories, just as there are some men who can outshine some women in the same.

        Generalizations simply don’t work when dealing with these situations. It is the PERSON that must be evaluated, not the gender or sexual orientation, not the performance of a group. That is how political correctness can get people killed.

        Best wishes to you and yours

        • HUZZAH!!!

          Judge the person, not the categorization! Gay/straight, male/female, black/white/green, it doesn’t matter.

          I’ve known a few women who can wipe the floor with me in a fight. (not many though)

          Now we’re getting somewhere, JAC..

          By the way, the advantage in endurance is in long term endurance, not short term – so if they need to carry a pack every day for a month, they’ll do better than a male. So, if you adjust for relative strength, they’ll beat you. But that won’t help them if they can’t lift the pack in the first place.

          • Matt:

            Yes and you have clearly stated the false premise: “So, if you adjust for relative strength,”

            If it takes an 80 pound pack to carry all you need then that is what you must carry. No adjustments for “relative strength”. Not all things are relative to size, stride, weight, etc.

            As with many things in our discussions you do not include all variables used in your definition. In this case “endurance”. In your example, does that mean they will get to a particular place first or does it mean that over a month they will travel farther than the man? See how the variables/criteria can change the result.

            • If I include all variables, I never finish my posts.

              I don’t remember all the exact details of the study, but in general, the idea was that women take longer than men to wear out. Like a car whose engine only needs to be changed every 30,000 miles versus men at 15,000 miles. They simply last longer without a break.

              To consider endurance, you have to adjust for other factors (stride, strength, etc). Otherwise, the woman is working harder and then it’s not a fair comparison. Therefore, I would have assumed that the weight of the pack was being controlled for.

              • In which case let’s just stick to the reality instead of the hypothetical. The ruck weighs between 65 and 100 pounds, depending on who you are and what you have to carry. And the reality is that women are not going to out-perform men in this arena. I have watched many a tough woman try. Women are built differently, and therefore certain parts of their body are better built for endurance, but other parts are significantly less built for endurance. Those studies end up being hoo ha in the end.


              • Put women in jets and men in boots.

                Problem solved.

              • I thought you wanted to abolish the military entirely…

              • Militia of citizens, paying for their own arms and equipment is just fine.

                Standing Army, no no no no no no no…

                and no.

              • Bottom Line says:

                I second that Wep.

                Another real-life example:

                Mooring lines are heavy.

                3-6 inches thick, made of Nylon, …some with a Kevlar core.

                It takes a little muscle to handle them.

                Manning the lines was often managed by putting the men up front with women in the back, and never putting all women on one line by themselves.


                Because they are built differently, and unable to handle those lines in the same capacity as the men.

                BTW, Women are generally more efficient than we men are. They eat less breathe less, handle stress better, etc…

                They make really good astronauts.

              • Damn, USW…what did you leave outta your ruck to get it to 65? That was a walk in the park. perhaps I carried too much ammo…I was never gonna run out….lol.

              • Average ruck..Special Forces 7 day LRRP….85 pounds.

              • My ruck was usually about 93 pounds. I was a prepare for the worst guy as well.

    • Matt!

      Hope you are well today!

      Just to clarify, the threat I spoke of was not anything criminal. It’s mainly to the psychy of the young impressionable men who a rapidly growing up and maturing in a very masculine arena. This is when most of the homophobia will take place, in an open dorm with 30 or so fellow men, who at first are total strangers. I’ve witnessed the psychlogical issues when a young man in that environment is confronted with a gay man, legal actions or not.

      On another note, I would not be able to tell a gay from a hetero im most cases, it’s those feminine acting ones that make me uncomfortable to be around. Gay men, who don’t feel the need to flaunt their sexuallity are no problem for me, even in the military. I knew some, worked with them just fine and never had a problem, but I was older, wiser, and more mature. Even older now, I could care less what sexual preference one has, but as a very young man, new to the service, that is a legitimate fear of many. It’s not about discrimination, it’s about psychy.

      Nowhere else in our country is anyone forced to live with, shower with, eat with and basically share their lives together than in the military, nowhere. Because it is unique to this fact, special concerns arise, that otherwise wouldn’t exist in the civilian world. Special concerns require special callenges and rectifications. Too claim that the military discriminates agianst gays, is nieve and incorrect, due to the circumstances in which the military exists.

      With that said, I would agree totally with D13’s assessment. It isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Now, can we alter it that if someone decides to proclaim he/she is gay as the career is progressing along just fine does not get punished, I say yes.

      Hope that helps alittle.


      • It does and you make some good points, but time is up for me today. Another time, perhaps?

        Good night, and good luck.

  2. TexasChem says:

    First off I’d like to make my point that “political correctness” in my opinion is nothing more than the moral majority giving ground to pathological behavior that is detrimental to society.

    1) Stripping all public places of religious speech, the display of Nativity scenes, posting of the Ten Commandments, prayer in school and even the display of “God Bless America” signs.
    2) The IRS attempting to revoke a Church’s tax-exempt status due to its political activity (a violation of the regulations governing tax-exemption).
    3) The religion of Islam is a violent religion and there is much in the Koran that teaches hate and violence. But even after Sept. 11, we are not suppose to say that because Political Correctness wants all religion equal or superior to Christianity regardless, of how fraudulently, treacherous and untruthful it is.This allowed an Islamic nut-job into the service that begat the tragedy at Fort Hood.Nidal Malik Hasan.Allowing Islam the ability to operate with impunity. As Westerners, we ask ourselves, Don’t they have the right to fire guns? Don’t they have the right to hold their Islamist beliefs? And, ultimately, don’t they have the right to hate the United States—even to wish to destroy it? The terrorists are, after all, an oppressed minority.
    4) Allowing homosexuals in the boyscouts.
    5) Court martialing Navy Seals for giving a terrorist a fat lip.
    6) Allowing the burning of the American flag or other flags to hang above it.

    Political Correctness in many circumstances exchanges the truth of God for a lie.
    Anyways I’m tired and about to get off work I’ll post more later when I wake.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      1) Not about stripping public places of religious speech — about maintaining separation of church and state; go ahead and display your nativity scene, but don’t refuse a menorah being displayed alongside same.

      2) Again, separation of church and state — is there a specific case your referencing? If so, what specifically was the church doing? Sounds familiar for some reason.

      3) Every religion has violent elements and passages. The Islamic religion also has many peaceful elements and passages. “PC wants all religion equal or superior to Christianity regardless of how untruthful it is”. Not everyone believes Christianity to be the truth.

      4) Torn on this one. Boy Scouts is a private organization so I don’t have much problem with this. But the military is not a private organization so I definitely have a problem with that.

      5) The man was in their custody, fully under control (from what I understand of the situation). You just don’t get to punch a prisoner because you feel like it. End of story.

      6) Freedom of speech.

      Look forward to reading your comments on my comments. 🙂

      • I am so sick of #3… ::sigh::

        #4. Right on, Wala, private company – who are you, or anyone else, to tell them they should ban a whole demographic?

        #6.. interesting that people here are so against government intrusion into our lives, but so many of them (certainly not the majority though) are just fine with laws like this telling you want you can do with your own private property.

        And now, Tex, I’m going to have to light you up..

        pathological behavior that is detrimental to society.

        Pathological [path-uh-loj-i-kuhl]
        1. of or pertaining to pathology.
        2. caused by or involving disease; morbid.
        3. caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition: a pathological liar.
        4. dealing with diseases: a pathological casebook.

        There is NOTHING disturbed or diseased or morbid about being gay. This mindset it just downright bigoted.

        Further “detrimental.” How? Give me one shred of evidence that gays are detrimental to anything. They are people and they have a character trait no different than being, say, black, and it impacts on society in no way shape and form detrimentally.

        • Mathius,

          Before I begin allow me to say that I completely agree with you in your assessment of being gay is simply a trait and not detrimental by nature.

          One must be careful about determining what is detrimental to society. Everyone has a different definition of detrimental. Some folks think that rap music is detrimental to society, and that is tough to argue against when you see the violence espoused and therefore accepted by some who listen to it. Much like ethics and morals, it is a relative thing. I am not saying that being gay is detrimental to society, so I hope it doesn’t come across that way. I simply want to point out that detrimental to society is different for each person.


          • Rap music must be detrimental. It has been designated a torture technique when used with sleep deprivation.

    • v. Holland says:

      “First off I’d like to make my point that “political correctness” in my opinion is nothing more than the moral majority giving ground to pathological behavior that is detrimental to society.” I will admit that I feel as though I am on unsure ground when I discuss the issue of homosexuality-but I will say that nowhere in the Bible do I see where I am as a Christian supposed to force my beliefs on the non-believer. As far as whether something is detrimental to society-I see where you could argue this point on the grounds of why you believe it’s bad for society but not simply on the bible.

  3. Interesting topic USW. I have mixed feelings about it. When I was in the Army, there were always gays around and for the most part, so long as they behaved decently, nobody cared. We had two women get caught in the act by a Newby PVT who arrived over the weekend. She was issued her key, walked into her new room , and wa-la! The two women involved were not discharged, or even disciplined, as I remember. It was the talk of the unit for a while, but the choppers still flew and life went on. Then, in the same unit several years later, there was another incident involving a gay man and his video camera. I seems his roommate would drink himself into a deep sleep. Then our camera man would set up his video camera, and film himself fondling his unconcious roomie. The whole thing was discovered when the roommmate was taking a shower and noticed a mirror peaking under the stall. Roomie stepped into the stall next to him and and found his gay roommate and camera. Needless to say, it wasn’t pretty. The incident was reported, the room searched and the home movies discovered. The gay soldier, had to be expidited out of the unit for his own safety. So, we have two incidents involving gays in the same unit. In the first incident, the two women pretty much kept it to themselves, in the second, there was what would be considered criminal behavor even if done by heterosexuals. Personally, I don’t have a problem with gays in the military, but don’t think that being allowed to to serve will be enough. There will be all kinds of drama because there won’t be total acceptance by everyone. Then they’ll start pushing for their marriages to be recognized with all the spousal benefits that go along with it. It will affect readiness just like intergrating women in to the regular forces did. There will be new problems to deal with that will detract from the primary mission of defending the country. I’m to the point of not caring one way or another simply because most Americans are okay with the weakening of our military. So what the hell, let the gays have their way, let the distractions begin.

    • Cyndi,

      Great post, I think you nailed it! My thoughts, the politicians should butt out of military affairs. Let the services work out what works for them, and do not insist on PC
      from people in life and death struggles.

      Maybe they will start some all gay units. Isn’t the submarine
      motto, run silent, run deep?

    • Ellen Spalding says:


      That is offensive to me across the board. One he was a gay man is killing it for us who serve with honor and respect. I find it as horrible as I would if a male was doing this to a female. Its illegal and terrible the violation that he did to another person, reguardless of the sex.

      • Right on, Ellen!

        A lot of people seem to have this impression of gays as sexual deviants and criminals. The illegal, criminal actions of the second example are what should be objected to. I know a gay guy who was trying to get a job as a elementary teacher in a private school. The principle told him, straight out, that he was qualified and would do a great job but could be hired because the parents would not be comfortable around their male children. The implication is that, because he’s gay, he must be a child molester. This sort of idiocy abounds and it will be a long time before it fades entirely.

        There’s something Al Sharpton said a while ago: (paraphrasing) I was walking down a dark alley one night in a bad part of town and I heard footsteps behind me. To my everlasting shame, I found myself to be greatly relieved to see that they were not black.

        Biases die hard (that gays are deviants / dangerous / contagious; that blacks are criminals). Eventually time will wash them out, but every time a story like that makes it into the news, it just reinforces the beliefs.

      • You’re right Ellen,

        The few are ruining it for the many. I think we as a nation, need to decide what the priority is. Is the main objective of the military to protect the country or is it a place to force social experiments? Once the objective is determined, all actions should support that objective. If the objective to defend the country, then everything done should support that. If its going to be a playground for liberalism, them why even have a military? Just my thoughts….

        • Can we please stop treating homosexuality as an experiment? There are studies, there are other countries we can look at. But that’s really quite irrelevant. Sooner or later, reality about homosexuality is going to catch up to the phobias and intolerance. And when it does, gays are going be openly admitted. Are people still going to consider it an experiment? Was it an experiment when women were admitted to the army or when African-Americans were allowed to serve? (I’m not old enough to remember.. was this the case?)

          • v. Holland says:

            Mathius-can you accept that not every ones concern about this issue, is not centered in thinking there’s something wrong with gays but in the concern that the reality of today’s differing views brings with it consequences that have to be addressed-if they are ignored-people can be hurt.

            • Yes and no.

              Yes I can recognize that fact.

              No I cannot accept that as cause to justify DADT. Would “some people aren’t comfortable around blacks and it would disrupt unit cohesion and put lives at risk” be acceptable?

              Men and women in uniform and big boys and girls. They need to suck it up and put their ‘differing views’ behind them. A soldier is a soldier and it makes no difference in war if he is gay, so they need to learn how to deal with it.

              A lot of people are uncomfortable around Muslims these days. I’m sure Muslims have a hard time in the military. I’m sure they’re not great for moral or unit cohesion. Should we kick them out because of these “differing views”?

              • v. Holland says:

                Darn it-accidentally pushed some button with my arm and lost my whole post-

                No I do not believe that they should be kicked out-I was actually surprised by many things I have learned today-I had not idea that the government ask questions and forced people to sign forms that says they aren’t gay-stupid me I thought Don’t ask meant don’t ask-I also was under the impression that the rule was don’t tell you are gay-not that it isn’t okay to be gay-I am just trying to look at this as what is the best way to handle the possible dangers that the differing views our country has causes-I do not support not allowing gays in the military and I don’t support kicking them out just because they are gay-Personally, I think I’m beginning to think this simply shouldn’t be legislated at all-as D13 said, don’t make it an issue, let the leadership in the military handle any problems that arise, but to me that means they have the responsibility to teach the leadership that any mistreatment isn’t allowed, period. As far as people being openly gay-worries me but I’m not at all sure there should be a rule that demands it. I just keep going back to it’s the military’s responsibility to protect our soldiers from any abuse within their ranks -so they are more qualified to see the consequences of whatever is done.

              • Works for me.. repeal the law, let commanders deal with issues that arise. There will be problems and precedent will be built up until they know how to handle it.

                I’m not adverse to transfering a homosexual out of a particularly hostile unit for his own safety and such. Let the military decide. Beside, it costs a lot of money to train them, and they’re having trouble recruiting.. this just makes sense.

              • v. Holland says:

                Don’t be to quick to agree-I’m not sure that don’t tell is a bad thing-if the people in the know feel it is necessary, I haven’t ruled it out but it should be a true don’t ask / don’t tell-actually I think maybe the don’t tell part should be a recommendation not a rule. Guess I’m still on the fence here-Just not sure.

              • v. Holland says:

                I do know that from what I’ve learned today I don’t support the way it is being implemented.

          • Matt,

            Homosexuality is not an experiment. Being female is not an experiment. Being black, is not an experiment. The experiment is FORCING all these different people to live/laugh/love TOGETHER when the the main objective is fighting a war/defending the country. PC is a social experiment. Human societies have always functioned different than the Leftist utopia.

            Intergrating women into the regular forces has created problems that were not there before. Do you believe that female soldiers getting pregnant in a war zone doesn’t affect readiness? What about situations where both servicemembers are on active duty? What if they have children and/or are deployed? Do you think these aren’t disruptive and affect readiness? If women hadn’t been intergrated into the regular forces, I don’t think these things would have been an issue. The military wouldn’t have had to waste precious time and money dealing with the problems/demands/rights of accomodating the feminist desire for ‘equality’.

  4. Buck The Wala says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but your (USW and G) argument against having gays serve openly in the military is very paternalistic.

    You don’t have a problem with them serving. You believe they are capable of being good fighters. But, you fear for their safety. I liken that to the argument that you personally have no problem with blacks being allowed in a certain restaurant, but it shouldn’t be allowed because others who do have a problem with it may cause them harm.

    Why should the rights of gays be trumped because of the fears/prejudices of the majority? Studies have shown there would be no detrimental effect. You (perhaps rightly) believe there would be some detrimental effect on morale and group cohesion. But any such effect is not coming from the gay man in the unit, but from the prejudices of the straight men standing around him.

    G – I read your story posted yesterday and see where you’re coming from. But its an anomoly. Also, the sergeant who attempted the sexual assault was tried, pled guilty and discharged; as he should have been. What about the instances of rape in the military? Should all men be denied the right to serve because some have raped women? Or, going back to the paternalistic argument, should women be denied the right to serve because some have been raped?

    • And we shouldn’t let people drive because they might get hit by a drunk driver.

      And we shouldn’t let people eat fatty foods because it might make them unhealthy.

      And we shouldn’t let people get married because it might end in divorce.

      We have to control every aspect of everyone’s lives because something bad might happen to them. So no gays in the military – they might get picked on and we have to protect them from that.

      • Mathius

        You have finally articulated the contradictions in your philosophy.


        Have a cold one on me this afternoon

      • Mathius,

        You fall into the same political trap as I mentioned to Buck slightly below this. You are attempting to sove real world problems with idealistic solutions. Idealism is great and serves as what we should strive for, but it completely fails in the real world. This is where the liberal versus conservative versus VDLG discussions can fall apart. I am well aware of what should happen in an idealistic world. The question is how is this going to be dealt with in the real world. Remember my plan to discuss things on two different planes (discussions about what things should be later versus discussions about what we actually face now)? This falls into what are we actually facing, not what should be what we are facing.


    • Buck,

      I am not sure whether I should take your observation of my being “paternal” as a compliment or an insult.

      I am not attempt to be paternal. I am attempting to look at things from a realistic standpoint. I have not advocated not allowing them to serve, and I have not advocated keeping DADT. But I think we have to look at the issues from a real standpoint as opposed to an idealistic one. Idealistically, there is no reason to keep them from serving openly. Realistically there could be some issue that need to be considered carefully.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        I agree there are some real issues here, but in my mind not sufficient to maintain DADT or not allow gays to serve.

        These issues would probably be best dealt with as we go along, with the offendors being severly punished and it becoming well known that such behavior will not be tolerated.

  5. I believe that as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable as it is, this issue will begin to diminish. The paradigm is now shifting toward gayness being more socially acceptable, and the military will need as many able bodied soldiers as it can get. I believe within 10 years this will become a non issue…

    • Terry,

      I think you are right, time makes changes. Its best not to force or fight such movements.

      Air Force Reportedly Rescinds ‘Saluting Arm’ Tattoo Ban

      Monday, December 07, 2009

      The Air Force has reportedly rescinded a short-lived tattoo policy that prohibited body art on the “saluting arm” after turning away 26 recruits from basic training.

      Air Force Recruiting Service spokeswoman Christa D’Andrea told the Air Force Times that the tougher tattoo rule for recruits followed an investigation of trainees that found more than 80 who did not comply with the Air Force’s policy that bans only tattoos that are obscene or do not fit a “military image,” that cover more than one-fourth of a body part, or are above the collarbone.

      “The issue of not having tattoos on the right arm is one of military image,” D’Andrea told the Air Force Times. “If [recruits] enter BMT with no tattoos on their right arm, they ensure they’re starting their career with an understanding of what military images means.”

  6. v. Holland says:

    Both sides of this argument make points that simply can’t be ignored. Both seem to be right at the same time-In my mind it seems that the decision should be based on what makes the armed forces work the best-we are after all asking these people to risk their lives to fight for this country. I’m not sure what the right course to take is, but it seems to me that the decision and depending on the decision, how that decision should be implemented should be made by the military people, not Washington.

  7. Ellen Spalding says:

    Good Morning to All,

    Yes I did serve in the US Navy for 8.5 yrs, which from I hear is not like the Army or Marines. I dont when everyone was discharged etc, so I will talk about my experiences.

    My issue with the law itself is the loop holes that are in it. Yes they can’t ask you straight out when you enlist is you are gay. That is correct. The loophole in this is that they are able to have you sign a document that says that you are not a homosexual and denouce the lifestyle. I had to sign this twice, which I didnt like to do, because I dont lie. Second major loophole is the command searching out gays. Yes the high in command are not allow to hunt and search gays to kick them out. That is right. But that does not stop other servicemen from doing this. I have seen this first hand.

    A lady who had been in the Navy 12yrs was kicked out on my ship under this law. A young sailor decided it was his mission in life to dig up all the evidence he could to get her kicked out. So he and four other sailors did just that. They spent a better part of a year and then showed the command. She was out. She had a amazing career up to that point, she was putting in her officer package when this all happen. I find this horrible on many levels. One she did her job well and was going to serve the Navy well for aleast the next 9 years. Second to have other sailors act like this to destory another sailors career is terrible. I would rather not work around them then her.
    When this was going on the ship, it felt like a witch hunt. Turn in gay get a prize, was the feeling I had during this time. This was in 2000.
    I do understand the arguement that male gay soliders can be in danger if outed. But why would not deal with this when it came to light, I guess is my question. I would like to hear D13 thoughts on this part.
    In my time in the Navy, for the most part was great. I dont have any regrets. But to actually see someone lose their career over something like this will be something I will never forget.

    • Ellen…see post 9.

    • Ellen:

      A big good morning to you.

      You example reaffirms my belief that many of these issues are not limited to military, or civilian. They are human issues.

      Jerks are jerks. Bad leadership is bad leadership. Had that been my ship the witch hunter would have been sent packing. Just as I have done in the private sector.

      Team morale and cohesion is important in all walks of life where a true TEAM is needed or desired.

      Unfortunately many of our laws, regulations and rules now impede taking such action. I can no longer just dismiss or transfer a trouble maker because they have a whole tool bag of “ligigatable issues” to use in retaliation. This is worse in the Govt but now permeates the private sector as well.

      My heart goes out to the woman who lost her career and my disgust goes out to the commander who let it happen. Of course I have no words to describe the vile feelings towards the one who decided to destroy peoples lives for their own entertainment.

      The best to you Ellen.

      I hope this Friday finds you well.

      • Ahhh JAC…there you go again….beating around the bush. How do you REALLY feel?

        You are correct, of course.

  8. Robert Feeley says:
  9. USW…no offense taken whatsoever…I am getting older. fact of life. Ok…here goes.

    Remember that my growing up days were in the 1960’s. Graduated high school in 1965. College at the University of Texas..etc etc. Vietnam in 1970. A little background that I think affects my thinking…which I will admit to having changed as my years accumulated.

    In the 1960’s, gays were around but we called them queers or homos. They were not accepted in Society nor were they accepted in the military. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was just taboo. M So, I grew up thinking that “queers” were the dredge of society. Hell, in college days, for beer drinking money, I knew guys that would go “queer rolling” which was to mean, they would go to an openly gay bar and present themselves as “available”, take money and stiff them. It was considered funny. I never did that but it was done. So….that was the environment I grew up in. My parents never said anything about that lifestyle at all but the public perception was that “queers” were lower class citizens.

    I never gave it much thought, actually. However, in basic training in 1969 there were open latrines where the toilets were not in stalls and they were lined up next to each other 10-12 in a row..usually two rows facing each other…and only about three feet apart. So, when you did your “business” you would carry on a conversation with the person next to you. Needless to say, you did not linger very long. BUT…the over riding thought of everyone in the 60’s and 70’s was that, you looked at the floor or the ceiling….never at anyone because you did not want to give the impression of being “queer”. That was the mindset then. Remember that I was also an enlisted man before becoming an officer.

    Once basic training was over and we went to further training, the thoughts of men being queer or being thought of as that changed significantly. To mean, I never gave it a passing thought. Trained as small units where our life was dependent upon the other, it would not have made any difference. In basic training, if we were to practice first aid in the field and were required to give mouth to mouth techniques, everyone would laugh and say…ok…but remember, I am not queer. In the real world when a man was dying and it required life saving techniques, I did not ever consider that doing so would make me anything else other than a soldier saving a life. So, the perspective was very different.

    As Special Forces, we did not care. We were a team. If a man was shot in the groin, it did not matter and no one thought anything. You saved a life. You put your hands on the groin to stop the bleeding or you put a tourniquet on a femoral artery that was shot away. No one laughed because you had to put a hand on a groin or had to use mouth to mouth on a man to jump start his lungs after one was blown away. Just was not thought of.

    Fast forward to Clinton era….I am now an officer. Also, after Vietnam, I saw the folly and fools thought of gender or persuasion. I did not see “queers”…I saw individuals that were persuaded in a different direction and a feeling that I did not identify with but that was their choice. Gay’s, homosexuals…whatever. Being gay does not make them a worse soldier. They can shoot just as straight and be just as mean and kill just as good. As an officer, though, prior to Clinton, it was my responsibility to train my unit. As an officer and leader with enlisted combat experience as a Non Com (which means non commissioned officer) and as a Commissioned Officer, unit morale and unit cohesiveness was paramount for survival. My policy was….if there are gays in the unit….keep it to yourself. I do not care if you are gay or otherwise….keep it to yourself. Why? because you cannot change the thinking of everyone and, like it or not, the gay community, or alternative lifestyle for the pc, while protected by still not in favor for the most part for most people. That is just fact. However, as a commander, if there were women in my command, my rules were just as strict. There would be no fraternization on duty, in the barracks, or on post. I was very heavy handed in my application of those rules. If we were in the field and I walked upon a male and female getting acquainted, they were demoted immediately and reassigned. I did that. Why? because the mission was put being hurt. Attention was not where it should be. I am sure you can see why. The same would have been if it were two males or two females. Would not matter. The mission was priority.

    In today’s time, if I were gay, I would still just be quiet and go about my business. As a commander, that is the advice that I would give. I simply do not care what an individual’s lifestyle is as long as there were dependable in the field. It is still not widely accepted and to “force” acceptance will draw attention to it. Soldiers today understand this but there is still the “fear” that in close proximity, a homosexual individual cannot contain himself. This is, of course, pure folly and I understand that but it still does not change the reality. I certainly would not expect a gay to approach anyone because they would get their clock cleaned….meaning their facial features realigned. I fear that if you force the issue, it will create morale issues. You cannot have a gay platoon or a gay company or a gay regiment. That concept would not work at all. So….don’t ask, don’t tell…is the advice that I would still give today. You cannot go to a military unit which depends upon strength, upon teamwork, upon cohesiveness, and upon morale and say….YOU WILL ACCEPT THIS. It will destroy that unit because you cannot force acceptance.

    SO…probably not what you want to hear. It might be different in the Navy or Air Force but I do not know. I know in my world. If you are gay…great. Keep it to yourself. Dealing with human emotion and rationality is a very difficult thing for a commander. We have to take into consideration the entire organization and the mission of the organization. As a commander, I do not have the time to concern myself with sexual orientation. I discourage fraternization within the unit and my policies have always been…that if there is a “couple” within the unit, one must go. That has been my history and what I have seen over the past.

    Sorry for the long answer but there was no way to shorten it. Do not draw attention to it by rule, do not question it as a recruiter, do not ask it on forms. Leave it alone.

    • Ellen Spalding says:


      I can see your point and understand completely were you are coming from. My point is even if someone is keeping to themselves and someone else decides to out them. They should not be punished for it. Like I said I cant answer for any other branch other than Navy.
      I am with you on the mission part, when lines are crossed mission does suffer. I dont know how many “underway couples” I would catch when I would do my night rounds. But nothing was ever done about it. I thought it was terrible. We are underway in the middle of nowhere, what if we were attacked? You too busy messing around with someone else to get to your post.

      • Ellen says: My point is even if someone is keeping to themselves and someone else decides to out them. They should not be punished for it.

        D13 agrees: This is true and commanders responsibility to merit out the facts. In my 40 years of military service, the only issues I have had to deal with were on three occasions “catching” male and female occupied while on duty. Never have I ever “caught” gays or even had them caught. But my policies were well known and strictly enforced so no one could claim they did not know.

        And, FYI, as a commander, I reassigned an individual for “digging” up information on a gay soldier and spreading it around. The gay was not at fault…the other individual was and he was moved out immediately. That also sent a signal to the rest of my command that I would not tolerate the witch hunts.

    • D13

      Good morning Colonel

      You and I chased this one around before and as I recall it came down to fraternization, period. All such behaviour should be treated the same, for the reasons you listed. It is in fact a good policy for ALL units, including private sector.

      I would only add one thing to the current policy.

      Once discovered, take no action. Assuming their activities are off base and do not involve others in the unit.

      This would eliminate the witch hunts that Ellen experienced and prevent losing good officer or NCO material.

      I would think the military could address this one point all by itself, without some big public announcements.

      Best to you this morning

      • JAC….I hope that I did not imply off base status…I do not care about off base…their business. It is a commander problem none the less…not a policy issue for the Army.

        Witch hunts are bullshit and any officer/non commissioned officer engaged in such, should be decommissioned and out of the service. Period.

        I only took action if discovered on base, on duty, or in the field. But, my no fraternization policy was widely known and discussed fully. It was accepted. I asked no questions and required no signing of anything. But my policies were across the board and pertained to both homosexual and heterosexual alike.

        I did not and do not condone sexual harassment in any form and heaven help the male or female in my command that raped or otherwise forced him or herself on someone uninvited…whether on or off base.

        • D13

          You did not give me any wrong impressions. I believe we are on the same page completely.

          My comment was about “official” military position that could eliminate witch hunts. Although I think it should be up to the commanding officers the current “law” or “policy” does not send a strong message of tolerance once someone is discovered.

          I am thinking if the top Brass simply set a new standard that outing someone or an admission of gay does not result in discharge or demotion or transfer.

          Kind of an internal interpretation of the intent of the law. All done internally without executive branch political manipulations and grand standing.

          I heard disturbing, although completely expected, news this morning regarding this Admin’s micro-management of federal agencies. It is evern worse than under Clinton/Gore. As one person called it “amateurs run amok”.

          Just wondering if some of the same is growing in the Defense Dept side or is Gates keeping the shelter deployed?


          • JAC….Gates is doing just fine and there are enough of us “geezers” around to train the “younguns”….

            The Military will not let the micro-management happen.

            I cannot even imagine trying to micro manage my 5,240 man regiment. Holy crap, batman….impossible. I surrounded my self with competent officers and NCOs.

            • D13

              I heard this morning that ALL agency communications (public statements, announcements, press releases, etc) must first be cleared at the Secretary level.

              I bet you know as well as I do what the ageny’s response is going to be. Geezers do in deed have their ways. Can’t wait to see the result.

  10. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    The question people have to ask is that old, Is it prejudicial to good order and discipline? That sums up the whole thing. I find myself almost in agreement with USW.

    Having worked in government after the military, my last three years were spent in an agency controlled by gay women. It was neither pleasant nor lucrative to be a male. I can also say that it was not much better to be a straight female. One instance though did strike me. One of the gay females hired by our comissioner was a highly disciplined and effective leader. She was able to completely disengage her sexuality from her supervisory position. As a co-worker, equal in rank, I watched her handle her staff, whom I mostly had trained, in a fair manner, none of them, male or female had a bad thing to say about her. She finally transferred out because she couldn’t stand the games played by our bosses.

    I have seen gay males, when in the position of authority do the same and have seen some, rise above their own interests and hire and promote based on merit.

    On the other hand I once took my wife to a very fancy NY restaurant when we were first married. The staff was exclusively male and very obviously gay. I remarked on this to my dad who had spent a career in the business. He was familiar with the place and told me that the head waiter at the place was gay and literally had a casting couch when he hired staff.

    Now, these things also happen in the straight community but they seem to be magnified exponentially in the gay community and I do not think that I am exaggerating. I have always had the reputation as being pretty perceptive which has gotten me into no small amount of trouble over the years.

    Bottom line, I do not know what the answer is but I do know that if I were 19 again, in the Army again and was hit on by a gay soldier, I would not act well. If I felt that he was using his authority over me to my disadvantage, I would really not act well.

    The don’t ask, don’t tell policy, as stupid as it sounds, does, I think prevent a lot of possible abuses from happening. Does it also restrict freedom? Of course, but then that is what a lot of being in the military is about. Can I, as a soldier stand up in uniform and identify myself as a supporter of a political candidate?

    I think the song went something like this:

    We have all been selected from city and farm,
    They asked us lots of questions, they jabbed us in the arm
    We stood there at attention our faces turning red
    The sergeant looked us over and this is what he said:

    This is the Army Mr. Jones,
    no private rooms or telephones,
    you had your breakfast in bed before
    but you won’t have it there anymore.

    This is the Army Mr. Green
    We like the barracks nice and clean
    You had a housemaid to clean your floor
    but she won’t help you out anymore.

    Do what the buglers command
    You’re in the Army, you’re not in a band

    This is the Army Mr. Brown,
    you and your baby went to town,
    she had you worried, but this is war
    and she won’t worry you anymore.

    Well, that was always my take on the Army, “you does what the Army tells you to does”. At least that’s what those sergeants used to say to me.

    In case anyone is interested, of my three military sons, one is in favor of ending the ban, one is opposed and one is not sure. Nothing like consensus is there?

  11. Bottom Line says:

    Several generations of my family have served in either the Army, or Navy. So when I joined up, It was gonna be one of those two. I was probably more suited for the Army, but I chose Navy as I knew I would do more travel. I wanted to see as much of the world as I could. I’ve always loved to travel.

    For whatever reathon, gay men like to gravitate to the Navy. Perhapsth ith’s the faabulousth “faggity white uniforms”(Jack Nicholas – “A Few Good Men”), …or maybe The Village People’ths promothion of being “In The Navy”. (just a joke)

    I had an opportunity to serve on two very different ships.

    The first was an ammunition ship, where we were the bomb delivery service for the fleet. The approx. 450 member crew was 40% female, 60% male, and 5-10% gay. We knew who the gay one’s were. There were a few of them. We didn’t have to ask, and they didn’t have to tell. It was rather obvious in most cases. Nobody cared. The popular attitude was “so what?”.

    Every time I hear about DADT, I think back to a conversation I witnessed on that ship.

    There were several of us watching a basketball game in the berthing area. Lenny had just taken a shower and stopped to watch the last few minutes. He was wearing nothing but a towel, boxers, and flip-flops. The gay guy of the bunch had glanced his way and Lenny caught it.

    Jokingly, he warned him to be careful with his wondering eyes. The gay dude responded by telling him that he would rather do ‘Chief X'(ugliest person on the crew) than him.

    Lenny was straight as an arrow and quite the lady’s man, but was genuinely offended that he was considered so ugly. They started to bicker a little, while Lenny made the case that in spite of his physical flaws, that he was far more attractive than Chief X. I remember him saying something like…”don’t tell me that you don’t think I have a much nicer ass than the chief”. They went back and forth for a few minutes. The conversation ended with the gay guy admitting that he was just picking on him and that he had a very nice ass.

    I was the strangest conversation. But it was also a demonstration of how frank and open people can be about gayness and still be comfortable serving together.

    Gay wasn’t an issue in that ship. My second ship was much different.

    My second ship was a Perry Class Frigate …Which is a war ship with a small crew of about 200. The crew was all male.

    Gay guys didn’t last long. They were basically harassed ’till they snapped/caved in. They were simply driven out. There was very little tolerance in spite of the rules. The popular attitude was that there was simply no place for them.

    I think the paradox is that while it seems principally wrong to treat gay folks unfairly, the reality is that it causes problems putting them in the middle of a straight crew/unit. I’m not opposed to segregating women – men – gay – & straight.

    I will actually argue that having men and women serving on the same ship presents much greater problems than gay does.

    I felt like I was walking on eggshells around the women. Sexual harassment cases were rampant. Look at them the wrong way or have them misinterpret something in the slightest way, …and you were in deep shit in a hurry.

    I.E. – I remember this smoking hot red head on my first ship. She was just simply beautiful. She was also a bit of a flirt. She flirted with one of the guys in the air detachment, and when he reciprocated with a compliment, she filed a complaint. WTF?

    I.E. – When going around to wake up the folks for the next watch, going into the female berthing was a bit of a daunting task. You had to go in and wake them up, but there was little light and you had to go around and search for them. This meant searching almost the entire berthing, sifting through a hundred sleeping women in their panties to find the three that needed to go on watch soon. I was fearful that one of them was gonna wake up and see me, and freak out over it. The proper protocal was to knock, walk in, and yell “MALE ON DECK!”. I didn’t do that, I just banged on the door waiting for one of them to answer, while waking them ALL up. It pissed them off, but I wasn’t going in there. Nope. There would be no opportunity to say I was a perv.

    I.E. – After 6-8 weeks at sea, even the ugliest women began to become quite attractive. Walking past a female berthing and getting a full whiff of estrogen was enough to drive a young man crazy if he hasn’t had any for a while. Sexual relationships were quite common aboard that ship. It wasn’t that unusual for a couple of them to sneak into a storage area and have a little fun. There were even a few women that got pregnant while out to sea. I wonder what they told their husbands.

    …just a few thoughts from BL…

    Thanx, and have a nice day.

    • Bottom Line says:


      Add “I got a chance to witness many experiences of gay folks in the Navy.” after paragraph two.

      After re-reading my first two paragraphs, I didn’t think it sounded right.

      I think D13 articulated a little better, what I was trying to say.

      I think the problem is more or equally about fraternization than it is about gay.

      We live in a society that is a bit more tolerant than it used to be. Sure there will always be homophobes, but they are the minority in terms of popular opinion.

      Never the less, there is enough of them in the service to create problems.

      I.E. – The gay man in the head(ship’s bathroom and shower area) had it all to himself as there were few that would venture in there knowing they would be standing naked next a gay man.

      I’m not sure DADT applies there.

      • FWIW –

        “The gay man in the head(ship’s bathroom and shower area)”

        In college I had a roommate that was gay (obvious – 45 yrs ago flaming – today probably not flaming) but it all depends on the attitude of others. I vaguely recall being chided – We had a quad – 4 two bed rooms with a living room and large bathroom – multi shower (gym style) – I said I’ll shower when I want – big deal – heck I played college ball so I was used to showering w/ jerks LOL – But in retrospect I’m sure I was a jerk to my roommate but even if he wasn’t gay we wouldn’t have been friends.

        It was only one semester. This was the same school where I taught, played and always beat a fellow – cribbage, who I only found out a couple years ago, was the writer, producer of several movies that everyone knows !! LOL – He actually lived the life that I told him that I was going to live !!@ Big LOL on me.. I sure don’t write as well as I assume he does.

        You never know..

  12. A Pragmatic Progressive says:

    Something was bugging me, and Buck the Wala touched on it. It is a tad bit paternalistic (albeit well intentioned) to believe that gays need saving, anymore than woman or any other minorities. They do need protections, just like any other individual who has decided to leave behind a life of relative safety to don the uniform of our nation’s military. The bigger issue is, why does USW feel that they need saving? Because of low discipline of standard army “grunts” for my ignorance of a more proper term. Are they all a bunch of homophobes and bigots? No. But there are probably enough that it could be a problem. It seems to me that at that point, it is an issue of screening during recruitment (not by the recruiters themselves, they are under all sorts of pressure to get as many soldiers as possible) training during boot camp, and a hardcore retraining for officers (“protection of all members of this military is your duty, and that’s an order, sergeant/lieutenant/major/colonel/general”), with real and challenging consequences for any officers or cliques that find it acceptable to allow hazing, abuse or any other physical or verbal assault upon a service member.

    USW’s view is based on before the current wars, when USW was in the military. Seeing as how because we have been in an unpopular war (some would say two) for the past almost seven years, the military kept lowering the bar for new recruits and offering bigger bounties for those who would sign up. So, basically you have lower quality candidates and/or people going for the sign on bonuses. I’m not saying that they are all bad soldiers, but lowering the bar is lowering the bar, no matter how the government spins it. The less education you have, the more criminal convictions you have, I would *think* would translate to lower self esteem, and the resulting phenomenon to less acceptance of LGBT service members. Now that the job market is shot, more and more recent college grads are signing up, who knows if that is good or bad for soldiering in the long term, but my inclination would be that there would be more acceptance for homosexual members.

    Regardless, ff people are not mature enough, or at least disciplined to follow orders to accept and see as their equal a homosexual, an African, Native, Asian, Hispanic, fill-in-the blank AMERICAN as their comrade and their fellow soldier, what in the hell are we doing giving them a gun (or an MLRS for crying out loud) and sending them off on nation building exercises in countries full of people whose ethnicity, religion and culture are very unusual and different from the standard corn fed Caucasian Christian? If they cannot accept their fellow Americans based on standard “what makes us different” ethnicity/race/religion/sexual orientation, then do we really want them representing us in other countries? If I were in a anti-insurgency situation, the last person I would want standing next to me would be some ignorant troll shouting “get back you towel heads” or otherwise defamatory statement. A guy who likes other guys and has respect and at least the desire to understand other cultures? I’d much rather be with him.

    If he can shoot straight, anyways.

    • Pragmatic says: If he can shoot straight, anyways.

      D13 smiles: Kinda boils down to that common denominator, doesn’t it.

    • Again, it leaves me unsure of whether you are bashing me or praising me or neither. Why do I think they need saving? I am not sure that I think that. But it does no good to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that it can be dangerous whether we like it or not.

      It seems there are some issues today with my saying that I see the danger, as it leads some to feel that I feel I need to save them or be their parental protector. That is not the case. I simply look at the situation as realistically as I am capable of looking at it. Recognizing that danger exists is different than feeling you need to protect them. But if we remove the policy, we better damn well make sure we have looked at all the possible consequences.

      • A Pragmatic Progressive says:

        Well, it’s not about bashing you or praising you. Neither one of those activities has any level of importance in my contemplations! 😉

        I will, however answer your question with your own quote, however- “And furthermore, I would oppose repeal because I think it would be dangerous for openly gay soldiers, males especially.”

        Since the military is, well, all about violence, well, there are going to be issues. But threats of violence did not stop Rosa Parks. That did not stop these brave men-

        It has to start somewhere
        It has to start sometime
        What better place than here,
        What better time than now?

        ~Zach de la Rocha
        ~Rage Against the Machine

        I did omit one thought in my post, and that was that I realize that despite what policies, or laws, or orders you put in place, bigots will be bigots, and some people fear what they don’t understand, and will lash out at those who disrupt their calm. It would be naive to believe that DADT could be repealed with all sorts of “be nice to the gays” order, and that would be that, and nothing bad would happen. Take any cross section of 2.3 million people from any culture, industry, age group, education level, etc, and you will have issues with violence towards minority groups.

        Perhaps they can just repeal the “don’t ask” part. If they want to share their sexual orientation, they can. If they don’t they don’t have to.

        Problem solved! Well, sort of.

  13. All these stories, while very informative of what people have experienced in the Armed Forces, remind me of a typical workplace. People are gay, some don’t flaunt it, some do, some people will try to out others and bosses handle those personal in different manners. Office relationships will happen, and people will gossip. There could be sexual predators in the office and there could be sexual harassment double standards.

    I think D13 is right in saying that it is just a fact that some people will not accept people that are different. It is really up to leaders of the Armed Forces or an office to make sure that work is not affected by fraternization, gossip, or sexual harassment of any type.

    • v. Holland says:

      I agree-but this one line-“bosses handle those personal in different manners” makes some kind of guidelines necessary and I’m not really sure what those guidelines should be.

      • I meant that some bosses are bad at handleing personal matters and some are good. Personally, I think D13 had a good model.

        • I know this is a stretch for some….but to me it was logical. (Spock would be proud)…

          But, as I admitted, my perception changed from how I was raised. Funny how a war at the age of 22 changes one’s perceptions.

      • V.H.

        I used to think some guidelines were needed but not anymore.

        What is needed is a system that promotes good leadership and that leadership is measured by performance of those being led.

        But the leader must have the authority to deal with their issues as they see fit. The minute we tie the leaders hands we will never know what they are capable or incapable of accomplishing.

        We NEED a good ol’ boy system without the descrimination associated with the stereo type of “good ol’ boys”.

        Hope you are well today.
        A big happy Friday to you.

        • Well said, sir. If you leave us alone…commanders… we do know how to handle this. Tie our hands…we have problems.

        • v. Holland says:

          I can accept that as a good strategy except that some of those leaders may not be as honorable as D13-they may be the stereotypical good ol’ boys.

          • Point made…and accepted. However, in today’s army…those are weeded out quickly. It is hard for a commander to justify why his unit has high transfers or below par ratings….when a “good old boy” commander employs his “good old boy” tactics….recruitment and performance suffers dramatically and will show up in six months time.

            • v. Holland says:

              Then the military does have guidelines that would take care of any problems arising from mistreatment of gays but the guidelines are simply based on mistreatment in general and on the basis of good leadership in general.

  14. I find this a very difficult topic to discuss, but will throw in a couple thoughts. My short time in the active military was in the early 1970’s. During that period one had no privacy, everything was communal. One room was open urinals and toilets, the other was open showers. When we had physicals we were lined up in rows buck naked. Not having a physical attraction to men and growing up in the country skinny-dipping with friends all my life this nudity did not bother me. Now that being said if I were in a similar circumstance in a room naked knowing that there were men there that got sexual satisfaction with the male body I would be very uncomfortable and would not want any part of it. The question then becomes when does one person’s right of sexual orientation trump my right not to be placed in a situation of being exposed to that person’s behavior? Being naked in a communal setting exposes me (in more than one way) to a gay mans behavior. I liken it to me being the only male in a woman’s communal shower. I personally would like it and would be doing a lot of staring but I am sure the ladies would be upset. I am not saying I am against gay rights or that gays cannot control themselves, because I am not, I just feel this is not a simple yes or no problem for the military.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Not sure if having to stand naked in a room of men, knowing that one or more are gay, is exposing you to their behavior.

      Assuming the one or more homosexuals in the group are likewise standing at attention and maintaining professionalism, don’t see it as an issue. Might make you feel uncomfortable, but I don’t think we should kick them out of the military because of someone’s discomfort.

      • v. Holland says:

        Not sure your giving this enough thought-we do have a right to privacy-now in the military your rights are limited but I don’t think they would force a woman to stand naked in front of a man on the basis of sex which is based I would think on sexual attraction-so is just claiming someone is made to endure discomfort a fair assessment of this point.

      • I am not saying kick then out, just looking for input about one person’s rights out trumping another person’s right. That’s why I bought up me being in a woman’s shower, it is really the same principle.

        • Herein lies another problem we are faced with all the time. The military is a cohesive unit. When I was a senior TAC officer in charge of OCS, we had both men and women in the class of course. All combat training was required for BOTH because it was PC. As long as our classes were held on post proper…no problem. Separate sleeping and shower and latrine facilities. The problem lies in the field.

          There are no men and women’s trees out there. There is no privacy bush to hide behind. Everyone, male and female, has to dig and share the same latrines. Share the same lister bag for showers….sleep in the same foxholes as men….there is not privacy and none to be expected. When we teach classes on being a prisoner of war, we now have to take into consideration the females that could be captured and subjected to horrors worse than men.

          As Commanders, we know how to handle these things. You cannot get into separate issues in the military. There is no modesty in the field and none should be expected. There is no rule of acceptance.None should be expected. The military answers to civilian authority but the civilian authority does not know how to train and prepare individuals for combat.

          Leave the Commanders alone. We can solve the personnel problems.

          • D13,

            subjected to horrors worse than men

            I do not believe this to be true.

            I believe the horror is the same.

            • Perhaps you are right as far as horrors of war…I was referring to only the gang rapes that have taken place with women prisoners before. Referring to it without saying it. But, in perspective, physical torture is just that…torture.

  15. v. Holland says:

    I’m curious-back in the days when there was a draft-was someones sexual preference an issue?

    • No…..because if being gay was an issue that kept you from being drafted….all of a sudden everyone would be gay.

      • v. Holland says:

        I did actually think about the fact that all those people who went to Canada could have just claimed to be gay. 🙂 So I guess the issue became an issue when it became a political issue.

      • Eaxactly D13. In fact the US Reserve system about ten years ago implemented a policy stating that gays could be deployed with the units they were attached to. When questioned on it the answer was “we did it because if we didn’t then when we were deploying many who didn’t want to go would simply claim they were gay.”


  16. v. Holland says:


    I’ve read your post but I find that I’m still not sure what you believe the military’s official stand should be. If you don’t mind, could you clarify. 🙂

    • Certainly….. leave it alone. Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t require admission, don’t put it on forms….leave it. Do not bring attention to it.

      Here is the problem….there are some gays that won’t leave it alone. They want recognition. Why? The Army does not care if you are married. The Army does not care if you are male or female. The Army does not care if you are gay or straight. So…..why draw attention to it. No one is paid different. No one is denied anything. Everyone is the same. Commanders are responsible for their unit. Recruitment, morale, success, mission accomplishment. Commanders know full well the problem of fraternization. SO…leave it alone. If you draw attention to it, then there will be witch hints and GI showers and Code Reds.

      So as official policy….leave it alone. I did not like Clinton but he was right on this one.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        The problem with DADT, as it stands now, is that it doesn’t leave it alone. I agree, this is an issue that should be left entirely alone. But DADT never attempted to resolve the issue. All it does is put a bandaid to cover the problem.

        Those that are gay should not feel the need to keep it a secret. I’ve never been in the military, but I’m sure people talk about their wife, children, loved ones back home. Why should someone who is gay not be able to talk about his boyfriend back home?

        • You are preaching to the choir here…..I agree with you. But…the unfortunate thing is the reality of the situation. You cannot “FORCE” acceptance. Especially in the military. Being gay is not as widely “accepted” as you would like it to be. That is fact. It is accepted as PC but not in the mind. Perhaps later in this century but not now. That is where the problem is….a gay CAN talk about his boyfriend. But what you want is for everyone to “think” like you. It will not happen. So if he talks about his boyfriend and is ostracized for it..that is the chance he takes. You cannot expect the heterosexual to share a foxhole with him or shower with him. And we cannot segregate the two. And you cannot expect me, as a commander, to court martial everyone who disagrees with being gay. It does not work that way in the Army. If I court martialed everyone that disagreed with gay policy…I would have no fighting force.

          So…just let it be. All the soldiers know there are gays in the Army. We know this. But right now, most are not ready to hear about his boyfriend.

          • v. Holland says:

            Ah-the utopia we would like runs into the brick wall of reality.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I’m not advocating for court-martialing anyone that disagrees with being gay. But you, as the leader, should be expected to make it clear that you will not tolerate people in your unit harassing others because they are gay (just as you would not tolerate someone being gay from harassing someone else).

            This is exactly what I read your policy to be and I commend you for that.

            It is precisely about forcing acceptance and toleration.

            • Buck

              You are wrong. Toleration yes, acceptance no.

              No matter how hard you lefties want you can not legislate or dictate acceptance.

              Do try just alienates part of the population. You may think it worked but it simply festers and creates a nasty boil you will have to live with later.

              Afternoon to ya

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I was using ‘acceptance’ more along the lines as ‘toleration’.

                I could care less whether or not they truly accept the homosexual, so long as they can learn to tolerate that fact and maintain professionalism to get the job done.

      • v. Holland says:

        Good point-how can it be don’t ask/don’t tell if they are asking questions and making people fill out forms.

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello All

    I’m going to say what I said last night about this, but please, I’m only repeating what my son said about it when he was over last night.

    We asked him how he felt about gays being allowed openly in the military. Since he is in the Army, this is what he said. Personally, he has nothing against gays at all, if that’s the life style they chose to live, then so be it. But, he is against gays being in the military, even though there might be some in now, he’s not sure. He also said that most of his unit feels the same way. WHY? He said because they would feel uncomfortable about sharing barracks and showers with them knowing that they could be staring at them and checking them out, so to speak. But, he also said, that if they do allow openness in the military, that they should be given their own barracks and showers for everybody’s own safety. He said he would hate to think that they would/could be constantly picked on, teased and belittled by others, and it could cause major problems on both sides.

    We also asked him if they are allowed in, what he thinks about them going into combat should the occasion should ever arrive. There, he’s not sure, because he doesn’t know how they will/would react. He said they could be the best damn combat fighters ever, or they could just sit there and cry, he doesn’t know because so far that hasn’t come up with him yet. He said he guesses he’d would just have to wait and see. He said he would have to do more thinking on it really and try and get their perspective and put himself in their place and try to imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. That’s about all he has said on it. He said while at work today, he will talk with others on it and see what they say and how they feel about it.

    I personally can’t say nay or yeah about it, because I’m not in the military and I think that should be left to those who have served and are serving now and will serve in the future and what they think and feel about it.

    Hope all are doing well today for a Friday.


    • Buck The Wala says:

      “…they could be the best damn combat fighters ever, or they could just sit there and cry…”

      That is exactly how ANYONE could react in a war, not just someone who happens to be gay. People made the same comments about having women serve and it was just as riculous comment than as it is now in this context.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I was just going by what my son had said last night. All I can say is, you have to take that up with my son Buck, not me. Like I said, he said, he really has mixed feelings about it.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          And by the way Buck, he id say they should just leave it alone as it stands now.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Understood. I’m just tired of the stereotypes.

          As Mathius said, being gay is not a disease. It is also not a choice that is made. It is just who some people are. They should be granted the same rights and respect as anyone else.

          • Buck,

            Rights? Of course!

            Respect? Hmmm…. that’s an individual thing – leave that to the individuals.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Yes respect.

              What good is it to allow someone who is gay to join the army, if you are then going to allow others in the army from harassing them? There must be the same modicum of respect afforded to all members of the military, not just those who are straight.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Buck, I do agree with you, as you know, many times I have said what I thought and felt about the gay issue. It’s their life, and I think they should live it anyway they see fit.

            I do not judge the life style of others and how they live, for I do not want to be judged on mine. Like I said earlier, I really don’t have opinion on this because I have never been in the military and I can’t speak for others. What I put up earlier I was only repeating what my son had said last night.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Buck The Wala – “As Mathius said, being gay is not a disease. It is also not a choice that is made. It is just who some people are. They should be granted the same rights and respect as anyone else.”

            BL – Just something to add…

            Nurture is as relevant as nature when it comes to becoming gay.

            Refer to “Oedipus Conflict/Complex” and “Electra Complex/Conflict”



            • Buck The Wala says:

              Does nurture play a role? I’m sure it does. But that doesn’t necessarily equate into a conscious choice being made.

              • Nor does that mean that it is something that should cause mistreatment and discrimination even if it were.

                If it was a choice, choosing to be gay should not be accorded any less respect than choosing to wear a different color shirt.

              • Bottom Line says:

                I’m not arguing. I’m just trying give a little food for thought in order to help explain why “It is just who some people are”

                In fact, I think you nailed it when you said

                “But that doesn’t necessarily equate into a conscious choice being made.”

                A small child developing gender identity will almost never be able to process this developmental stage in a conscious manner.

                …just sayin’

              • Buck The Wala says:

                And that’s exactly my point, thanks BL.

                Forgetting about nature/nurture and whether or not a choice was made, assuming there was no conscious choice made, then it becomes innate.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Buck – “And that’s exactly my point, thanks BL.”

                Sure, No problem.

                I agree that’s it’s unfair to “blame” someone for being gay.

                Even if you hate gay people, it’s still not their “fault”.

    • Judy… thing only about your post. To segregate is wrong…We lose cohesiveness. The minute we, the military, quit the segregation of blacks, we became much stronger and wiser. The same will be for the openly gay.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Again D13, I was only repeating what my son said last night. But, he is willing to see the other side, even though he said he’s against it. He has mixed feelings about it.

      • I was drafted but classified 1Y, so I can’t talk from experience but I understand in Nam there was a serious racial problem, especially in the platoon in the boondocks level – no matter how “Jesus Christ Superstar” everyone wants us to be !

  18. Good morning.
    Didn’t have time to read through all comments left, so forgive me if I am repeating anything. First, yes I think “O” was just throwing a bone out there. I think he is completely asea and just wants to see what he said over 70 minutes sticks.

    I think DADT should just be changed to “Don’t ask, tell if you want to.” I have known gays who have served, and even if DADT did not exist would not have openly discussed their sexual orientation. Not for their own safety, but for the sake of unit cohesion. If a member of our military chooses to serve as an openly gay individual that is absolutley a right they should have.

  19. On this issue D13 is right on the money. Everything hinges on how the leadership leads. Fraternization should not be tolerated within the command PERIOD! This rule should be enforced at every command without exception regardles of whether its hetrosexual or homosexual in nature. This is where the problem lies. Some comanders will turn a blind eye to the issue where others don’t, this makes people getting transfered into a new command unsure of how far they can go before getting into trouble. And trust me, there are those people out there that will push that envelope to see just how far they can go. If every command followed the same set of rules there wouldn’t be an issue to begin with.

    Anyone whos out to be a tattle tail just because they don’t like someone should be sent someplace else immediately! If your going to act like a child then your gonna get treated like a child and get sent to your room, so to speak.

    As for the current DADT policy, I see no reason not to repeal it. Gays are in the military and always have been. They should be able to live their lives as they see fit. If a person doesn’t like the idea that Johnny or Mary is gay and has such a hard time dealing with that fact, then let them ask for a transfer and move on.

  20. Just a thought…

    If I were to summarize the SUFA creed, it might go something like this:

    Americans are free people. As free we should be able to do anything we like as long as it does not harm others or their rights. We are free to be anything we wish to be. Government has become oppressive to these ends.

    Sound about right?

    So how do you square that with supporting a law which forces people wishing to serve America to hide who they are.

    • Mathius

      How would you square with a law which forces people wishing to serve America, in govt service, to hide their political views and their religeous beliefs?

      • I am opposed to any such law. But I know that people serve openly in their religion. As for politics, I’m not positive, but aren’t they free to express their political opinions? (I suspect there’s a caveat that they have to respect the commander in chief.. but otherwise?)

        But you didn’t answer my question…

        • Mathius

          But such laws exist and require employees of the Federal Govt to hide who they are in the work place. They are not allowed to serve “openly” in their religion. They are not free to discuss or display anything of a political nature in the work place. Yet they serve under this immoral law and everyone gets by.

          So why is a member of the military any different?

          So why are gays any different than a Christian or a Republican?

          Inconsistancies and contradictions everywhere.

          So you see, I did answer your question. You simply failed to recognize it.


        • Mathius,

          That’s what I thought too !

          Not the case with my daughter who works for the FBI !! I think, under the justice dept, they can’t support their political beliefs. Even though – don’t tell anyone, I think the younger FBI are quite liberal, which might explain why we should be scared!

  21. Solution to this problem:

    No standing army


    • Problem with the solution:

      Canada* invades us, kills millions and steals our natural resources. Mounties riding raptors (hybrids??) rape and pillage with impunity.


      *If they beat the Chinese** to it.

      **If they beat the Iranians*** to it.

      ***It’s really more of a first-come, first-serve type of plundering event.

      • Mathius,

        Canada has a 5,000 mile lead over China and a 6,000 mile lead over Iran.

        I wouldn’t worry about either.

        And Canada?? New York has more cops than Canada’s as troops.

        • Matt…do not forget my mutated Raptor Cavalry.

        • Maybe, but new york cops aren’t riding on raptor back like the Mounties. I suppose they could borrow some from Weapon and D13…

          They also aren’t equipped (generally) with assault weapons, or aircraft with bombs.

          It’s also far harder to protect people than to attack them.

          Cops also don’t have military training. Nor are they all fit for combat (does your statement include meter-maids, desk clerks, detectives? They wouldn’t be much use).

          • Mathius,

            I disagree.

            In the balance between Offense/Defense – Defense is winning.

            The ability to defend against invaders is massive and improving. Iraq/Afghanistan demonstrates this.

            Wreck havoc does not require an army – but that is about all an army can do today. Winning wars…. it’s been a long time that an invading power has been able to claim ‘victory’.

            Just for your records, raptors don’t like the cold. They migrated to Florida a long time ago from Canada.

            Polar bears….on the other hand….

            • And Grizzly Bear/T Rex hybrids.

              We have those you know. Keep em in a separate silo.

            • They keep the raptors in stables over the winter.

              The question of offense vs defense wasn’t one of victory, but rather, as you suggest, destroying and looting.

              “The ability to defend against invaders is massive and improving. Iraq/Afghanistan demonstrates this.” As the invading army in Iraq, we could claim victory quite easily. Our goal is not to simply ‘win’ though. We could kill all the bad guys if we didn’t care about killing the good guys too. Nuke it. Done. We want to do more (win hearts and minds, remember?) – and that is what’s virtually impossible to do.

              If we wanted to just look Iraq, there would be nothing they could do about it. Likewise, without an army, there would be nothing we could do if the Canadians decided to steal our stuff. (I am actually convinced that they have been secretly stealing socks from me for a long time now..)

              Polar bears are a problem.. they look so cute..

              • Mathius,

                This is where your theory of warfare takes a left turn.

                War is not genocide.

                War is imposition of political will by means of armed force.

                Almost no invading army has been able to achieve this in near-modern times.

                Polar Bears – the single greatest natural killing machine on earth today.

              • Bottom Line says:

                What about humans?

              • Sharks.

                With laser beams on their heads.

                (just because they choose not to kill does not mean that they are unable to kill)

              • But that’s not what we’re talking about. My statement is that without an army, someone will come in, kill a lot of people and take our stuff.

                I am not arguing that someone will impose their political will on us. I do not think that this can be done.

                But they can certainly cause a lot of damage, and rape and pillage just fine.

                Now that my point is clearer, do you agree?

              • Mathius,

                My statement is that without an army, someone will come in, kill a lot of people and take our stuff.

                I do not think so, least they die trying.

                It does not take an army to protect my property – it takes just me.

                But they can certainly cause a lot of damage, and rape and pillage just fine.

                Now that my point is clearer, do you agree?

                No (that would be too easy)

                Liechtenstein has not had an army since pre-1900

                The army was abolished soon after the Austro-Prussian War in which Liechtenstein fielded an army of 80 men, although they were not involved in any fighting. The demise of the German Confederation in that war freed Liechtenstein from its international obligation to maintain an army, and parliament seized this opportunity and refused to provide funding for an army. The prince objected, as such a move would leave the country defenseless, but relented on 12 February 1868, and disbanded the force. The last soldier to serve under the colours of Liechtenstein in died in 1939 at the age of 95. Order within the country is kept by a small police force.

                And, completely contrary to the Prince’s thinking – viola! They are the richest per capita nation in the world, at an astounding Per capita $118,000.

                Other no, or limited armed nations


              • If you put the entire population of in a football stadium, you’d have 25,000 seats left over.

                And they have more corporations than people – they are a tax haven. Most of that money is in 1’s and 0’s.

                They’re not worth the international ire that invasion would bring. We are.

              • Mathius,

                So you admit size doesn’t matter.

                If they are little and weak and a walkover — and no one walks over them —- how do you reconcile a huge nation, geographically and by population – armed to the teeth – need an army??

                And if the world couldn’t care if they lived or died — why do you think they live is such style where most Americans appear to live in fear??

                I wonder if having the world’s largest and most aggressive military and its policies may have something to do with it???

                Just wonder’n

    • Yes and No. Leftists will target whatever institution that is in their crosshairs. Get rid of the military, they just pick another target ala Alinsky.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    This is the article I put up on last nights post, and I was just asking what others thought about it.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen will unveil next week the steps necessary to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday.

    The military officials will lay out their plan when they testify in front of the Senate Armed Services next Tuesday.

    “This is not a legislative proposal that the Pentagon will be bringing to the Hill” a senior Pentagon official added. “Rather it’s an assessment of steps that need to be taken internally to get to the point to change the law.”

    The Senate committee has designated a separate full hour session on top of a previously scheduled testimony from Gates and Mullen on the defense budget to talk about the law that bans gays from serving openly which is enforced by the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

    In June, Gates said he was working with his defense lawyers to find a way to make that policy more “humane.” He said he’d like to ease punishments on gays who were exposed by a third party. No updates on that effort have been offered yet, but Gates will be prepared to address that as well on Tuesday, a senior defense official said.

    Gates and the military leadership have been working for some time on the implementation plan. Both Gates and Mullen had multiple conversations with President Obama on the topic leading up to the president’s State of the Union speech Wednesday night, the official told Fox News.

    When Obama asked Congress to repeal the law in the speech, Gates stood and applauded, while Mullen and the Joint Chiefs remained stoic.

    A source close to Mullen said the rest of the chiefs follow Mullen’s lead and will clap only when he does. On Wednesday night, Mullen did not feel it was appropriate to show either support or contempt for such a politically charged issue, the source said.

    Morrell did not provide any examples of what steps need to be taken before the Pentagon can consider lifting the ban.

    Last April in a speech to the Army War College Gates said lifting the ban needs to be done carefully.

    • This is really a moot point. We are so far ahead of this it is laughable. We already deal with it and have dealt with it. The problem is solved as there is no problem to solve. This is all political.

      We deal with human issues all the time as commanders. We deal with sexuality, divorces, separations, child issues, financial issues, and emotional issues. These are all in our areas of so called “expertise”. The rules are specific about AWOL’s…sexual harassment, etc. But, as Commanders, just like an operations order, we have flexibility. And the process is in place to weed out bad commanders. Soldiers will not stay with a bad commander. As a regimental or Battalion cdr., if one of my company commanders suddenly or even over a period of time, had substandard performance and a plethora of transfer requests….it is a command problem. The responsibility lies with me to counsel my officer to change his performance. The Company commander is responsible. Period. each individual officer is performance rated twice a year for promotion. The last thing an officer wants is a bad OER (Officer evaluation report). A negative report will not get you promoted. Therein lies the checks and balances. Because, recruitment and performance of your men is a primary rating element.

      There is also a chain of command. And it is adhered to implicitly. If someone utilizes the chain of command and goes to his sgt to the plt sgt to the plt ldr to the company cdr and on up, the problems get solved. If there is a good old boy system in place, it is discovered quickly and dealt with quickly.

      So repeal it or keep it. Makes no difference. it is already handled.

  23. Back in the old days, communities recruited their own militia regiments and paid for their own arms and paid for some old geezer to teach them basic tactics.

    In this structure, if “that” platoon does or does not want a certain type of warrior, that’s their business.

    • Man…there is that term “geezer” again. I must be paranoid.

      • Don’t worry, D13.

        There are plenty of us ‘geezers’ here.

        • Whew…ok….I did not want to be the only one in Geezerville.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            OH, Come on now, you guys can’t be that old to be calling yourselves geezers.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Yes we are!

            • You are correct, Judy. 62 years young and full of P and V. Give no quarter, expect none. Breeding hybrid raptors and debating occasionally with BF and Matt…(scary thing is that I really understand them), still exercise and think that I am 21…mind says yes…the body says…are you crazy?

              But I am enjoying life.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Hey, my husband will be 63 on Sunday, guess that’s make him one too, huh. I’m 58, what does that make me, and old bag?

              • Odd thing is that I may have been born in 1983, but I’m actually 97 years old.

                Plenty of V here, but not much P.

                I do so enjoy arguing with you though.. I hope your raptors don’t turn on you

      • No fear – I’m a geezerette!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Is that what we’re called. Never thought about that. I was hoping for a more classy word for us older gals here.

          • The thing is Judy, we’ve found that the name/label means nothing. I have found out I can be called a racist, a right-wing terrorist, a teabagger and it now rolls right off me! So Geezerette – sure why not?

            Now, how I feel and look? Big deal there and why I am now heading out for my run even though it’s damn cold…..9 degrees temp/-whatever windchill.

            And then, when we all make our trek to Texas to get some of D13’s good stuff, we will look awesome!

            • v. Holland says:

              Kathy-I am not gonna call you any of the above words but I will call you crazy-for running in 9′ whether.

              • v. Holland says:

                I mean “weather”

              • Hate treadmills and my guidelines are above zero temps (windchill doesn’t count) and no ice. Today fits so out I go.

              • v. Holland says:

                I applaud your determination but you are still crazy 🙂

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Ditto for me. And I thought it was cold here, now it feels like summer.

              • Ah, hell no. I mean: Hell. No.

                I don’t set foot out the door if it’s below 40.

                I go from my garage in my house to my garage at work, and I deliberately park on the lowest level so that I don’t have to brave the elements. And do this heavily bundled up.

                But then, I’m a warm weather creature with little to no “insulation.”

                I can already hear you calling me a wimp.. knock it off! When global warming kicks in, I’m much better off than you. 110-120 is my optimal temperature. And no humidity. Now that’s nice.

  24. If the military has a problem dealing with certain groups of people (gays/women), then the military should bear the burden of dealing with that problem rather than kicking out those it feels are “different”.

    DADT could just as easily be applied to, say, Muslims, Jews, trans-genders, basically any minority group where the status isn’t immediately obvious by physical appearance. The principles can and have been applied to blacks and women in the past.

    Eventually, as they did with women, the military will “grow up” and learn how to deal with having openly homosexual people around them. At which point they’ll move on to the next persecuted minority.

    • DKII….it is not the military…it is the individual that has the problem. There is a mountain being built out of a little mole hill. As you have read from me…it is dealt with everyday. This is political grandstanding.

      • D13 – I did say “if”. 😉 And using the word “military” is meant to apply to the collective structure and the individuals within it, in this case.

        In any case this is more about politicians scoring political points than anything else, I agree.

  25. @Matt…

    My new Army. Picture this.

    Raptomese Cavalry being ridden by armed women between the age of 45-60..all in mid menopause. <>. War over, invasion stopped…women in control.

    • ::shudder::

    • As long as any of those menopausal woman who happen to be gay are able to serve openly..

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You sure you want menopausal women in your army? Ever been around one?

      • Mathius

        So its not enough for you that they serve, are not harrassed are not descriminated against?

        They must be able to serve “openly” what ever the hell that means.

        I am guessing you want them to be able to flaunt it? Is that right?

        You see, no body should flaunt anything. While on duty or off duty and on base there is no fraternization, period.

        So how can you be “openly” if you can not fraternize?

        • I think you strike at the heart of one of the biggest problem the gay rights movement has. When I think about the gay rights marches, the first (mildly disturbing) image that comes into my mind is of a dozens of men wearing Dorothy outfits complete with the ruby slippers and small dog in a basket.

          That, my good sir, is flaunting it.

          That is not what we’re talking about.

          Nor are we talking about ‘fraternizing’ amongst soldiers. Nor are we talking about gay soldiers ‘hitting on’ straight soldiers.

          We’re talking about the ability to state your preference. To acknowledge your orientation and something that is fundamental to who you are. Not being forced to lie about who you are.

          Let’s separate the issues – we don’t serve the debate well when we conflate matters.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m not sure which would be more intimidating, The women or the raptors.

      Combining the two?


    • D13,

      Your “new” army has a fatal flaw.

      One man and a baby with a dirty diaper.

      Your entire woman army will halt and save the baby from the incompetence of this male.

      Then they are wholly vulnerable to artillery fire 🙂

      • v. Holland says:

        No we wouldn’t-we would delegate-one woman would shoot him, another would take care of the baby, which would leave the rest of us to fight.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I’m curious, Do raptors eat babies?

        And would it matter if it had a dirty diaper?

      • OK…BF…..throw in the unexpected….but I like the answer…It would take only two one for the baby one for the man…on with the war.

        • Obviously, Sir, you haven’t been immersed in a gaggle of women before….

          An immediate cacophony of oooh’s and ahh’s and then bickering of how to burp the baby, how much powder or is it the skin cream, cloth vs disposable…. coffee would come out, details of everyone’s last pregnancy would be described in gory detail…all being told simultaneously..

          …target rich environment…

          • v. Holland says:

            You’ve obviously never been around a woman protecting her child or someone else’s.

          • Hmmmmm…..I like target rich environments. Cannot say that I have been immersed in a group of women cooing over a baby. Are you daft, man?

            However, the visual of the target rich environment is pretty cool. But, you are correct. I guess the only way to combat that is have the word “sale” flashing on the horizon. But we can’t do that as that would be profiling and that is illegal.

            wait…I got it.

            HOw about this….Cavalry of BDSM “butch” types, all hormonal, wearing their spiked leather heels and bustiers, spiked collars, all looking for men to dominate, and armed?

  26. Interesting reading today. As someone who has not served, don’t even feel qualified to offer an opinion as I realize trying to equate this to say, working beside a gay in the same cubicle is not quite the same as a foxhole.

    It is interesting to hear from our progressive left friends chiding USW for his “paternalistic” approach and being concerned about gays safety. Good grief, that’s all you guys do is promote protectionism to the underachievers, the under-insureds, the under-employeds!

    • Thank you Kathy. I was a bit flummoxed by the folks saying something about it as well.


      • Now, now…

        Buck said it best above. He squares being not being paternalistic toward homosexuals in this with being paternalistic in other contexts by pointing out that the goal of the progressives is, in large part, equality for all. Thus, being paternalistic here (excluding them for their own protection) does not allow them to be treated equally – in fact, it codifies treating them as different/inferior. Whereas, say, diverting money to the needy brings them closer to equality in terms of standards of living.

        Does that help?

        You can argue the efficacy of our approaches, but the goal is definitely there. So we would argue that homosexuals be included and be treated equally. And that when a problem arises (harassment, inappropriate behavior, etc) by either side, gay or straight, that it be dealt with in the same manner as other inappropriate behavior.

  27. Ellen Spalding says:

    Wow how political this issue has become blows my mind sometimes.
    My New policy for the military:

    1) Military cant ask or ask you to sign declaring you are not gay. Stop teaching at EO sessions that being gay is not acceptable. Witch hunts need to stop period. If anyone is acting irresponibly, straight or gay, they should be dealt with accordingly.
    2) If you are outed by a third party, you cant lose your career over someone else issues. The third party needs to dealt with.If a gay person is at a command that doesnt care if you talk about your life, so be it. Be a adult a judge each sitaution according. THere are times now in my civilian where I will not let on that I am gay. THere are just people in the world who will not accept or deal with this nicely.
    3) Adults act like adults, politicans stay out of this. And for the love a God, people stop playing the political cards. This goes double for people who are not and have never been in the military.


    • Buck The Wala says:

      I’m all for (1) and (2). The problem is that the military has not taken steps to repeal DADT or at least move away from how it has been implemented. Let’s have a repeal of DADT, and then step back and allow the military to run the military, devoid of discrimination.

      I am all for ‘politics’ staying out of this and leaving it to the military, but only if the military steps up and takes action. Why should ‘politics’ stay out of this if the military continues to discriminate? Also, why should I withhold my opinion because I have not served in the military?

      • Buck

        Here is a critical point you must grasp. The society in the military has changed. They don’t give a shit. That is what you have heard here today. Whether DADT is in place or not DOES NOT matter except to those who are hung up on political agendas and crap.

        You see, I couldn’t care less about govt health care or welfare, if the govt DIDN’T actually implement the crap. It wouldn’t matter would it.

        You guys been arguing with yourselves all day.

        Kathy was the one who got my earlier point and thus wins 10,000 points and extra hugs.

        You lefties using “paternalism” to attack USW’s position yet you are the KINGS and QUEENS of paternalism. Thus my comment to Matt about finally confessing the contradictions of his philosophy.

        Screw DADT. Don’t you see it is being used as political football? Or does it have to be tossed by Karl Rove before you can recognize it for what it is.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I think its great that the military society has begun to change to be more accepting of homosexuals in the military. Not surprised to learn that through everyone’s stories here at all.

          But what bothers me is the fact (also learned through many stories posted here today) of the witch hunts and the forcing people out once ‘outed’. This is precisely the reason why DADT needs to be repealed and/or changed. Homosexuals in the military should not be made to feel that if they are found out they will be forced to give up their job. Rather, everyone else in the military should be made to understand that such witch hunts will not be tolerated.

          I know it seems ironic that Mathius and I have been attacking DADT as paternalistic given our stance on many other issues, but to me that can be squared away by looking at our overriding concern — equality for everyone. This is what we are striving for. As such the paternal argument that we need to keep gays out to protect them has no merit (in my opinion).

          • Hey Buck!

            Sticking my nose in, sorry!

            I agree that changes should be made, and good troops, who are found to be gay, should never lose their position. Witch hunts are also deplorable and should be dealt with as D13 has done.

            I understand your desire for equality for everyone, but also fell that it can never happen.

            You can’t take from the minority (rich) and give to the majority (not rich) on one hand, then force the majority (straights) to just accept the minority (gays). It is a contradiction of nature, and you will never win that. Either take from all the minorities to give to the majorities, or the other way around. This pick and choose stuff who to take from in the quest for equality is so unequal, it could never achieve what you want to achieve.

            Do you take money from a gay rich guy, to give to a poor straight guy? Or do your force the straight guy to accept the rich gay guy for what they are, without the money issue? Your desire of equality is riddled with inconsistancies, therefore will likely lead to bigger problems than those you would like to solve. Think deep about your perceived desires, the consequences could be far more complicated than you or I could imagine.


            • Buck the Wala says:

              Welcome to the conversation G! I think D13 spelled out the best policy to deal with these issues. The only reasons I would still argue for the need to repeal DADT is for (1) how it is being implemented in some cases (the witch hunts discussed), and (2) the impression DADT gives (that homosexuals need to hide who they are).

              In my opinion, there aren’t really any inconsistencies here. On the one hand is equality; on the other hand is taxation and welfare programs.

              With equality, I am not taking anything from the majority. All I am doing is asking that the majority accept the minority and treat the minority with professionalism and respect. I am saying that the minority should not be forced to hide who they are.

              With taxation, I am not advocating to just take from the rich and give to the poor. Everyone pays taxes (bar the very few well below the poverty line – I believe the federal income tax exemption is currenlty under $10K/year)

              The above situations, in my opinion, do not pose any inconsistencies as they are very different things.

          • Buck

            “but to me that can be squared away by looking at our overriding concern ” and therein lies the death of your freedom, sir.

            A right is a right there are no “overriding concerns” when dealing with moral and ethical issues. Values are like building blocks. One lies upon the other. The foundation may hold the others but they each support the one above.

            None of them “override” the other, they in fact “depend” upon the other.

            Your other contradiction today was your desire to override and force a “majority” of the “society” or “greater good” to endorce YOUR view of a moral principle. Yet you use those same reasons, “greater good and majority” to rationalize imposing upon MY moral principles which stand equally with yours.

            Equality has no constraints or conditions. It is an absolute. You can not argue for absolute freedom and equality for the gay soldier and then tell me I can not have that same freedom and equality.

            Equality is a concept that applies to all rights. It is the essence of the concept of justice.

            The gay soldiers supposed right to serve unmolested is actually rooted in a natural right we call “pursuit of happiness”. The freedom to pursue one’s ambitions and dream. To live a flourishing life as we wish to live it. Not imposing upon others in our quest.

            This fundamental right, the right to live, can not be split into parts which can be set aside at the whim of others. It is the basic right that supports so many others. If the gay soldier has this right then I have this right.

            If I have no right to impose upon the gay soldier, to impede their right to live, then you have no right to impose upon me in a way that impedes my right to pursue a flourishing life as I deem necessary.

            You have no right to impose upon me, that includes my property, my defense of my life and property, my movement and associations. I have the right to pursue my own happiness and you have no right to interfere or impose upon that.

            You should have now reached that point in the cave where the trail splits once again. One to the left is dark, and smells of death. While the other has a faint light some distance off. The dark is the ultimate conclusion to the path you have been on for some time.

            The other, leads not only to the light but to something even more wonderful. It is the path to freedom.

            Choose wisely, for there may not be another branch beyond this point.


            • Precisely….I never would have gotten involved in this discussion but people asked. I responded.

              Leave the Commanders alone. We are doing just fine, the gays are doing just fine, the blacks are doing just fine, the rednecks are doing just fine, the Hispanics and Asians are doing just fine. All are working within the teamwork challenges and no one is being hanged, dragged through cactus, forced to eat broken glass, no finger nails being pulled off.

              No Fraternization…works perfectly and the penalties are harsh and swift and justice for all.

              Unless there are those that now want to say that the “freedoms” should allow fraternization with in the ranks.

              To them, before you espouse that rhetoric…grab a weapon, stand a post….then let’s talk.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “Leave the Commanders alone” — I am all for that!

                Repeal DADT, allow homosexuals to join the military without fear of revealing who they are, and allow commanders to deal with any problems that arise due to either fraternization among homosexuals (just as they would deal with fraternaization among men and women now) or harassment of homosexuals by the prejudiced (or harassment of heterosexuals by homosexuals as the case may be).

  28. Now we are in trouble….I just read where Bin Laden has just said that the United States is responsible for Global Warming….

    Now…that makes it official.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Well Colonel, it goes along with the earthquake/Hurricane machine that Chavez said we had last week. Why are you surprised? It has been known for years that Dr. Doom has been secretly employed at Area 51. Haliburton I believe is the prime contractor and Blackwater (name since changed) I believe was given the original contract to install the required facilitator devices in the appropriate countries.

      In order to supply the required Co 2 to create the climate change, I think that there is also some evidence that Blackwater has sub-contracted with the Mexican government to have several hundred thousand Mexicans pop the tops of carbonated beverages simultaneously which would cause a total imbalance in CO 2 in one geographic area which would of course cause storms as the atmosphere tried to compensate for it. The storms have been generated by the simple expedient of having the Mexicans walk in a counterclockwise direction (very important) as they pop open the Dr. Pepper. There may be some Chinese Red Army involvement too but the jury is still out on that one. The size of the new Pepsi plant in China cannot be justified by the amount of Pepsi consumed.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Just want you to know that I have this from a very highly placed reliable source who is a fellow that went to school with a cousin of my brother-in-law. He teaches general science in the Lodi, NJ Sr. High School.

    • I made a comment on another forum along the lines of, “Bin Laden would take credit for Obama choking to death on a peanut and blame the US for a meteor strike.” He’s not even worth paying attention to.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Yes, but the great unwashed (yes, I am aware that this is judgmental) will believe him as they believed Chavez as they believe Castro who actually comes out as fairly sane in all of this.

  29. I think “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a great policy, it’s just being applied to the wrong group. Instead of homosexuals, it should apply to bigots.

    We wouldn’t ask.
    You don’t “tell”.

    If you do tell, or if your actions show you to be a bigot, you’re out.

    Homosexuals aren’t the problem – in the military or any where else – the bigots are the problem.

    The current application of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is stupid because it’s kicking a lot of intelligent, skilled, trained people out of the military, and leaving the bigots in the military.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Now there’s a policy I can support.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Todd, you are going overboard again, who is to be the judge as to whether my actions show me to be a bigot or not, You?

      If I disagree with Gays serving openly in the military because I fear a loss of “good order and discipline” or if I disagree that gay “marriage” is the same as straight marriage, there are those who would say I am a bigot and those who would say I am not. Taking either of these two positions is quite different than me taking to the airwaves on talk radio and saying “Burn the gays”!

      Acknowledging that we are all equal and all can have fair, valid and diametrically opposed views we have got to do a whole lot better at making things subjective before we stary spitting out the “B” word.

      What ever happened to “Your rights end where mine begin”?

      • SK Trynosky Sr,
        You’re absolutely right the details need to be defined.
        * Anyone who initiates violence against another
        * Anyone who openly discusses hatred / potential violence
        * Fill in the blank: _____________________

        * I hate that guy – big deal there are people I hate too…
        * I hate all “members of a certain group” – time to start paying attention…
        * I hate that guy (repeated many times) – time to start paying attention…

        I would think all of these types of situations already exist and have to be dealt with because of race, religion, ego, etc. Why has homosexuality been singled out?

        And this applies to everyone and all groups in all directions and all persuasions…

        There is always some subjectivity – personal history, environmental conditions, etc. After a bad day, two guys may get in a fight, whether they’re white/black/left-handed/gay/straight. In a good/tight team, these issues will be resolved among peers. Sometimes a superior is needed. Sometimes a transfer/change of some sort is needed.

        But the bottom line is if you don’t like me and can’t get along with me, why should I be forced out?

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:


          An excellent question. As a former (very short time) military man, all I can answer with is for unit cohesion.

          Also I can point out that the majority, in the military, still thinks that it will effect morale. So, if 99 want you out and one (you) don’t, well, you lose.

          Now, as previously noted, times are a changing and the society as a whole, at the moment, is leaning towards acceptance and toleration (although most gays I have dealt with would be pissed off at this comment) When and if society does agree (not the courts mind you) that gays have the same rights on everything as non gays, then our conversations here will be moot.

          You never make friends by jamming things down peoples throats. You and Buck certainly know that.

          • So if 99% of people think you should be kicked out of the country, you would agree that you have to leave?

            If 99% of people think that your house is detrimental to neighborhood cohesion, you should have to have it bulldozed?

            You’re sounding perilously close to advocating for allowing the majority to trample to rights of the minority. If only there were someone around here who had an opinion on that kind of thing….

            If you claim that right, […], then you cannot complain when others do the same to you. -A pirate who shall remain nameless

            • Your comments reminded me of this article….


              Aristotle considered the adjective “degenerate” redundant when coupled with “democracy,” and America’s founding fathers shared Aristotle’s disapprobation.

              With characteristic bluntness, John Adams asserted, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” James Madison expressed a similar viewpoint in his famous Federalist Paper #10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

              Such sentiments startle Americans today. For generations, we have been taught that democracy, however imperfect, is the best form of government known to man. The gulf between the founders and contemporary Americans stems from very different usages of the word “democracy.”

              Benign “democracy” connotes the empowerment of individuals and a corresponding freedom from tyranny and oppression. The 19th-century poet Walt Whitman articulated the essence of America’s democratic ideal thusly: “… government can do little positive good to the people, [but] it may do an immense deal of harm. And here is where the beauty of the Democratic principle comes in. Democracy would prevent all this harm. It would have no man’s benefit achieved at the expense of his neighbors … this one single rule, rationally construed and applied, is enough to form the starting point of all that is necessary in government; to make no more laws than those useful for preventing a man or body of men from infringing on the rights of other men.” [Emphases in original.]

              The founding fathers would concur heartily with Whitman’s sentiment. Whitman described exactly the kind of polity that the founders desired to establish — one in which every American, rich or poor, would be equally secure in the enjoyment of his God-given rights and safe from any power that would trespass on them.

              To protect individual rights, the founders established a constitutional republic, not a democracy. What is the difference?

              The Constitution crafted by the founders was premised on the primacy of individual rights. It sought to restrain governmental power in order to protect those rights.

              Democracy, by contrast, is a theory of power: What the majority wants, the majority gets. The founders — great students of history and human nature — understood that individual rights could be trampled by democratic majorities as readily as by individual tyrants. (Think of noble Socrates and innocent Jesus, both deprived of their right to life by democratic votes.)

              The founders knew that if America’s constitutional republic ever degenerated into a formal democracy, then Americans’ rights and Whitman’s democratic ideal would be lost. Democracy would descend into mobocracy. In Benjamin Franklin’s pithy prose: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

              Marx and Lenin shared Franklin’s stark assessment of democracy. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that the way to attain socialism was to “win the battle of democracy.” The cold-blooded Lenin taught, “A democracy is a state which recognizes the subjection of the minority to the majority.”

              The democracy that the founders loathed and that the communists coveted is a political system in which government ceases to protect individual rights and instead annihilates them.

              The founders viewed such a system as an ethical abomination, an affront to Judeo-Christian principles. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

              Merciless democracy, besides being ethically debased, is also suicidal. In the words of British archeologist and historian Sir Flinders Petrie, “When democracy has attained full power, the majority without capital necessarily eat up the capital of the minority and civilization steadily decays.”

              Over the decades, Uncle Sam has slipped by the Constitution’s explicit limitations on government power. The manner in which this has been accomplished epitomizes our political degeneration. In his farewell address (still read in Congress once per year, but evidently not heeded) George Washington implored, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

              Subsequent generations of politicians and jurists have ignored Washington’s wise counsel and undermined liberty by ignoring or defying (thus, usurping) the clear language of the constitution in pursuit of their ambitions. The rule of law lies in tatters. Our political degeneration has progressed to the point where Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid write major legislation behind closed doors and order their partisan minions to approve their proposals before they even read them. In the name of democracy, the national government has become blatantly undemocratic.

              The founders’ misgivings about democracy were spot-on. The republic they gave us has been corrupted and possibly lost forever.

              • Cyndi,

                The Constitution was the Patriot Act of the 1800’s.

                Madison argued the Federal Government didn’t have enough power under the Articals and instituted wholesale empowerment of the Federals.

                He even wanted a permanent Presidency and Executive – like a King and his Court (jesters).

                He didn’t get it – then – but that was his goal.

                Jefferson didn’t even attend the Constitution Conference and lamented that the People, after throwing off one King, gave themselves one of their own making.

                As you can tell, I’m way far from being a Constitutionalist.

              • I’m moving in your direction. You’d have thought!

                I agree with the writer about democracies self destructing. I think ANY form of government is destined to self destruct for one reason or another. Pick you poison…

    • Todd- Exactly.

    • Right on!

      I knew I liked you..

  30. Very interesting comments on this subject today. I served in the Navy from 1982 to 1993. Towards the end of my Military career, things started to get politicized, not enough minority or female whatever. Quotas started and less qualified people were getting promoted, even though they had not met the requirements.

    To me, the idea in the Gay community is the right to offend others with their lifestyles. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your home, and don’t care to hear the details. DADT has certainly changed the Sexual Harassment rules.

    I say that, if a person respects others’ beliefs, it doesn’t matter what their lifestyle is, whether the person is gay, an alcoholic, whatever. The problem is when your pursuit of your “rights” has the potential to hurt others. Last I checked the UCMJ still had rules that covered sodomy.

  31. A non-issue for me, but you nailed it, USW, it’s a bone Fredo is throwing to the left (because he’s abandoned them on everything else). It should be repealed and gays afforded the same exact rights as everyone else, end of story. Either we’re a democracy or we’re not. I remember Ellen Degeneris giving John McCain the 3rd degree over this on her show one day and thought: “Gee, why didn’t she ask Fredo the same thing when he was on?”

    Or why didn’t McCain remind her Fredo was taking the same political stance (against gay marriage).

    Frankly, the left should’ve gona ballistic over this pissant bone he threw them … but they didn’t. They saw the election in MA lurking behind Fredo and the Dems all came to a fearful attention. This is all the left will get from Fredo … they might as well get used to it … or look elsewhere.

  32. v. Holland says:

    I’ve always found it odd that abortion was passed while gay issues are still being debated- gay issues seem to be based more on individual freedoms where abortion is based on whether or not one believes the woman is carrying a baby. Yet our politicians on the left feel free to support abortion but neither party will openly support gay marriage. Still the democrats who support both-don’t call the democrat politicians on it.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Remember, abortion was passed based on the right to privacy!? Outside of that, there is this really great question I heard asked on the abortion/gay debate on a talk show.

      If a gene were discovered, the presence of which would guarantee that the baby would be homosexual, should the parents have the right to abort the child? Suffice it to say that the gay advocate did not answer the question and spent a good five minutes squirming before the host changed the topic.

      It is, you must admit, a most interesting question which casts a whole new light on both debates.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        A very interesting question.

        My response would be that we do not get to know the reason why parents decide to have an abortion. It is none of our business. As a society we can frown on parents making a choice to have an abortion solely because their child will be homosexual (I personally would frown on that decision), but so long as we maintain a women’s right to choose we do not get a say in the reasons behind her choice.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Ah, but it would be very very interesting to have the question answered by a gay person who supports abortion rights no?

          Actually, your answer, under current circumstances is the only one than makes sense. I once mentioned a friend who was fairly well off and he and his wife decided to abort their second child because it was a girl and they already had one of those. I never said anything to him but the friendship went on the very, very back burner. Frankly, he should have been thinking don’t as don’t tell on that. I really did not need to know.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            That’s a horrible decision your (former?) friend made in my opinion. I may fully support the right to an abortion, but I hate how some people see it as such a casual decision to make.

        • Buck

          not get to know the reason why parents decide to have an abortion. It is none of our business</i.

          Knock me down!

          I find it strangely horrific that a Statist will support killing human life under the statement: It’s none of my business

          …. yet jump into the business of my life, my choices and my money as if it was their right.

          It’s not their business when its about killing, but everything else is fair game!

          • Buck The Wala says:

            We’ve already gone through this several times BF — I don’t see abortion as “killing human life”.

            I know most here completely disagree with me on that score, but if you take me at my word on that, you will see how I arrive at the outcome I do.

            • Buck,

              We’re waiting.

              I’ll be interested you telling me what you think is being killed – a dog, cat, bird?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Yea, I’m waiting to hear that one myself Buck. You just struck a cord in me, and I am very interested in hearing how you think an abortion is not killing a human life.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Another question for you Buck. Just when do you think that baby is a human? When it’s born. Wrong.

              • Generally around the time it turns 25 years old…

            • Buck The Wala says:

              We’ve been down this road before. I know many of you are very sensitive to this issue.

              To be honest, I’m also just not in the mood to go down this road again right now. We can debate my views on abortion another time.

              The point in all this is that if we respect a woman’s right to choose, then we cannot step in and play 20 Questions everytime the choice is made. If I had a friend who had an abortion based purely on the sexual orientation or gender, I would be pissed and offended. If I had a friend who had an abortion based on her circumstances and the belief it was the best decision to make at the time, I would support her completely, recognizing the difficulty of her decision.

              • Buck,

                The topic can be deferred.

                But my point:

                What makes ‘that’ issue something you respect someone’s rights and not interfere…

                …yet, other places you do not respect someone’s right and you do interfere.

                How do you know what, where, when and how to determine where you think you ‘respect’ rights and where you believe you have a right to ignore them?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                On ‘that’ issue – I respect a right to privacy.

                Give me an example where I do not respect a right to privacy and I will explain my position.

              • Buck,

                So why is right to privacy more important then my right to property (ie: my money)?

                I can’t remember if you’re pro-gun control – but if my guns are in the PRIVACY of my house, that’s ok with you?

                Or do you see my house as “your” house and that doesn’t apply?

                You have really confused me to how you figure out ‘rights’.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Right to privacy is not more important than a right to property. They are entirely different things. Apples and oranges.

                Gun control – yes, I am for gun control. But I have no problem with you choosing to own a gun. All I ask is that there be some sensible restrictions.

              • Below, Buck.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Yes, we have been down this road before, but you brought it up, and I was wondering why you think an abortion is not killing a human life.

                If one friend has an abortion for the mere sake because of gender and you thought it wrong, then under what circumstances does it make it right. You didn’t really specify there.

                If it was because the mother’s life was in danger, maybe, and I’m saying that because then it is a hard decision to make. What life do you choose, and how do you make that decision?

                Respect, yea, I have respect for women’s right’s, and what she does with her body. But where is the respect for that life she’s carrying too and what she wants to do with it?

                And you’re right, this is a touchy subject, especially with me.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Sorry, not being pulled in to this now. But I’ll be happy to debate gay rights at the moment!

                Look Judy, I understand your views. My belief is that abortion is an ugly, difficult choice to make. It should never be made lightly based on some superficial characteristic. That was the point I was making in answering the question about sexual orientation and abortion. I never meant to strike a nerve and get into this debate at this time. I call rain check!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Okay, anytime. And as for the gay issue, I think you know where I stand on that one too.. At least I hope you do.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Amazing isn’t it?

  33. Hi Ya’ll!

    I’ve been reading along all day, and have to say there have been some great comments. I’m going to stick my neck out again, because I believe that some have shown a contradiction in their thinking, which I will attempt to expose with even naming anyone.

    In the military, where you, early on, and during exercises/deployments, share living/shower/latrine space with your fellow unit members. I believe that under these cicumstances, each individual has the RIGHT to feel safe and secure in that environment, with their unit members. My impression is that some feel that it is a RIGHT to serve in the military, sorry I will disagree totally. It is not a RIGHT, but it is a PRIVILEDGE.

    With that said, it would be a contradiction for some to say that the majority (heterosexual) must give up their RIGHT to the belief of living in a safe and secure environment, for the sake of the minority (homosexuals) to enjoy the priviledge of serving in the military.

    I am not against gays in the service, I want that perfectly clear. But, it’s a different world that requires different rules. So, for those who believe that gays should be allowed to openly announce their sexuality, I will now throw the bullshit flag on your argument. You have contradicted your own “greater good” fantasy.

    What say you?

    Ducking more stones 😆


    • Bottom Line says:

      Sup G!

      I’m guessing your post isn’t directed at me, but I’d like to respond anyway.

      You make some good points:

      “…it’s a different world that requires different rules.”

      “each individual has the RIGHT to feel safe and secure in that environment, with their unit members.”

      “…for the sake of the minority (homosexuals) to enjoy the priviledge of serving in the military.”

      Here’s the counter to your statements:

      It’s based on irrational fear. Who says they’re dangerous? …or rather who says they’re more dangerous than straight folks?

      I’ll give an example of irrational fear…

      I remember one day going to the head to take a shower. There were a couple of guys standing outside of the head as if they were waiting on something.(they were waiting on the flamer to get out before entering)

      I didn’t know he was in there and didn’t really care either. I walked right in and took a shower in the stall next to his. He finished his shower before me and was at the sink shaving his face when I got out of the shower. I got out, dried off, put my towel around my waist and went to the sink to brush my teeth. Then I left,… without incident.

      He didn’t try and rape me. He didn’t touch me. He wasn’t “meat-gazing”. He didn’t flirt with me. He didn’t even say anything to me. He was rather indifferent to my presence as I was his. He was just trying to get cleaned up for watch like I was.

      If he had flirted or gazed, I would have set him straight(no pun intended).

      If he had tried to touch me, I would have broken his face.

      But he didn’t. He didn’t care.

      Those that were waiting were uncomfortable or scared of something that simply did not exist.

      Their fear of the fag-monster was irrational.

      • Hey BL!

        You are correct that it is irrational fear, but why should that matter, it still exists, mainly with the younger crew. As we age we are far less fearful of the unknown, or misunderstood. I don’t consider gays a dangerous at all, and never have. That is more of a parental concern for their children, not an adult issue. But when young adults, in an open living environment such as boot camp, it is very real. 30 young men in one room, all brought up to believe different ways.

        Your looking at it as a rational thinking adult, who may have been brought up accepting that gays are harmless, yet it may be the furthest thing from the truth to the guy 3 beds down. You would have cracked a skull if any attempt to flirt with you occurred (me too!), but, you were mentally prepared for that possibility, wereas some are in total fear of it.

        The majority/minority part was about how the left will take from the rich (minority) to apease the poor (majority). In this instance it was just the opposite. I found that totally hypicritical, and a complete contradiction to the lefts “greater good” theory. If they want to support the majority, then stick to it, don’t change.

        No, it was not aimed at you at all! 🙂 I am not against working side by side with a gay man, and wil gladly be friends and break bread and have cocktails with him. I don’t consider them any less of a human than I, nor do I see them a dangerous or a threat. Had one come on to me at Nellis AFB in ’88 in the NCO club, I simply told him that I was straight and not interested in that lifestyle. He apologized, and we conversed and shared stories for about two hours with no problems. I’ve never had an issue with any gay person (other than the one I talked about yesterday), most respect my heterosexuality, and I respect there choice as well.

        My opinion is that if your in the military and your gay, enjoy your privacy, but don’t flaunt yourself in that close knit environment, it can and has gotten them killed.

        It can work, and some changes do need to be made, but I just can’t see some flambouant, feminine gay man working in military environment effectively. Now, a gay who doesn’t flaunt or display his sexuality would most likely be a great asset to any unit.

        I have no opinion on the female side of this, that I will leave up to the ladies. Oddly, I’m very comfortable being around a lesbian, in some ways I see their sexualiy different from the mens side.

        Glad you posted, it makes for a good discussion!

        Peace Brother! 🙂


        • Bottom Line says:

          G-man – ” You are correct that it is irrational fear, but why should that matter, it still exists…”

          I think you just reminded ME of the “Bottom Line”. lol.

          Indeed, it still exists. That’s kinda what I was getting at in post #11.

          BL – “I think the paradox is that while it seems principally wrong to treat gay folks unfairly, the reality is that it causes problems putting them in the middle of a straight crew/unit.”

          I think you provoked a good topic, as there is no real answer to the gays in the military issue. It’s kinda… damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t.

          People have been trying to figure the answer for a LONG time, and still with no real definitive solution.

          “You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

          – Abraham Lincoln, or P.T. Barnum, or Mark Twain.(no one really knows who actually originally said it)

          Like you, I’m comfortable enough with my masculinity to not feel threatened by gay men.

          I’ve hung out with gay guys before, and had a good time I might add. Not very often though…I can’t really stomach watching them get all kissy and stuff.

          One added benefit to hanging around gay men is that they will almost always try and hook you up with one of their female friends. hehe.

          G-man – “My opinion is that if your in the military and your gay, enjoy your privacy, but don’t flaunt yourself in that close knit environment, it can and has gotten them killed.

          It can work, and some changes do need to be made, but I just can’t see some flambouant, feminine gay man working in military environment effectively. Now, a gay who doesn’t flaunt or display his sexuality would most likely be a great asset to any unit.”

          BL – I agree. It might benefit them to “not tell”, which is a pretty good policy really. Flamers will inevitably have problems. That’s not going away any time soon.

          G-man – ” I have no opinion on the female side of this, that I will leave up to the ladies. Oddly, I’m very comfortable being around a lesbian, in some ways I see their sexualiy different from the mens side.”

          BL – I rather like lesbians as well. And I can certainly stomach watching them get all kissy and stuff. hehe.

          (Can’t help it, I’m a typical man-pig in that respect.)

          I remember partying with a few lesbians one night. One of them said something like… “men like lesbos because we don’t whine like little bitches, we’d rather be doing something manly like building a garage.”

          Kinda put it into perspective. Very funny. Guess ya had to be there.


          • 😆

            Laughing hard, You and I seem to see things quite the same. I work at a hospital, and there are planty af gay men and women working there. They are all great people and great healthcare providers! It is just a much different place than the service, it’s not comparable.

            I also agree that lesbians are fun to be around, and rather interesting when they “get involved” at the spur of the moment. I usually run with a very open crowd, public sex is, well, not unusual.

            This is a good subject to discuss, I think those who have not served, will better understand that kind of life better, and the need for continuity.

            Great words tonight!



            • Bottom Line says:

              G-man – “…You and I seem to see things quite the same.”

              Indeed. ‘Brother’

              G-man – ” I work at a hospital, and there are planty af gay men and women working there. They are all great people and great healthcare providers! It is just a much different place than the service, it’s not comparable. ”

              Good point, well put.

              The military is different in many ways. It’s not a job that you clock in and out of. You live it 24/7.

              It’s not like spending a few hours a day with your coworkers.

              You live, eat, sleep, shower, work, party, and fight together. You are one.

              You HAVE to work as a tightly knit team as your very survival may depend on it.

              The standards are higher and in order to operate and function at that level, You have to bond.

              And ya don’t have time for bullsh*t.

              BTW, I set up an email account. I think I’ll send it you through wep.

              I thought about setting one up just to post it in here.

              …just for anyone that wants to say hello, or F*%& you, or whatever.

              • Sorry BL!

                Was om the phone with one of my fellow Storm vets. It was great to talk to him, he shared a story that I didn’t recall, about me, which was touching, during the rough times.

                I really agree with you words, and would love to share more via e-mail, so USW has that Ok from me!

                Peace and sleep well!


  34. Have not read all the threads here today, just USW’s original article. The following is my personal opinion on the subject.

    I was Military Police, CID, and did some Intel work during my 20 years of service. I also did a tour in `Nam as a grunt squad leader.

    It is my “professional” opinion that neither Homosexuals nor Lesbians have any business serving in our military services – especially in combat units.

    Their sexually deviant lifestyles only foster revulsion in the minds of the vast heterosexual majority of the human population of this planet.

    As an investigator I have had to deal with the havoc that these individuals have caused within units where they were discovered – more than one was found quite dead, and only after aggressively interrogating the rest of the unit over an extended period of time did the facts emerge about the deceased’s homosexual activities. Quite often these units had to be completely dismantled and re-formed with entirely new personnel as the units cohesive integrity had been completely destroyed (not only by the Homosexual, but also by the havoc that ensued – even when no life was lost).

    However, I have read and heard of certain types of sexual deviants being utilized by the CIA to some moderate success during the “Cold War” era although I have no personal knowledge of any of these operations (so it is with tongue-in-cheek that I say that I suppose that sexual deviants can be useful to some extent).

    So there you have my not-so-humble opinion.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      One question: Did it hurt you to use the term ‘individuals’ when speaking of homosexuals with their ‘sexually deviant’ lifestyles?

      Just because an individual is homosexual does not make them any less than you or I.

      Ok, Two questions: In what way did the homosexuals cause such havoc as to lead to their death or other harm?

      • Did his comment offend you?

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Was it that obvious? 🙂

          Mean no offense back, but it seems to me that PapaDawg believes homosexuals are less of a person than heterosexuals. I cannot support that in any way, shape or form.

          • Buck,

            I know that here, we treat one another with respect, but when speaking in general terms, not to someone, free speech should be the rule. Say it like you feel it, make yourself clear. Pc is going to die, because it getting people killed. I choose, when talking with you, to not be offensive, as I see you as a friend, like everyone else here. But when speaking in general terms, about a subject, I may offend some people, but, they can also offend me in the same manner, I will respect their freedom of speech. However, their is no right to not be offended.


      • Buck, Let me answer your obviously prejudiced questions with another question . . .Or two or three . . .Did you ever serve in the military? If so, how would you feel if you were a homosexual surrounded by heterosexuals?

        As a military policeman and as a CID investigator, I had to unravel and deal with the disruption that individual homosexuals had caused within a military unit. I observed firsthand these results, and by my own experience with these folks is how I reached the conclusion that they just do not belong in the military.

        FYI – A crime is a crime, no matter what the excuse for committing the crime. Those found to have committed a crime were dealt with accordingly. That is called justice.

        Incidentally, for those of you who disagree with my attitude, I am also of the ilk that females should never be introduced into combat units. So, with that info in hand, launch all the stones you want.

        • v. Holland says:

          I have no problem with someone looking at reality and coming up with the opinion that gays shouldn’t be in the military because their presence causes disruptions but I do have a problem with the blame for these disruptions being blamed solely on the gay person, which is how I interpreted your first post, having some stones thrown I suspect didn’t surprise you. As far as women in combat, I agree with you-so let the stones fly.

          • Hello V.

            The behavior of sexual deviants is considered reprehensible to the rest of humanity, that is why we arrest and prosecute rapists and child molesters. Homosexuality and lesbianism were against the law until rather recently in most states in the U.S., and it is still a violation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice).

            The reason that this sort of sexual activity is against many laws is strictly a health reason – not only for the rapid transmittal of STD’s, but most recently the rapid transmittal of AIDS. I won’t go into detail here, but who in their right mind would want to have sex with a garbage chute? Who knows what malady’s are perpetuated from that?

            In my experience, which covers more than thirty years in law enforcement, those who partake in deviant behavior – and this covers more than just sexual deviant behavior – soon become bored with their level of deviancy and begin to escalate into a deeper decadence within their chosen arena. None of this is good for their victims. In the military this resulted in victimizing the heterosexual members of a unit by the individual homosexual in that unit.

            Do you see how I use the word “individual”? I am not lumping all homosexuals into the criminal category, just the individual criminal.

            Hope this cleared some f the fog in your mind about how and where I get my attitude from.

            • PapaDawag,

              The behavior of sexual deviants is considered reprehensible to the rest of humanity, that is why we arrest and prosecute rapists and child molesters</i?

              PapaDawg applies demonstrates why society is so screwed up by using himself as an example.

              Society does not arrest and prosecute rapists and molesters because of the sexual deviance – society does so because of the violence they inflict on the innocent.

              We do not arrest baseball players because some people use bats to inflict violence on other people.

              But PapaDawg wants to arrest those the engage in acts that he doesn’t or won’t do (but are non-violent) because some people’s sexual expression uses violence on innocent people.

              PapaDawg’s confusion is systemic in many parts of American community.

              He confuses sexual expression with deviance, acts of violence as deviant, and violation of innocents as evil, and concludes:

              all sexual deviance is evil.

              …and then wants to make a law against all sexual deviance.

              • As usual, black flag rambles senselessly on and on about subjects he has absolutely no knowledge about.

                Forrest Gump’s mother was right.

                You can fix dumb with education.

                However, no amount of education can fix stupid.

              • Ah, from a man whose entire philosophical knowledge comes from Gump’s mother – nothing much is expected from you, Papa.

              • Lighten up flag, not everyone thinks that you know everything about everything in the known and unknown universe . . .

              • I don’t think anyone thinks I know anything – so, typically, you think you make a point – but simply mumble.

                The point I’m making, Papa – is that you confuse the choice people make for themselves to be evil, even if they do nothing to you.

                What right do you have to do that?

                If you claim that right, Papa, then you cannot complain when others do the same to you.

                And that is what and who you are.

                You think you can judge other people and force others to do what YOU think is right –

                And then go all indignant when others force YOU to do what they think is right.

                You want a one-way street – but the world doesn’t work that way.

                The day YOU stop forcing others with YOUR morals will be the day others stop forcing THEIR morals on you.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Hey PapaDawg,

          No, I never served in the military and don’t plan on it. Its not for me, personally. Further, I am not homosexual so I cannot say how I would feel to be surrounded by heterosexuals.

          However, I do have a number of homosexual friends and I have worked very closely with homosexuals before. As a heterosexual surrounded by homosexuals in these instances, I never once felt odd, or out of place, or persecuted, or harassed, or anything other than enjoying the company of friends / coworkers. In the inverse situation, when I hung out with a group of friends, one or two of whom was homosexual, as far as I know, they never felt odd, or out of place, or persecuted, or harassed, or anything else of the nature.

          Sexual orientation simply never played a role.

          I am very glad to hear that those that committed the crime were dealt with, rather than placing the blame on the victim do to his/her sexual orientation. But I do take issue with your insistence of the ‘deviant nature’ of their orientation. Also, is the reason for the ‘havoc caused’ the fact that the individual happened to be gay, or (as I believe) was the reason for the prejudices of the rest?

          As for women in combat units, I have absolutely no problem with this so long as the woman can pass the same endurance/strength/etc. tests that men must pass for the safety of themselves and the rest of the unit. I know plenty of women that would be able to prove themselves against any men and, if they choose to serve and wish to do so on the combat lines, I can’t see how or why they should be denied that chance.

          • Buck,

            Way back when I was in the Marines, we lived in a barracks area called a squad bay. 40 to 50 men in an open area and such. The homosexuals that were injured were usually the ones who preyed upon their fellow unit members and had they not been retaliated against they would have been arrested. Since multiple crimes were committed, then multiple arrests were made.

            Military “living” situations are much different than in the civilian world. What really bothers me is that those who have no knowledge of military life decide to use the military for social experimentation such as forcing homosexual and lesbian lifestyles on those who do not wish to be associated with that kind of lifestyle.

            I was in law enforcement, and as such I did not discriminate as to the background, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex, or rank, I just applied myself to what the law was that was violated and made the arrest accordingly.

            Havoc. Yes, in close living quarters, a sexual deviant causes much distrust and disrupts the unit integrity and trust. You see, as USW can tell you, military men need to know tht beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can trust their lives to the man standing behind, or beside them. This trust is lost when an individual may either think that he/she is an object of sexual desire or has sexual desire toward the person next to them. As you know, young people are full of hormones and it does not make any difference their sexual orientation, hormones cloud their judgment.

            I also have known some females who could hold their own with men, and not all of them were lesbians. However, since I have experienced what war is to the human mind I do not share your optimism about sending women into war. It is hard enough on men (men, by nature, have a propensity for tolerating violence)and I just cannot seem to accept the idea that a woman should be put in that situation.

            It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. I do not get the time to get on the internet as much as I would like to. We live in RV parks and internet access is hit or miss at best.

    • v. Holland says:

      Dang-all I can say is you will never be accused of being politically correct-just for the info-were these soldiers prosecuted or was their crime overlooked because it was the gay persons fault.

  35. And how would a liberal or progressive handle this issue? Woops,
    we already know.

    The committee members also met with Franklin Roosevelt, the now-indignant Arnold and Hudson, and as many of the panicked operatives they could locate, several of whom were suddenly developing what one senator described as suspiciously convenient memory lapses. The committee’s report was made public after Roosevelt had left office and well after the 1920 election in which he ran as the Democratic candidate for the vice presidency, but it was nonetheless a galling moment for him. His part in the entrapment, any specific knowledge of which he continued furiously to deny, had been characterized by the naval investigators as “ill-advised.” The Senate committee went much further, declaring Roosevelt’s actions “reprehensible.” Senator Henry Keyes, Republican of Vermont, urged the release of all the men held at Portsmouth in the light of the government’s contempt for due process. LAY NAVY SCANDAL TO F. D. ROOSEVELT, ran the New York Times headline, DETAILS ARE UNPRINTABLE.

    Two of the investigating senators also had something to say on the subject of the government’s policy toward homosexuals in general. If the medical and scientific community was now suggesting that sexual deviance was a mental illness rather than a crime, it should be treated as such, they argued. The recommendation was made that anyone in the armed forces suspected of homosexuality be dishonorably discharged and referred for medical care rather than tried and imprisoned. “Perversion is not a crime,” Senator Keyes maintained, “but a disease that should be properly treated in a hospital.” Edwin Denby, Josephus Daniels’s successor in the new administration of Warren Harding, dismissed the proposal out of hand for two reasons, one enlightened and one vindictive. He wisely noted that innocent men might be affected by unfounded malicious gossip. Suspicion of homosexuality was too vague a charge. The sterner aspect of Denby’s reasoning, though, was that the true perverts would be getting off too lightly if they were simply slapped on their limp wrists and released from the service. The Navy would become a refuge for the sexually maladjusted, and that must never be allowed to happen.

    THE NEWPORT SCANDAL faded rather quickly from the national news–it was not the kind of occurrence the public enjoyed hearing about–and by the time FDR ran for the governorship of New York in 1928 and then for the presidency four years later, the sad fate of the Newport men and their sexually active entrappers and Roosevelt’s part in the affair were ancient history. Interestingly, we may never know if the thirty-second president was aware of the complex nature of the relationship between his wife and Lorena Hickock, the lesbian journalist who moved into the White House with the Roosevelts in 1941, but we do know that Roosevelt came to see that homosexuality was not necessarily an impediment to effective government service. During World War II he protected Sumner Welles, his undersecretary of state, as long as he could, until Welles’s indiscretions passed all acceptable bounds. Only with great reluctance did Roosevelt ask for his advisor’s resignation.

  36. Buck

    Right to privacy is not more important than a right to property. They are entirely different things. Apples and oranges.

    They are ‘rights’ and thus the same fruit.

    But since you claim you have a right to my property (such as ‘taxes’) where do you resolve your contradiction of ‘respecting’ my right – if you violate one but feel self-restrained to no violation another?

    Gun control – yes, I am for gun control. But I have no problem with you choosing to own a gun. All I ask is that there be some sensible restrictions.

    So, killing a human life requires privacy – but owning a piece of steel requires restrictions.

    Smoke is everywhere – the gas pedal is full on with the park brake locked….

    • Buck The Wala says:

      BF, I’ll never convince you that paying taxes does not infringe your rights, so its useless to even try. And let’s not pretend that there are no restrictions to abortions. You and I may disagree on the propriety of these restrictions, but they are still there.

      • Buck

        BF, I’ll never convince you that paying taxes does not infringe your rights,

        Probably not.

        I usually don’t fall for contradicted arguments.

        so its useless to even try. And let’s not pretend that there are no restrictions to abortions. You and I may disagree on the propriety of these restrictions, but they are still there.

        Now your pistons are changing places!

        First, you respect their privacy as it is their right, now there are restrictions to their right of privacy!!

        How do you reconcile this?

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Buck, I have to ask you, you say you don’t want to go into the abortion issue, but yet you keep bringing it up. WHY? I’m curious, because you know if I see something you said that I don’t agree with, I will speak up about it.

          • v. Holland says:

            He didn’t actually bring it up Judy-he only responded to a post-which I started, but the point I was trying to make wasn’t about whether or not abortion is good or bad.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I’m bringing it up not to discuss abortion per se, but just as an example.

            I respect a right to privacy which informs my views on abortion. BF asked me to explain how I can reconcile respecting abortion with my disrespect for property rights. My answer: I respect both, but recognize some restrictions on both as well.

            To BF: Yes I recognize some restrictions on both privacy and property rights as the cost of living in society. But we’ll have to continue this another day. Enjoy the weekend.

            Judy, enjoy the weekend as well! Get your hubby a nice gift! (you did say it was his bday this weekend, correct?)

  37. Great discussions today.

    Ending the day with some funnies from biased Fox:

    • More funny!


      Two magazines, Country Living (95.99% white readership) and

      Ebony / Jet (99..99% black readership) did surveys on ……..


      The results were interesting, to say the least….

      Country Living magazine’s top three answers were:

      1. Nuclear war / terrorist attack in U.S.
      2. Child/ spouse dying / terminal illness.
      3. Terminal illness self.

      Ebony / Jet magazine’s top three answers were:

      1. Ghosts
      2. Dogs
      3. Registered mail

      No Kidding! These are the people who elected Obama, what would you expect !!!!


      “My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
      I hope you’ll join with me, as we try to change it.” — Barack Obama

      ”Life’s tough……it’s even tougher if you’re stupid.” — John Wayne


    • A crusty old Marine Sergeant Major found himself at a gala
      > event hosted
      > by a local liberal arts college. There was no shortage of
      > extremely
      > Young idealistic ladies in attendance, one of whom
      > approached the
      > Sergeant Major for conversation.
      > “Excuse me, Sergeant Major, but you seem to be a very
      > serious man. Is
      > something bothering you?”
      > “Negative, ma’am. Just serious by nature.”
      > The young lady looked at his awards and decorations and
      > said, “It looks
      > like you have seen a lot of action.”
      > “Yes, ma’am, a lot of action.”
      > The young lady, tiring of trying to start up a
      > conversation, said, “You
      > know, you should lighten up a little. Relax and enjoy
      > yourself.”
      > The Sergeant Major just stared at her in his serious
      > manner. Finally the
      > young lady said, “You know, I hope you don’t take
      > this the wrong way,
      > but when is the last time you had sex?”
      > “1955, ma’am.”
      > “Well, there you are. No wonder you’re so serious.
      > You really need to
      > chill out! I mean, no sex since 1955! She took his hand and
      > led him to a
      > private room where she proceeded to “relax” him
      > several times.
      > After wards, panting for breath, she leaned against his bare
      > chest and
      > said, “Wow, you sure didn’t forget much since
      > 1955.”
      > The Sergeant Major said in his serious voice, after
      > glancing at his
      > watch, “I hope not; it’s only 2130 now.”
      > (Gotta love military time)

  38. Judy Sabatini says:


    December 8 – 6:00 PM
    It started to snow. The first snow of the season and the wife and I took our cocktails and sat for hours by the window watching the huge soft flakes drift down from heaven. It looked like a Grandma Moses Print. So romantic we felt like newlyweds again. I love snow!

    December 9
    We woke to a beautiful blanket of crystal white snow covering every inch of the landscape. What a fantastic sight! Can there be a more lovely place in the whole world? Moving here was the best idea I’ve ever had! Shoveled for the first time in years and felt like a boy again. I did both our driveway and the sidewalks. This afternoon the snow plough came along and covered up the sidewalks and closed in the driveway, so I got to shovel again. What a perfect life!

    December 12
    The sun has melted all our lovely snow… Such a disappointment! My neighbor tells me not to worry- we’ll definitely have a white Christmas. No snow on Christmas would be awful! Bob says we’ll have so much snow by the end of winter, that I’ll never want to see snow again. I don’t think that’s possible. Bob is such a nice man, I’m glad he’s our neighbor.

    December 14
    Snow, lovely snow! 8 inches last night. The temperature dropped to -20. The cold makes everything sparkle so. The wind took my breath away, but I warmed up by shoveling the driveway and sidewalks. This is the life! The snow plough came back this afternoon and buried everything again.. I didn’t realize I would have to do quite this much shoveling, but I’ll certainly get back in shape this way. I wish I wouldn’t huff and puff so.

    December 15
    20 inches forecast. Sold my van and bought a 4×4 Blazer. Bought snow tires for the wife’s car and 2 extra shovels. Stocked the freezer. The wife wants a wood stove in case the electricity goes out. I think that’s silly. We aren’t in Alaska , after all.
    December 16
    Ice storm this morning. Fell on my ass on the ice in the driveway putting down salt. Hurt like hell. The wife laughed for an hour, which I think was very cruel.

    December 17
    Still way below freezing. Roads are too icy to go anywhere. Electricity was off for 5 hours. I had to pile the blankets on to stay warm. Nothing to do but stare at the wife and try not to irritate her. Guess I should’ve bought a wood stove, but won’t admit it to her. God I hate it when she’s right. I can’t believe I’m freezing to death in my own living room.
    December 20
    Electricity’s back on, but had another 14 inches of the damn stuff last night. More shoveling! Took all day. The damn snow plough came by twice. Tried to find a neighbor kid to shovel, but they said they’re too busy playing hockey. I think they’re lying. Called the only hardware store around to see about buying a snow blower and they’re out. Might have another shipment in March. I think they’re lying. Bob says I have to shovel or the city will have it done and bill me. I think he’s lying.

    December 22
    Bob was right about a white Christmas because 13 more inches of the white shit fell today, and it’s so cold, it probably won’t melt till August. Took me 45 minutes to get all dressed up to go out to shovel and then I had to piss. By the time I got undressed, pissed and dressed again, I was too tired to shovel. Tried to hire Bob who has a plough on his truck for the rest of the winter, but he says he’s too busy. I think the asshole is lying.

    December 23
    Only 2 inches of snow today. And it warmed up to 0. The wife wanted me to decorate the front of the house this morning. What is she, nuts?!! Why didn’t she tell me to do that a month ago? She says she did but I think she’s lying.

    December 24
    6 inches – Snow packed so hard by snow plough, I broke the shovel. Thought I was having a heart attack. If I ever catch the son of a bitch who drives that snow plough, I’ll drag him through the snow by his balls and beat him to death with my broken shovel. I know he hides around the corner and waits for me to finish shoveling and then he comes down the street at a 100 miles an hour and throws snow all over where I’ve just been! Tonight the wife wanted me to sing Christmas carols with her and open our presents, but I was too busy watching for the damn snow plough.

    December 25
    Merry f—ing Christmas! 20 more inches of the damn slop tonight – Snowed in. The idea of shoveling makes my blood boil.. God, I hate the snow! Then the snow plough driver came by asking for a donation and I hit him over the head with my shovel. The wife says I have a bad attitude. I think she’s a fricking idiot. If I have to watch “It’s A Wonderful Life” one more time, I’m going to stuff her into the microwave.

    December 26
    Still snowed in. Why the hell did I ever move here? It was all HER idea. She’s really getting on my nerves.

    December 27
    Temperature dropped to -30 and the pipes froze; plumber came after 14 hours of waiting for him, he only charged me $1,400 to replace all my pipes.

    December 28
    Warmed up to above -20. Still snowed in. The BITCH is driving me crazy!!!

    December 29
    10 more inches. Bob says I have to shovel the roof or it could cave in. That’s the silliest thing I ever heard. How dumb does he think I am?

    December 30
    Roof caved in. I beat up the snow plough driver, and now he is suing me for a million dollars, not only the beating I gave him, but also for trying to shove the broken snow shovel up his ass. The wife went home to her mother. Nine more inches predicted.

    December 31
    I set fire to what’s left of the house. No more shoveling.

    January 8
    Feel so good. I just love those little white pills they keep giving me. Why am I tied to the bed?

  39. v. Holland says:

    Hey G,

    You know how I’ve been wanting some of that pretty white stuff-well we are getting it today-the only problem is it’s pure ice-pretty though.

    • What state are you in V?

      • v. Holland says:


        • Thanks. Been curious and have been looking for clues. Figured I’d come right out and ask. Been on three rroadtrips to Tenn looking for retirement property. I still say I will end up there someday.

          • v. Holland says:

            Tenn. has some beautiful places to live. Mountains and a lake would be my pick but many beautiful just lake areas too.

            • Yep. That’s all me. Have a place in the woods on a lake here in Mich right now. Spend all my free time there. Found people’s attitudes in Tenn way more pleasant than in Mich too. Soon as the weather stays above forty I’ll be at the lake again. Can’t wait

    • My brother, sister , and Mom are in Hampton Va, where I once was stationed, they are expecting about a foot, which will shut that place down for a couple days. It’s your turn, have fun but please stay safe!


      • v. Holland says:

        Have groceries, fire wood and a generator-have no plans to leave the house.

        • Good! It’s quite frigid here, so I’ll be indoors myself all weekend feeding the woodburner. Enjoy the wonderful peacefullness of a fresh snowfall, it is relaxing to behold!


  40. Judy Sabatini says:
  41. Judy Sabatini says:

    And I thought it was cold here. We’re suppose to get some snow here tomorrow, with a break on Sunday, then for the rest of next week just about, snow/rain in the forecast.

    I was never into schnapps. I would rather have a couple shots of tequila myself. In fact, I just might do that later, couldn’t sleep for crap last night, been running on about 3 to 4 hours sleep, and that’s bout it. But, I did take a little nap earlier.

    • Schnapps is a change of flavor to sip on, nothing more. I have in the past, been quite the power drinker, tequila, whisky and bourbon were easy. At one time in life I could drink a 5th of Crown Royal every night. Not so today, just drink some beer, and depending on the occasion, a shot or two. Schnapps is lame, but tasty, and don’t result in drunkiness or hangovers, which I now avoid for the most part.

      Cold is, Al Gore, who I would like to tie to my maple tree until he admits to his BS, now that would be funny!

      Tell Jim Happy Birthday! He’s at the age where he should start celebrating again, made it another year!


      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Don’t know if you’re still up or not, but I want to apologize for not getting back to you. I was talking with my sister for about an hour or so, telling her what’s been going on here and stuff. She might, maybe, be coming up here in the next few months if she can survive her job and if she can stay in her house any longer. She’s really have a bad go of things, and it’s not looking good with her job and the house.

        I will tell Jim your greetings, I’m sure he will appreciate it. And yes, he made it another year, not too sure about celebrating again, I don’t think he’s stopped.


        • Bottom Line says:

          Hi Judy,

          Are we the last two still here?

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi BL

            I don’t know, I guess maybe everybody turned in for the night. I’m about to get off soon here myself.

            How you doing today?

            • Bottom Line says:

              That was weird.

              You posted while i was typing.

              I’m good.

              And as always, …hoping the same for you.

            • Still kickin!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I have to keep fighting Matthew here for the computer. Every time I get off, he jumps on. Was trying to talk to BL, but had to get up to do something, then Matthew was back on.

                I was going to to go for the night anyway, my Friday night show is on at 8 and I want to get comfy so I can watch it.

                If you’re here tomorrow, then we can chat more. I have nothing to do but Matthew’s laundry anyway. He has to go to Dayton tomorrow and watch Rebecca’s boys for her and Christopher, they have date day and date night.

                So with that I guess I will say good night too. If you should happen to be here tomorrow, would love to chat with you.

                Night G.


              • Night Judy. Happy Birthday to JIM! 🙂


          • Bottom Line says:

            I guess not.

            I’m going to bed.

            G’ Night y’all.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Well, I’m sorry I missed you, but my son was on the computer and I told him get off so I can get back to you.

              Oh, well, good night BL, hope to see you here tomorrow if you’re not busy.

              Good night and sleep well.


  42. LOI’

    I stumbled upon something for you today. Was reading the archives on your May 30 post about GOOOH. Someone replied to you just yesterday Jan 29. See the replies after #2.

    • Anita,

      Thanks, I posted a response at the bottom, inviting them to open mic for more discussion on GOOOH. Am being drafted to
      snowplay with the kids, mom don’t like the cold.

      May check back this evening.

  43. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    Good Morning Buck!

    You floored me with your comment yesterday on Gun Control and that you support a few sensible restrictions. If you are interested I would like to explore this further. I set no traps (usually not with friends) but need to know what you consider sensible.

    I am of the persuasion that believes if you are conservative, libertarian or old line liberal, you should support Amendment 2 with your heart and soul. As the man said, there is a reason it is number 2.

    I have toyed here with the idea of laying out two or three things that most gun control advocates are either unaware of or deliberately ignore and have decided against it. Let us start from scratch. In this case, I would like to know what you feel has not yet been done if you would. Since there are already 20,000 statutes on the books, what you would propose as the 20,001st.

    I have collected firearms since I was fifteen years old. I do not come from a gun culture family but got into it partially because of my interest in history. At the moment I have something north of 70 firearms and a pretty good representation of WW-1 and WW-2 arms of the major belligerents which was my intent 45 years ago when I started. Going to have to start getting rid of them soon since my heirs and assignees show little or no interest in the collecting aspects. Anybody out there want to make an offer on a German G-43 with three extra mags or a 1941 Tokarev semi auto with Finnish capture markings on the mag?

    • SK,

      I would be interested in working models, have no use for wall hangers. This will likely get me in trouble, as the safe is full already. contact

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Be happy to have a debate/discussion on the 2d Amendment and gun control.

      Not going to be around much this weekend, but let me lay out a few very brief thoughts tonight and hopefully we can continue at some point during the week.

      As the law stands now — not looking to get into an argument on every single amendment at the moment 🙂 — but as it stands now there are restrictions on every single amendment. The 2d Amendment should be no different.

      I’m not going to argue that guns kill people, or anything along those lines. But guns are a commodity that very easily travel across state line, are used in crimes every day, result in accidental killings, etc. As such there should be restrictions.

      Anyone who wants a gun should be able to get a gun, barring a criminal history. But no one needs a gun at the drop of a hat (and if they do, perhaps they are planning to kill someone, who knows). Why not expand registration for gun ownership? Provide for a short waiting period to conduct a brief background check? Close the gunshow loopholes? Why not ban assault weapons – the assault weapons ban was proven to help in major cities; every single mayor of every single major city as far as I’m aware were for this ban – why let it lapse? Do you need an assault rifle to go hunting for food/sport or to protect your home?

      I would need to take a closer look at the current gun laws on the books and exactly where we stand now. I’m not necessarily advocating for more gun restrictions; perhaps just more effective enforcement of those currently there. I am advocating against a rollback of current legislation, at least in most instances (again, not entirely sure of all the laws out there).

      Just a few scattered thoughts at this time for your thoughts.

      Have a great night and rest of weekend!

      • Hi Buck!

        I saw your earlier post, but got tired of scrolling, so I’ll briefly answer here.

        Removal of DADT, ia akin to forcing people to accept alternate views. That will never work and will simply cause far more problems than it will solve. If you say it’s OK to do this, than you would be OK with being forced to accept and practice a different religion, say Islam for example. Once this mentallity starts (forcing people to accept something) then it will simply grow out of control (much like some forms of Islam). Be careful what you ask for, it may bite you back! 🙂

        As far as the gun control issue, I’d like to be in on that as well, I have much to offer, and look forward to it.

        Have a great weekend!


        • Buck the Wala says:

          I just don’t see it that way. Repealing DADT is not making anyone do anything. It is making a statement that all are welcome to join the military and no one has to hide who they are in order to do so. It is stating that ‘witch hunts’ have no place as your fellow service members’ sexual orientation is irrelevant. Any problems that arise should and will be dealt with accordingly given the situation by the commanders and other leaders.

          Not sure how you are analogizing this to forcing someone to practice a different religion. Don’t see the connection at all. No one would be forced to become gay.

          As I mentioned to JAC earlier on, I don’t mean ‘acceptance’ in the terms of fully coming to accept homosexuals. What I mean is asking people to treat everyone else with respect, learning to put their prejudices aside to serve together and get a given job done.

          Hmm…with everyone joining in on this upcoming gun control battle I’m going to need to do my research! Gotta get Mathius and the other liberals in on this discussion as well to give me tactical support…

          • Morning Buck!

            You said: What I mean is asking people to treat everyone else with respect, learning to put their prejudices aside to serve together and get a given job done.

            I think that most people would like that to happen. But prejudises are in individual trait, that is widespread over may different issues. Smoe may not be prejudice towards gays, but highly prejudice angainst obese people, or of a different race, religion etc. If we try to force some to put aside their prejudices, then we would have to do it for all who are being dicriminated against, basically, kiss free speach and individual thinking goodbye.

            I tyhink it would be far better if the individual determined his/her feelings on these matters. Sadly, prejudice will never go away, maybe it’s something that should be accepted and thus ignored, if it’s ignored, it no longer has legitimacy, and will fade away.

            DADT was put in place when I served. At that time I didn’t think it was a problem, and don’t think it is today. We have some of the best military leaders in the world, who are doing just fine with the current program. It isn’t broke, so why try to fix it? Sounds more like having your car painted when all you need is a new headlight! 🙂

            Peace my Friend!


            • I’ll add some, just for reference. There are some groups of people based on various lifestyles, that I choose not to associate with. For instance, I choose not to assosciate with flambouyant gay men. If a gay man is not the “flambouyant type” then I generally have no issues with associating with that person. Am I prejudice?

              Do you ever wonder how black, welfare lifers manage to get fat? The mysteries of the universe will forever befuddle me 🙂


            • Buck the Wala says:

              You make a good point, but let’s take a step back. In the office setting, if I have a problem accepting my gay coworker and working with them in the same professional manner I would with anyone else in the office, it is me who will be let go.

              Prejudice will never go away, but as a society we can and should demand better. You personally hate X and cannot accept or tolerate such, that’s fine – continue to hate X. Just keep it to yourself while at work. That’s all I ask.

              • Buck,

                I agree with you! 🙂

                In an office/civilian world, which we both live, that is the way it should be. I work in healthcare, and represent over 900 people in our (pathetic) union. There is no place for discrimination in my job(s).

                Maybe I’m different than most in your mind, I can work and deal with anyone, without prejudice. I can respect people for who they are (even lefties 😆 )

                BUT, The military isn’t the office/politically correct demanding environment that we live in. It is very different, and if you have not experienced it, might I suggest that you listen to those that have. I’m not in disagreement with what you desire, just the environment that you would like to push those beliefs on.

                It would be nice if prejudice would just go away, but it won’t, and must be dealt with smartly. Not every environment is set up for certain minority groups, and by pushing them into it would cause graet harm to them and the organization that’s being forced to accept them. Look how long it took women to get into West Point!

                Time will heal all wounds, let nature do it, it’s more peaceful that way (I think).

                Peace 🙂


              • Buck The Wala says:

                You’re absolutely right – the military is wildly different from a standard office. I’ve never been in the military so can’t speak to the exact differences.

                What I’ve been hearing on this front with DADT is mostly all good news — toleration/acceptance for gays in the military is gradually increasing! I think you’re right, given more time acceptance will continue to grow.

                But in my opinion, the best thing to do would be to repeal DADT as an official policy and let the military handle things as they feels best. You argue for removing politics from the military, well DADT is a political policy (redundant, no!?).

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Welcome back,

        OK, fair is fair. It is illegal for a convicted criminal to own, possess, carry or use any type of Firearm. That would go for a .22 single shot to a Tec-9. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, it makes no difference. This is a law that is rarely enforced. It is a Federal Law. When they pick up a bad guy in NY and offer the case to the feds it is declined. Several years ago the fed prosecutor in Richmond started prosecuting. The bad guys all went to the Federal Slammer for 5 to 10. The message went out. Enforcement works.

        Assault weapons is a misnomer and a deliberate one at that. A pistol grip, black plastic and a bayonet lug do not make an assault weapon. Originally the term was coined by the Germans referring to the Sturm Gewher, a particular new rifle they fielded in 1944. What made it different was that it could fire FULL AUTOMATIC. That is where you pull the trigger, hold it down and empty the magazine with one pull. In effect it was a machine gun. The weapons the Assault weapon ban picked up were semi-automatics, one pull equals one shot. They have been around since the 1890’s. I once had a contest with a friend. I used a model 1892 Winchester lever action classic cowboy gun which held 15 rounds (no assault weapon by anyone’s imagination). He used a .30 US carbine, semi auto, firing a short .30 caliber cartridge and a 15 round mag (classified as an assault weapon by NJ even though it has been around since 1941). At roughly 50 feet we had a shoot off. My antique emptied first and I had more hits. I am good but not the best by any means, he was no slouch.

        Machine guns have been regulated since the 1934 Federal Firearms act. You cannot own them unless registered and you pay a tax. Most states do not allow you to own them. Also since 1934, it is illegal to transport a handgun from state to state without permission from the state AG you are going through. For most, this is a technicality but if you are a trafficker buying in GA and selling in NY, it is a count in an indictment for every border crossed. That is if the authorities care which they, to my knowledge, do not.

        You pre-suppose that if I want to buy a gun today, I am going to do that to shoot someone today. Since I must undergo an INSTANT, COMPUTERIZED, MANDATORY background check with the FBI (note, this has been in effect for a number of years and was supported by the NRA and opposed by the Brady group) for the purchase and would be precluded if I were a convicted felon or crazy (the crazy part is not new but the psychobabble community does not like it. If they did what they were supposed to, those kids would still be alive in West Virginia at the University). Like Black Flag here I would have to say PROVE IT, where are the stats?. This is always a contention but facts and specifics are never cited or reported on by the news. Just an aside here, In NJ we have to be cleared to buy a handgun through a lengthly process and it will not be for a carry permit but merely to possess. the last time I went through the process it took three months to secure approval to buy two handguns. It is that way for the ENTIRE STATE. Last summer the governor and his legislature passed one of those one gun per month bans that was supposed to deter criminals. Really? After going through a three month process it is highly unlikely that buying two guns would have made me a criminal enterprise. It did however make the governor feel good and made for some fine headlines in the clueless, biased news.

        I need your stats on the assault weapons ban. I do not have the numbers with me but the FBI uniform crime statistics do not bear you out. Mayors are against anything having to do with guns, especially in the hands of citizens be they law abiding or not.

        There are now 40 states that allow you to carry concealed handguns. After a background check, if you are not a criminal and not crazy, the state MUST issue you a carry permit. This started 20 years ago in Florida it is called the “right to carry law”. It was predicted that it would be a return to the OK corral. It has not been, just the opposite, gun crime has gone down in those states at a faster rate than the states that do not have such laws. Recently, the individual states have started to honor reciprocity. For example if you have a right to carry in PA when you snowbird to Florida, you can carry. Interesting because here the states are taking back something that the feds usurped in the 1930’s. Have you ever even heard of the “right to carry law”. By the way, we , up here in the triangle of evil, NY, NJ, CONN are not likely to see right to carry anytime soon.

        In NYC, rifle registration begat confiscation. As I mentioned before, a friend had a very expensive and coveted National match M-1 Garand rifle which he dutifully registered, as I did, back in the 1960’s. Ten years ago, the City Council and Mayor passed an assault weapon ban based solely on the semi-auto feature. The cops actually came to his house and told him he had to get rid of it or surrender it. The same has happened to certain classes of weapons in Australia and Canada and to ALL weapons in Great Britian. Since NY City and for that matter California for all intents and purposes ban all semi-automatics as “assault weapons” you cannot use them to hunt. You cannot also compete in the national Matches in Ohio should your state/city choose to ban them.

        There are no gunshow loopholes regardless what Sen. Schumer says. If you buy from a dealer, he MUST do the Instant FBI background check.

        Gun crimes have been headed downward for the past twenty years and continued to head downward after the Assault Weapons ban lapsed. Gun accidents have fallen, actual numbers, not percentages every year since the 1950’s. these are factual statements and can be verified through the FBI, BATF and National Safety foundation.

        A statistic that I would like to see though, which I would consider to be highly informative but controversial, would be the number of illegal aliens picked up with weapons who commit gun crimes. Personal experience in Washington Heights and the Bronx showed me that the numbers are big but I have never seen a statistic by anyone on the issue. Since most Gun crime is urban and most illegals gravitate to the cities, if they were taken out of the equation what would happen to the already reduced numbers? If the number were public and broadcast how many would still be crying for amnesty. Therefore, you never hear of it. No more than you hear about instant background checks or right to carry laws and people say there is no press bias. If cancer rates fell as fast as firearms death rates it would be front page NY Times.

        Some stuff for you to chew on my friend. I know I went way long here and in fact have screwed up my day (I have a project due tomorrow).

        One last series of questions, have you ever shot?, have you ever been to a gun show? One is coming up in a few weeks at the Orange County Fairgrounds in NY which, from your previous posts is within striking distance for you. These shows are instructive and informative. I, if Mrs. T allows me, intend to go. Perhaps you would like to join me?

        “An armed society is a polite society”
        Robert A. Heinlein

        • SK,

          Though not statistical evidence on guns and illegal aliens, it paints a good picture of the illogical mindset of the gun control people.


          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            Good example. I am going to contact a retired NYPD detective sgt. I know who is currently teaching criminology outside Phoenix. I’ll see if he can rounmd up some numbers.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Some interesting information and I’ll definitely be looking into this further. Again, not all that well conversed in the various laws that are on the book currently. Stepping up enforcement would be a great thing in my mind. As for the checks, so long as it can be (and is) run instantly, than that’s fine enough for me. I don’t see a need for mandatory waiting periods or anything of that nature – my comment was geared only at allowing enough time to conduct the background check. If it takes a matter of minutes, so be it. If it takes a day or two, that’s fine by me as well.

          I have shot before at a range when I was younger (shotgun, .22, .30-06 – a lot of fun. Would do it again in a hearbeat. At one point would love to go hunting as well. When is that Orange County fair? Very doubtful I’ll go as it just isn’t my scene but I’ll take a look into it.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:


            It is actually this coming weekend, Saturday and Sunday. The sponsor usually runs them every two months, six times a year. They used to do it at Yonkers raceway also but the County Executive Spano (who lost) ran them out of town.

            I just find them very interesting and as a people observer, find a lot to observe there.

            You can probably google Orange County Fairgrounds and come up with the info.

            Regarding the gun laws, I am kind of a throw the book at them kind of guy. If you break them, you get to pay. My problem as demonstrated by Corzine and my legislature is that they have no idea what they are doing. They tried to pass a .50 ban because they were scared of those long range .50 Barrets which have never ever been used in a crime. When the legislation was in committee, it was pointed out to Loretta Weinberg (committee head) that she would also be banning replicas of Flintlock and Civil war percussion muskets. These clueless people are actually in charge of things?

            In Cal. they actually banned them which is when Barret came out with, I believe, a necked down .50 into a .416. It went even faster farther. Rocket scientists all our legislators.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Well this weekend I’ll be out skiing. Still going to take a closer look into the Orange County Fairgrounds show at some point just to educate myself a bit more as to what it is and what goes on there, having never been to such a show myself.

              I admit most politicians do not seem to know the differences between these weapons (as I surely don’t) and wind up going too far with certain pieces of legislation. Corzine provides a good example of that. Also, not entirely sure why he pushed for a .50 ban, assuming you are right that they’ve never been used in a crime. Was it a concern from statistics in other states? I’d be curious as to the reason.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Actually the main reason is that the gun is scary. It fires a .50 Browning round also used in the .50 machine gun. It can reach out over a mile.

                Charles Schumer was on TV. His take was that it is a favorite weapon of terrorists. Well, not here and not overseas. Do they use a .50 cal. sure, in a machine gun format.

                Sen Schumer, like Sen Fienstein wants to ban the weapon nationally because it “may” be used by terrorists!?

                My Dodge Caravan “may” be used by terrorists too.

                Certain Boeing aircraft were used by terrorists. they too should be banned.

                It’s just feel good legislation. They phonied up the stats on US purchased weapons going to drug gangs in Mexico in a backdoor attempt at re-imposing some kind of Assault weapon ban.

                If you are a gun person, almost anytime a politician talks about gun control, he or she is either woefully ignorant at best or an outright liar at worst.

  44. SK

    Godd Morning! 🙂

    Sounds like you have a really fine collection of historical weapons. You may want to look into the Smithsonian as a buyer, or donate and write off the value on your taxes.

    I’ve always enjoyed seeing those types of collections, the history and usefulness behing them makes for a great story. I never did any collecting, all our weapons (Dad and I) are useful for hunting, with a handgun or two for protection. We have numerous High powered rifles, shotguns of all calibers anf a couple .22’s. I have a Fox Sterlingworth 16 gauge double barrel that is said to be worth quite alot, but it’s a good grouse gun and lightwieght for it’s age.

    Hope Buck replies, should make for an interesting debate. As I’ve said many times in the past, all gun gontrol laws should be abolished. I also think everyone should carry one everywhere.

    Peace and Live Free!


    • Bottom Line says:

      I just want a .223 AR-15 with plenty of “Barnes Varmint Grenades”

      Here’s what VG’s do to varmints.

      ~Note: 00:19 and 00:58 and 01:01

      • Very nice! Wonder if they make “deer grenades” 😆

        • Bottom Line says:

          They make them for .223

          I think it would handle a deer just fine.

          I wonder if they make them for a .308

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Whose military were these things developed for?

        Last time I looked at the Geneva Accords, these things were a no no.

        I daresay my Grandmother would have been unhappy with the stew and stuffed cabbage possibilities of squirrels and groundhogs hit with these things.

        • Bottom Line says:

          My guess is that they were originally designed for military use but were stopped by The Geneva Accords.

          I’m not sure I would want them for hunting, …unless it was a head shot.

          Of course, it would be instantly tenderized meat. lol.

  45. v. Holland says:

    I am highly irritated after watching this.

  46. v. Holland says:
  47. This came from a friend. Interesting take….

    This is really an eye opener…didn’t realize the scope!

    This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this is why so many physicians are conservatives or Republicans.

    The Lawyers’ Party
    By Bruce Walker
    The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party .
    Barack Obama is a lawyer.
    Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
    Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
    Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
    John Edwards is a lawyer.
    Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
    Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
    Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
    Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
    Harry Reid is a lawyer.
    Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

    The Republican Party is different.
    President Bush is a businessman.
    Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
    The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
    Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
    Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.
    House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
    The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
    Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976..

    The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
    The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

    The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.

    Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

    This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers.
    Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people.
    Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

    Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.
    When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.. Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

    Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

    We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

    Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

    The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!

  48. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All

    How’s everybody doing today? And, what is the topic for today? I apologize to those I didn’t get back to last night, but I had to fight my son for the use of the computer when he’s here, I lost.

    Hope to see ya all back here today, would love to chat with ya’s.


    • Bottom Line says:

      Hey Judy!,

      I assume you mean G and myself.

      No biggie. No need for apology.

      I was going to bed anyway.

      Hope you’re doing well.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey BL

        Well I felt I had to apologize because every time I got off, my son got on, and by the time I did get back, all was gone.

        I am doing very good today, and I hope you are too.

  49. Judy Sabatini says:

    WELL, GEEZ! Where is everybody? Nobody to talk with.


    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:



      I think that they have all been picked up. I’m grabbing the M-1, the MRE’s I’ve stashed and heading for the hills.

      It was that World Trade Center thing we were on the other night I think. We’ve flushed them.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Heading for the hills huh, just to be on the safe side? I thought it was about gays being in the military yesterday. As for the trade center topic, I’ll steer clear of that one.

  50. Judy Sabatini says:

    The day after his wife disappeared in a kayaking accident in the

    Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia , a man answered his door to find two

    grim-faced Mounties.

    “We are sorry sir, but we have some information about your wife,”

    said one of the Mounties.

    “Tell me, Did you find her?” the husband shouted.

    The Mounties looked at each other. One said, “We have some

    bad news, some good news, and some really great news. Which

    do you want to hear first?”

    Fearing the worst, the ashen husband said “Give me the bad news first.”

    The Mountie said, “I’m sorry to tell you, sir, but this morning we

    found your wife’s body in the bay.”

    “Oh my God!” exclaimed the husband. Swallowing hard,

    he asked, “What’s the good news?”

    The Mountie continued, “When we pulled her up, she had 12

    twenty-five pound snow crabs and 6 good-size lobsters clinging to her.”

    Stunned, the husband demanded, “If that’s the good news,

    what’s the great news???”

    The Mountie said, “We’re gonna pull her up again tomorrow, eh.”

    • Judy, yous’ bad…but I did laugh.

      > She was standing in the kitchen, preparing our usual soft-boiled eggs and toast for breakfast, wearing only the ‘T’ shirt that she normally slept in.
      > As I walked in, almost awake, she turned to me and said softly,” You’ve got to make love to me this very moment!”
      > My eyes lit up and I thought, “I am either still dreaming or this is going to be my lucky day!”
      > Not wanting to lose the moment, I embraced her and then gave it my all; right there on the kitchen table.
      > Afterwards she said, “Thanks,” and returned to the stove, her T-shirt still around her neck.
      > Happy, but a little puzzled, I asked, “What was that all about?”
      > She explained, “The egg timer’s broken.”

    • Fruit Salad

      Three guys who were lost at sea ended up landing on an unfamiliar island. After wandering around for a while, a group of natives picked them up and took them to their hut. The chief came up to them and said, “We will let you live, if you can go out into the jungle and bring me 10 pieces of fruit.” So the men agree and take off.

      The first guy brings back 10 apples and places them before the chief. “Now, you must stick the apples up your ass and not show a bit of emotion, or else we will kill you.” The guy got one, and on the second, he flinched and was killed.

      The second guy walks up and shows the chief 10 berries. He is given the same task and makes it up to 8 and then begins to laugh histerically. He is also killed. When the second guy gets to heaven and meets up with the first, the first asks him “You almost had it! Why did you laugh??” The second replies, “I couldnt help it. I got the 8th up there and saw the other guy walking up with pineapples.”

      nite all,

  51. v. Holland says:

    ‘Captain Fulham of the Marine Corps commented:

    The most significant difference between the American society and the American military is that the American society we support the right to the individual first and foremost. In the military, those rights all become subordinate to the common good, and the necessity of mission accomplishment. ”

    Found this quote-which was stated during a debate about homosexuals in the military. It seems to fit the liberal stance in reverse.

  52. New topic,

    January 21, 2010, 12:54 PM ET
    Ban by baby steps
    UN’s push for Arms Trade Treaty could affect American gun ownership
    Comment Email Print Share
    By Colin Moore

    LAS VEGAS — In the parallel world where the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi live, the enlightened govern the ignorant masses by applying one set of universal rules, and it’s not the Constitution of the United States.

    In Hillary’s world, radical ideas progress at first with baby steps that ultimately become great strides to harness the destructive forces in society. That’s why the current Secretary of State and the other Hillarys in her world are drawing a bead on gun owners, mainly those in the United States.
    SHOT Show
    Colin MooreSteve Sanneti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, says “anti-hunters will do or say anything to curtail hunting, and they’ll settle for winning small battles and advancing their cause in incremental stages.”
    In 2012, the United Nation’s will push for the Arms Trade Treaty, which, among other things, will establish goals regarding the ownership and disposition of firearms on a global basis. This new world order is apt to take various forms, but none of them are likely to be good for gun owners in this country.

    The Arms Trade Treaty, along with attempts to reconstitute the so-called “assault weapons ban,” and efforts to ban lead-based ammunition are among the biggest challenges facing the shooting sports industry in the coming years, according to Steve Sanneti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

    It’s been a while since the ban on any firearm that looked remotely like an assault rifle was in effect. Thankfully, the public has become better educated about the firearms and the fact that just because they look like something that Rambo might wield, basically they do the same thing as any other rifle.

    Talk of outlawing black guns was a topic that once scored points for politicians in the “blue states,” but there’s no current movement to return the ban. Still, Sanneti said, it only takes one lunatic with a rifle to re-energize the issue.

    The lead ban is an ongoing project for anti-hunters and their allies, the gun control crowd. Banning lead shot on wildlife refuges and other federal lands was the first stage, and now various advocates in the northern tier of states, and California, have taken up the cause. In the Bear State, pro-raptor groups managed to convince the powers-that-be that condors were being poisoned en masse after ingesting lead bullets or shot in the remains of deer or various other game animals and birds.

    In truth, more California condors have died from eating the poisoned carcasses of sheep and other domestic animals intended for coyotes. Still, lead was a convenient villain. More recently, anti-hunters tried to stampede food banks and others from accepting donated game meat shot with lead ammo by well-meaning hunters. Eventually, the wheels fell off that campaign when even the Center for Disease Control said it was a bogus issue.

    “Anti-hunters will do or say anything to curtail hunting, and they’ll settle for winning small battles and advancing their cause in incremental stages,” Sanetti said. “What is so insidious about the various lead ban proposals is that they ignore the fact that there are no wildlife populations that have been threatened or endangered because hunters use lead ammunition. It just doesn’t happen, and we’ve got to continue to remind people of that and present the truth.”

    As for the Arms Trade Treaty, Sanetti said he thinks it might pose the greatest danger if only because there are so many different permutations it could take, any of which could be disastrous to gun owners.

    Sanneti is no stranger in Hillary’s world, and as a former executive of the Ruger Arms Company, knows of the subtle ways that gun control advocates employ to advance their cause. Convince the general public that if all guns are banned, and nobody has them but governments, then there would be no more wars and no more crime. In effect, the Arms Trade Treaty is one of those baby steps in that direction.

    “Essentially, the international community doesn’t understand why Americans respect and protect their Second Amendment rights because in most countries no such rights exist,” said Sanetti, who is presiding over the annual Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) show. “Of course, the Founders added the Second Amendment as one of the safeguards, and it’s not something open for discussion as far as we’re concerned.

    “The current (Obama) administration has gone on record as saying it’s time for this country to rejoin the community of nations and get more in line with various international goals. So, definitely, gun control is moving to the forefront, though not in such an-in-your-face, confrontational manner that we’ve seen before in this country. Gun control advocates go in one direction, try and fail, and then go in another direction. That’s been the pattern.”

    Sanetti notes that prior to the current administration, UN delegates routinely gave such notions as international gun control a no-way, Jose response. However, recently Secretary Clinton has noted that the administration is not opposed, per se, to an Arms Trade Treaty that inhibits the manufacture and distribution of guns, but rather that the U.S. might go along with it if there is a consensus among the nations.

    “Our salvation might be that 2012, which is when the UN will put the Arms Trade Treaty on the front burner, is an election year,” Sanetti said. “We feel reasonably confident that this administration is not going to push the treaty or even avow any ownership, but there’s no certainty of that. If the administration sidesteps the issue and there is no unanimity among nations, the treaty is probably dead, but we’re definitely keeping an eye on developments there.”

    Eternal vigilance and all that, but it’s the price to pay for living in the world next to Hillary’s. The neighbors will do whatever they can to get rid of as many guns as possible, perhaps by curtailing the international flow of component materials that go into the manufacture of firearms and ammunition.

    It’s a long shot, but such ideas have merit in Hillary’s world, where even little victories lead ever closer to the big prize: no guns, just government.

  53. Good Morning/Afternoon LOI,

    Sadly, too many Americans will be more than happy to go along with this. I’m sure several folks here at SUFA will advocate on behalf of the UN Small Arms Treaty, and all the wonderful results that will materilize. If they don’t, I’ll kiss your ‘bum’…. 😉

    • Gooday Cyndi (did that sound Aussi? Drinking a Fosters rt now)

      Late afternoon (5ish)here. Around eight inches of cold white
      on the ground. Hope I worked some of the meanness out of the little Illusions, sure tired myself out. I know, sailing and snorkeling afternoon for you, such a tough life.

      Not sure Americans will go for this, NRA has been very good at raising the alarm every time they have tried this move. First time I have seen it on ESPN, which makes me think awareness is increasing. Shame that its only on 2nd amendment that awareness reaches the masses. Healthcare was to be the same trick, get anything passed, and over time, add and morph it to include everyone for everything.

      I agree, several here will sign on to the UN plan, “what could it hurt? Do you like seeing children gunned down in the streets? etc..”

      That said, I’ll take you bet, sounds like a win/win for me.LOL

      • Don’t get too jealous, the LOI. I’ve actually been having to earn my keep the last month or so. I even have to go in @ 0230 tomorrow. Not only that, but my tan is fading. 😦 I know, I know, its gonna take alot more than that to get your sympathy, LOL!

        As for that bet, what do I get if I win?


  54. HI CP!

    In short, to hell with the UN and Hillary! If we get lucky, the whole damn administration will get kidnapped by aliens, where they would fit right in! 🙂


  55. TexasChem says:

    Why it is not politically correct for a man to place another mans penis in his mouth or anus; and the repercussions if Don’t ask Don’t tell is repealed.

    I am TexasChem.I’m what society would categorize as a mans’ man.I can take a bite out of an iron plate, chew it up and spit out nails! I am also an educated redneck with a leaning towards the religious right.The far left deems my common sense approach to the world as a wall to their moonbat efforts to spread the kool-aid.I can be your best friend or your worst enemy.Either or.If I’m your friend I would give the shirt off my back to help you.If you’re my enemy I would be your worst enemy.God,family and country mean everything to me.

    I believe there is a little thing called a conscious that all people have that if they would just grow with wisdom and listen to; would make the decisions in their life a bit easier.This could also be termed COMMON SENSE.Which from reading the Leftist, Liberally minded folks and Politically Correct infected centrists posts… I can see is poorly lacking.

    I am not going to beat around the bush here people so if you’re offended I apologize in advance.
    Without risking being called bigoted lets just discuss the negative health effects of homosexuality and the fact that homosexual couples experience significantly higher rates of domestic violence in regards to homosexualities impact upon the military for starters.We will also touch on the subject of homosexualities impact upon the mental health of its population which I believe is a factor when allowing the use of military weapons.

    With regards to homosexuality and health, the homosexual population has significantly higher incidences of a large number of diseases. AIDS, Hepatitis, MRSA, and Proctitus come to mind. One of the reasons for the homosexual population having higher incidences of diseases is the significantly higher incidences of promiscuity in the homosexual population coupled with their sexual… anal sex.For those of you that do not understand this concept you need to know the ol’ poop chute was designed as a one way exit.It tends to tear easily if direction is reversed which allows blood to blood contact which leads to the spread of infectious disease easily.It was not designed as the vagina was with its own lubricants!

    In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, studies indicate that as a whole homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. These studies are not surprising at all given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders.If you don’t believe this then I suggest going to work as a detective in San Francisco or as a correctional officer in your state prison system.

    Studies regarding homosexual couples and violence: a recent study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that “violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples”.According to the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies of violence among homosexual couples, violence is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.The American College of Pediatricians states the following: “Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years.”

    In regards to mental health and homosexuality, studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a plethora of psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).A 1977 survey of members of the American Psychiatric Association and 73% of the psychiatrists responding said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others.Also, in regards to homosexuality and mental health, seventy percent of the psychiatrists surveyed stated they believed that the homosexuals’ problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization.In respect to personal conflicts studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior.In contrast to claims by gay rights activists blaming this heightened incidence of mental issues on discrimination, John R. Diggs, M.D. states the following regarding homosexuality and health:

    An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.—-I agree with the good doctor here.Any man that would want to put another mans’ penis in his mouth just aint right in the head.Something is severely WRONG with his thought process!

    The problems with allowing homosexuality in our armed forces are many.I hope you can see this just from the apparent problems within the gay community.Incorporating those problems amongst a majority of hetero young males that have enough problems dealing with the conflict of war would be terrible and could easily lead to poor decision making on the battlefield.Dissent, dissent, dissent.

    A few other items I’d like to address…

    1) Seperation of church and state was meant as a safeguard to keep the government from dictating and enforcing a religion upon its people not to control what can and can’t be placed in public.

    2) Mathius-“There is NOTHING disturbed or diseased or morbid about being gay. This mindset it just downright bigoted.”

    I beg to differ.Just the percentage chance of disease being spread into the hetero population from a homosexual man seems morbid to me.Detrimental to society if you would.In 2004, the prominent medical website, WebMD, stated the following: “Men who have sex with men and women are a “significant bridge for HIV to women,” the CDC’s new data suggest.

    Natural Law Theory is the official ethic espoused by Thomas Aquinas,and argues that, as God created the universe and revealed His mind to man through the order inherent in things discernible by the natural light of reason, man can use his reason to discern God’s Will by studying the natural world. For instance, a study of the male and female reproductive system naturally leads any sane person to see that their natural function is to come together for the purpose of procreation- so any acts excluding this purpose, such as homosexuality are wrong.—This is common sense Mathius.

    So how about loaning out a room in your home to NAMBLA for a regional office Mathius… since you deem nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle buddy?

    • TC

      I really like it when people like you just say it like you feel it, I also think it’s aleeson we can all learn from.

      “If your offended, get over it, because PC is BS”! I like when someone says that I offend them, I simply reply “Good, Read the 1st Amendment and get over yourself”!




    • Tex,

      A well thought our post, or rant. I look forward to Matts response, if he survived the Raptors.

      I agree with nearly all you have said on homosexuality being un-natural, etc. In the scope of this article, I would suggest none of that applies. The military will function best with the least meddling from politicians. Those who join the military loose their constitutional rights while they serve. For anyone to force PC bulldookey on them is bound to fail, after causing needless harm.

      Religious aspects, will you “suffer a witch to live?” There is a lot in the bible, that if you get Jesus’s message, we will not be trying to force on our fellow man. Start casting stones and we are gonna run outta rocks.

      Most who identify with VDLG seem to agree with not initiating force or violence against another. What two or ten men do in their home is not my business, nor the governments. Just to show what a hypocrite I am, I am against gay marriage, but have no objection to them calling it civil unions, or whatever else.

      For the record, I have friends who are gay, the kind that would stand with you thru hell. And the kind I have absolute
      trust in around my eight and ten year old’s. Good people are not defined by skin or sex or those kind of judgements.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I would like to add something to what Texas Chem said. Again, it is based on observation, mine.

      I have grown up in NY City and been around the block a few times. After the “Stonewall” riots in the late 60’s when gay culture first burst on the scene as a cause and soon became a protected right among the illuminated things got a bit out of hand.

      I got married back in ’73. The wife and I used to visit the inlaws in Brooklyn once or so a month and took the Brooklyn Battery tunnel to the west Side Highway to get home.There were these clubs on west street called”The Anvil” and “Ramrod”. There were others but I’ve forgotten their names. On a Saturday night there were hundreds if not thousands of gay men outside those clubs and believe me you wouldn’t want your ten year old seeing what went on. If you looked askance, they started their shit. They were in the majority and were going to let you know it. Saw more than one beer bottle fly at a car.

      Ultimately some West Indian Security Guard who had to pass this every night and just couldn’t take it brought a Tec 9 to the party. Six bodies later he had made his point. Well, that of course led to a full court press on “hate” crimes (ever wonder why hate can only come from one side?) Anyway they found the guy and he’s doing life.

      These nightclubs were finally shut down by mayor Koch not because of the spectacle but because of the rampant early spread of AIDS. The Civil liberties guys were all over him for this impingement on “freedom”. To his everlasting credit, he stuck to his guns and pointed out it was a public health issue.

      A lot of undercover stories were done at the time, pro and con. Yes, some people actually thought this multiple partner shit in one night was a good idea! After all, it’s freedom isn’t it?

      Thanks chem, I had almost forgotten those days. You reminded me of just how promiscuous gay men were at that time. I suspect AIDS slowed them down a bit but there is just something about that whole in your face culture that encourages it.

      I would just like to point out here, that there is nothing and I mean NOTHING in heterosexual culture that even approached what was going on in those West Side bars and bath houses. I’m still waiting for the apologists to apologize to me for saying how the AIDs epidemic would soon spread to the hetero community. I guess they will apologize when the Global Climate liars do.

      So, regardless of your position on gays in the military, you have to keep in mind that this is an issue and it has to be dealt with.

      • SK

        Wouldn’t all that just boil down to a law enforcement issue. Just like it was handled?

        Throwing bottles, intimidating others, constant violence in a given bar have all been used to close down establishments of all types.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Until the Aids thing got out of hand, it did not happen. They became, after Stonewall, a protected class in NY. No cop who wanted to go anywhere with his career wanted to get mixed up in this. Remember what I said, there were not a few, not scores, not hundreds, on a Saturday night, there were thousands. From a police perspective, that would have turned into a major riot.

          Once you rise above Captain in the NYPD you are exclusively political. To even reach captain and then get a gig that would allow you go higher you have to be political. I would say that only up to Sgt. could you call your own shots and, if you called them wrong, well, there is always that foot post on Shore Road in Staten Island.

          I am not good about sending you off to other sites but look up “Stonewall” the Greenwich Village nightclub that the Vice squad (wrongly) used to raid. Then look up Crown Heights Riots under Dinkins. The Riot demonstrated how little power the cops actually have to determine where and how they are going to act.

          The problem we always have with this stuff is the old two wrongs do not make a right. Cops used to lean on homosexuals for whatever stupid reason they thought they had. This finally went the way of the dodo. the homosexual community got their rights (good) and then a fairly large minority proceeded to abuse those rights. That minority was powerful enough to shut down debate among the larger community. If you make the analogy with the black community, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Louis Farrakan, you get my drift. By default and intimidation, they get to speak for all.

          • SK

            You are correct about how minorities simply TAKE the microphone from the rest, claiming authority.

            I think the things you describe in NY had alot to do with two things. First was the political climate in NY, which was to some extent influenced by the second. Namely the culture of riot created by the late 60’s and early 70’s. The response to less coersion became to impose coersion on those who stopped. Revenge if you will.

            Perhaps also there is the Big City problems vs the Small Town problems. The situations you describe never manifested in many of the smaller cities and towns I visited in those days.

            As for the main focus of USW’s post. Any trouble maker needs to be sent down the trail pushing road apples.

            That would address the kind of things your talking about, I think.

            Hope your Sunday is unfolding nicely.
            Getting some fresh snow here, well maybe snain would be more accurate.


            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Agree with you re: troublemakers. It is such a shame in a way that Rodney King’s plea, “can’t we all just get along” a. Came from Rodney King and b. did not come from someone a bit more responsible.and c. was treated as a joke.

              Weather in NNJ cold for the fourth in a row but beautiful sunshine. Still don’t feel like changing the oil on the van though.


    • Tex

      So what ya want to do about all this terrible psychological disorder?

      Kill em?

      Put em in prison? What?

      They sound like they are a massive danger to society the way you described it.

      Oh wait, the violence was primarily among themselves. Didn’t affect you in any way.

      Oh wait, all the other military folks here know of gays who have served and done so in a noble and honorable way. So are you going to impose upon them because of studies done on others. The mere fact that the military follks on this site and those I know don’t seem to have such heart burn is enough for me to call Bulldookey on your whole rant.

      You know what studies say about red neck southern christians? I doubt you would want anyone to use those studies to make decisions about you or your neighbors ability to serve in the military.

      Be careful Tex when you start swinging your sword with such wild and broad strokes. Your liable to cut your own legs off.

      • It most definitely was not a wild and broad stroke JaC; it was a deliberate calculated thrust at the achilles tendon.

        No JaC I am not saying kill em’ all nor am I expressing a desire to place them in prison.I do believe psychological help being made available along with literature being available as to the risks and harm of a homosexual lifestyle should be though.I most definitely do not think that the lefts attempt at educating our young students in school homosexual sexual acts is helping matters!Do you?

        JaC-“Oh wait, all the other military folks here know of gays who have served and done so in a noble and honorable way.”

        TC-Rather broad generalization there JaC, I seem to recall some postings of negative behavior including an attempted rape.

        I most certainly was not ranting JaC.I postulated my beliefs using facts to enforce them.As to your statement concerning redneck southern christians I do seem to remember reading a certain Department of Homeland Security release on that matter…

        My dealings with redneck southern christians have always been positive and gentlemanly!I do not understand as to what you exactly are alluding to!If you would care to expound upon that please do!
        So with that I bid you a good night sir!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Psychological help? Literature about the ‘problem’ of being gay?

          Sorry TC, but being homosexual is not some disease that can be cured. It is who some people are, plain and simple.

          The few instances posted here of gay service members having caused problems are just that, a few isolated instances. I seem to recall stories of male soldiers raping female soldiers – if it came to light that these instances were committed by ‘redneck southern christians’ in the military (and needless to say, I am not actually saying this is what’s going on!) would you similarly advocate for all redneck southern christians to be kicked out of the military and not allowed to serve?

          • Buck

            Was wonderin if I was going to have to clean that one up. Help appreciated.

            Nice to see you up and about.

            Happy Sunday to you and the missus.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Been in and out all day – just trying to relax and intermittently checking up on everyone here.

              Hope you had a nice weekend!

  56. “Quiz: How much do you think it costs U.S. taxpayers annually to support each member of the U.S. House of Representatives? Each senator? Well, according to the new U.S. budget, you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, spend $3.1 million to support each House member and $9 million to support each senator.”

    These are 2006 numbers so it is probably higher. Works out to about $2.25B/yr for Congress which only works 3 days a week except for vacations and holidays. I would propose they take a 1 month furlough w/o pay. This would be their contribution to budget reduction. It would save $225M. I know it is a drop in the bucket but think about all the mischief that they won’t be doing.
    Another solution would be to require them to stay in session for 3 straight weeks and then return home the fourth. This would cut the travel expenses dramatically. At least they would be working for 75% of the time instead of 60%. Then again that might be a problem.

    • T-Ray

      Come on now, I’ve given the solution before.

      Move the Capitol to Death Valley. No air conditioning and no heating.

      Problem solved.


      Hope your Saturday was good.
      Gettin wet down your way?


  57. Judy Sabatini says:

    For those who might like this kind of music. Glenn Miller’s In the Mood.

  58. Judy Sabatini says:

    A little more nostalgia . The Andrew Sisters.

  59. Judy Sabatini says:

  60. Judy Sabatini says:

    I hope this is the right one. Suppose to be Gene Kruppa. Lets see. If not I give up

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Okay, I give up. This is the 3rd time, and it’s not working now, darn it.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Here’s a good one for ya.

      Henry Mancini – “Peter Gunn Theme”

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        We used to watch that show all the time, but I can’t remember the other one back then. Okay, I’m going to find another Henry Mancini tune and see if you like it.

  61. Judy Sabatini says:

  62. yo You guys are killing me… Where’s Willo?

  63. Judy Sabatini says:

  64. One more try, Now where’s Willo?

  65. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hope this is the right one.

  66. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey BL where’d ya go?

    • Bottom Line says:

      Been sifting through youtube for more good tunes…

      Found this one.

      Ray Charles – “Hit The Road Jack”

      • I’m a John Stossel groupie !! LOL

        Since my close loved ones think I’m a redneck radical – how come the folks I read consistently are John Stossel (a registered dem), Thomas Sowell (Harvard educated black), Star Parker (is she black too), Kevin Jackson (, and that nasty white B$%^&, Ann Coulter, and another white – Andrew Klaven (i think a Hollywood guy) Andrew Klavan: Liberal Fantasies vs. Reality, Can you Spot the Difference? or

        1 person at a time –

        But USW is right up there!

  67. Judy Sabatini says:

    Well darn BL, I don’t know what happened to you, but you done just poofed away.

    So, I guess I will say good night now.

    Have a good night.

    Love All


    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m still here.

      Not for long though…

      I’ll be in bed as soon as this good time music rush wares off.

      • Bottom Line says:

        It’s been fun.

        I’m out.

        Judy, thanks for the inspiration to jam to some oldies.

        Goodnight, sleep well.

  68. Hi Black Flag,

    Here’s snip from an advertisement. It mentions hyperdeflation. I’ve never heard that term before but can guess what it entails. Prices drop very very quickly until inventory is gone. Something like that?

    What was essentially a banking/credit crisis has been mismanaged into a full-blown, fundamentals-driven, economic disaster.

    But the big shock looms just over the horizon — in fact, it may have already started.

    So please take a second to read the six, cold, hard truths listed below.

    Knowing them could save your portfolio in the coming turbulent months. Regrettably, most financial managers and fund managers would rather swallow glass than reveal this information to you. It’s not in their interest to warn you.

    However, I consider it my obligation: 1. The current stock market rally is a false rally, a mirage.
    2. This economy is far, far, worse off than most Americans realize. Fact is, we’re now in the early stages of a depression. Period.
    3. The next stock market will be a bear… a snarling, bloodthirsty “grizzly.”
    4. The so-called “economic stimulus” is not a stimulus… it’s an anti-stimulus.
    5. Our next investing threat isn’t hyperinflation – it’s hyperdeflation.
    6. The worst is over? Wrong. Mutual funds face another massive redemption panic… possibly worse than the sell-off of 2008.
    Forgive me for not jumping on the recovery bandwagon.
    I’m just not buying it.

    • Cyndi,

      Good post. Its interesting if you look closely at Hoover, and the moves he made trying to avert the depression, compare to Bush. Then FDR & Obama. Same old song and dance.

    • Good Morning Everyone 🙂

      It seems that every financial/investment site I read is predicting a financial crisis of some kind, whether it’s infaltion/hyperinflation, deflation/hyperdeflation and/or a collapse of the dollars value to going to a one world currency. I have yet to read “everything will be just fine, don’t worry, be happy” 😆

      Even just today, this article comes out:

      It just seems to me that the Cloward-Piven strategy is in full swing, and I’m not liking the thoughts of what this could lead to. I wonder how many people will be grabbing their ankles and say have at it when things get worse?


      • Watch the Suzie Ormon Show. She’s probably still singing O’s praises. I quit watching when she announced that she didn’t know how he’d do it, but he’d solve all the problems…

        I’m gagging now….

        • She’ll never get it, Obama is the problem, not the solution.


          • GMan

            Come on now, you know it isn’t Obama per se’, it is the philosophy he and his friends adhere to.

            I know you know, but we need to make sure we always attack the philosophy and not the man himself. Make them debate ISSUES not personalities.

            Peace and freedom my friend.

            • You are correct mu friend! I’m still trying to get past the fact I can’t punch a philosphy in the snout! 😆



  69. Good Morning and Happy Sunday

    A little watching of a Keynesian’s logic at work. We need govt because while govt screws up the system it would be screwed up if govt didn’t intervene.

    And this is the brains behind the curtain.

  70. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hi All

    Report: Obama to Propose $3.8 Trillion Budget

    The president will send a nearly $4 trillion budget to Congress Monday, The New York Times reported Saturday.

    Jan. 27: President Obama greets members of Congress on his way to deliver the State of the Union.

    President Obama is expected to send a $3.8 trillion budget to Congress on Monday for the coming fiscal year, according to The New York Times.

    Obama’s budget would increase financing for education and for civilian research programs by 6 percent and provide cash-strapped states $25 billion, the newspaper reported.

    The proposal comes as the president seeks to impose a three-year spending freeze on domestic spending not related to national security or entitlement programs.

    The budget proposes increases for programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Energy Department, according to the newspaper.

    The fiscal budget looks to cut projects of the Army Corps of Engineers and scrub NASA’s plan to return astronauts to the moon.

    National security, veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would be exempted from the cuts.

  71. Kathy:

    Found this one at the same site. Enjoy everyone.

    Happy Sunday

  72. USWep, Cyndi, G-Man, Birdman, JAC and all,

    I’ll post later today on my site in response to your questions and links re: deflation, banking etc.

  73. PapaDawg

    the military for social experimentation such as forcing homosexual and lesbian lifestyles on those who do not wish to be associated with that kind of lifestyle.

    I completely agree – forcing a lifestyle upon anyone is wrong.

    I do not share your optimism about sending women into war.

    I totally agree.

    The Russians found it problematic. A woman would get wounded and the entire company would halt – by male instinct – to take care of the woman to the threat of the entire attack.

    We live in RV parks and internet access is hit or miss at best.

    I’m jealous – that is the life!

    Have you tried the T-Mobile Internet service via cell? I hear it is decent and cheap – and mobile!

  74. A serious question to ponder! Please think hard about what you would do!


    This test only has one question, but it’s a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

    The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

    Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.


    You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of Biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you’re caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

    You’re trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.


    Suddenly you see a man and a woman in the water. They are fighting for their lives, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow they look familiar . you suddenly realize who they are.

    It’s Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi!! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever.

    You have two options:

    You can save their lives or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the deaths of two of the world’s most powerful people

    NOW, Here’s the question; and please give an honest answer …

    Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Shame, Shame, Shame.

    • I would pull out my iphone and switch to video.

      Just kidding, I would rescue them, so long as it didn’t appear that I would die trying. Then I would have a frank discussion about the future of the country and explain that as reward for saving their lives I wanted the opportunity to speak for one half hour, uninterrupted, to the American people on every channel with lots of advertising prior.

      • Bad Choice there USW

        You grab them by the hands and then you say…..YOU have a moral decision to make.

        Your answer will determine whether I let go.

        • I think they would drown! Oh well, it’s not that great a loss. The way the story sounds, it’s almost like their getting sucked down a toilet. Can’t think of a better place for them!


  75. Judy Sabatini says:
  76. We don’t always see things the way they are. These are fun:

  77. Buck and Matt and anyone else!

    There is no margin for error, ever, in combat. Let the people who know what they are doing, do it!


    • G-man,

      That’s a reality check for all of us. Many thanks to all the vets who have our back.

      I’ve had the opportunity to be on the USS Eisenhower in Norfolk and stayed at the Marine Corp Base in Hawaii for a week. Talk about respect for the troops! Both times I felt that true sense of patriotism and belief that we are the best country in the world. I really should have done my time back in the day. I’ll be back to Norfolk in March and back to Hawaii in December. Can’t wait!

      • Anita,

        You will never find a greater sense of Patiotism than what you see with your own eyes. Those that serve today, and those that served in the past, are the most dedicated people on this planet when freedom is at stake. Enjoy your time when you are around these people, they are the best!


  78. Sunday Funnies

    Mexican words of the day

    Cheese: The teacher told Pepito to use the word cheese in a sentence. Pepito replies: Maria likes me but cheese ugly.

    Mushroom: When all my family get in the car, there’s not mushroom.

    Herpes: Me and my friend ordered pizza. I got my piece and she got herpes.

    July: Ju told me ju were going to the store and July to me. Julyer!

    Rectum: I had 2 cars but my wife rectum!

    Chicken: I was going to go to the store with my wife but chicken go herself.

    Chicken wing: My wife plays the lottery so chicken wing.

    Bishop: My wife fell down the stairs so I had to pick the bishop.

    Budweiser: That woman over there has a nice body, budweiser face so ugly?

  79. If only, all side of the political spectrum could come together for one reason, this might be it!

  80. One of the main problems with openly homosexuals in the military is something called “command influence”. Say you have a homosexual officer or a staff NCO that has the hots for some young private or lessor rank. This individual can use his rank to force the lessor ranked individual through the intimidation of his rank to yield to his demands. In other words he can use his rank to force the young man to give in to the superiors sexual desires. Most line units would not have any respect for homosexuals and would not want to serve with them. This is what would cause a break in unit cohesion and in the end would cost lives.

%d bloggers like this: