Thanks for the opportunity to see the Republican candidates in all their naked reactionary/pandering glory and the opportunity to give a voters response.
Millers statement that DADT is "...meant to minimize or eliminate the distraction of sexual orientation in the military, and to that end, I support it." fails to acknowledge the rules regarding fraternization, (and presumably harassment) of any kind and lead me to smell a faint whiff of homophobia. It seems to me it that if those rules were adequately enforced there wound be no need to address sexual orientation. 'Nuff said.
Once again, Kelly reveals himself to be something of a dim bulb, replete with internal contradictions. I'm wondering if perhaps that is a requirement for his party; it seems to crop up nearly anytime I hear a Republican candidate open their mouth about a whole host of issues. On a more personal note here, let me clear this one up for you Jess. You don't hear about it because if harassment is brought up the serviceman doing so will get kicked out. Ya get that one, dumbass? If you "would never make the connection...but I will tell you...", don't make the connection. I can't credit you with enough intelligence to describe you as disingenuous with that statement, you're just stupid.
I give Paton slightly better marks though he can't quite reason his way beyond what amounts to little more than 'Uhhhh, I dunno' as evidenced by his inability to grasp that the current policy already hampers military readiness. But maybe 13,000 troops, over 800 mission-critical troops and over 60 translators isn't that big a deal. Maybe we should ask any serviceman who had to go on a mission without a translator how they feel. In actuality, based upon nothing more that general observations of him, I don't think he is as homophobic as his lame vague statements might lead one to believe. He is just pandering to his reactionary base, knowing that were he to actually be rational about this, he wouldn't stand a chance. He has to play dumb. Moderates are just chum in the water for his party.
Goss, in speaking for gays and lesbians with his statement, "This is not an issue for them." seems that he must be keeping some of his obviously deep wisdom from the public at large. Could he really be a mind reader? It sounds like it. Oh, but wait, maybe not, because he goes on to claim that there will be "issues" he just won't speculate about them. Or maybe he wants to keep that a secret. As far as the military not being a place for 'social experiments', he might want to be mindful of the integration of the military and the same hollow claims made by the racists that weren't in favor of that one, the only ones for whom it didn't work out for.
Goss goes on to say "There are going to be more claims of harassment." Tell me this, if 'harassment' is an issue, who is it really going to be an issue for? Those poor endangered defenseless servicemen who will be harassed by those big dangerous queers ready to sodomize their fellow soldiers at the drop of a towel? Or are you ready to leap to the defense of the currently discriminated-against gays who , under the current DADT policy, have to literally fear for their lives and careers because of real world harassment that the current policy, de-facto, validates?
I applaud Jay Quick for being the only CD8 Republican candidate who seems to be living in the real world, as opposed to the others whose vision seems to be clouded with the toxic vapors of fear and rationalizations born of their homophobia.
Should any of the first four get the nomination you can chalk one up for the forces of fear and stupidity here in the land of the free, home of the brave and feel proud that the 'world's most powerful, well educated military' is in fact afraid of "a "bunch of lacy-drawered, limp-wristed people" who were unfit to serve". If DADT is kept in place, understand that this military is unable to measure up to those military powerhouses like Lithuania and Poland, not to mention, gasp, FRANCE!
I guess we're just not as tough as those bad-asses.
Recent Comments
Millers statement that DADT is "...meant to minimize or eliminate the distraction of sexual orientation in the military, and to that end, I support it." fails to acknowledge the rules regarding fraternization, (and presumably harassment) of any kind and lead me to smell a faint whiff of homophobia. It seems to me it that if those rules were adequately enforced there wound be no need to address sexual orientation. 'Nuff said.
Once again, Kelly reveals himself to be something of a dim bulb, replete with internal contradictions. I'm wondering if perhaps that is a requirement for his party; it seems to crop up nearly anytime I hear a Republican candidate open their mouth about a whole host of issues. On a more personal note here, let me clear this one up for you Jess. You don't hear about it because if harassment is brought up the serviceman doing so will get kicked out. Ya get that one, dumbass? If you "would never make the connection...but I will tell you...", don't make the connection. I can't credit you with enough intelligence to describe you as disingenuous with that statement, you're just stupid.
I give Paton slightly better marks though he can't quite reason his way beyond what amounts to little more than 'Uhhhh, I dunno' as evidenced by his inability to grasp that the current policy already hampers military readiness. But maybe 13,000 troops, over 800 mission-critical troops and over 60 translators isn't that big a deal. Maybe we should ask any serviceman who had to go on a mission without a translator how they feel. In actuality, based upon nothing more that general observations of him, I don't think he is as homophobic as his lame vague statements might lead one to believe. He is just pandering to his reactionary base, knowing that were he to actually be rational about this, he wouldn't stand a chance. He has to play dumb. Moderates are just chum in the water for his party.
Goss, in speaking for gays and lesbians with his statement, "This is not an issue for them." seems that he must be keeping some of his obviously deep wisdom from the public at large. Could he really be a mind reader? It sounds like it. Oh, but wait, maybe not, because he goes on to claim that there will be "issues" he just won't speculate about them. Or maybe he wants to keep that a secret. As far as the military not being a place for 'social experiments', he might want to be mindful of the integration of the military and the same hollow claims made by the racists that weren't in favor of that one, the only ones for whom it didn't work out for.
Goss goes on to say "There are going to be more claims of harassment." Tell me this, if 'harassment' is an issue, who is it really going to be an issue for? Those poor endangered defenseless servicemen who will be harassed by those big dangerous queers ready to sodomize their fellow soldiers at the drop of a towel? Or are you ready to leap to the defense of the currently discriminated-against gays who , under the current DADT policy, have to literally fear for their lives and careers because of real world harassment that the current policy, de-facto, validates?
I applaud Jay Quick for being the only CD8 Republican candidate who seems to be living in the real world, as opposed to the others whose vision seems to be clouded with the toxic vapors of fear and rationalizations born of their homophobia.
Should any of the first four get the nomination you can chalk one up for the forces of fear and stupidity here in the land of the free, home of the brave and feel proud that the 'world's most powerful, well educated military' is in fact afraid of "a "bunch of lacy-drawered, limp-wristed people" who were unfit to serve". If DADT is kept in place, understand that this military is unable to measure up to those military powerhouses like Lithuania and Poland, not to mention, gasp, FRANCE!
I guess we're just not as tough as those bad-asses.