'Mom, look: ghosts!' - screamed my little boy when he was four on a playground pointing at few mothers dressed in traditional Islamic outfits. Posted on 10/21/2010 10:13:12 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
'Mom, look: ghosts!' - screamed my little boy when he was four on a playground pointing at few mothers dressed in traditional Islamic outfits.
I guess he will never work for the National Public Radio. NPR fired Juan Williams, liberal journalist and commentator, over the following remark made on O’Reilly Factor:
'I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous'.The NPR shouldn’t have disowned Juan Williams whose remark fell into the category of President Obama’s grandmother:
'I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.We should be able to discuss honestly our struggles with stereotypes without being afraid of losing our job. If we keep hiding the truth the solutions for our problems will be based on lies and most likely will not work.These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.'
I agree, but that IS NOT what BB wrote and if you read back through the thread you will see that she steadfastly REFUSED to answer a simple yes or no question (see posts 20, 26, 30, 41, 47, 67, 84). Why do you think someone would refuse to answer such a simple yes or no question?
Big Bureaucracy stated she would abide what the military decides.
Like she has a choice.
Why should she? She is dealing with the facts as they exist.
You mock that her abiding by the military decisions "as if she has a choice" at the same time accuse her of an agenda as if her disagreeing with you makes any real difference in the situation. As it stands they are allowed by condoned lying. Either let them or don't let them in is what I hear her saying. No personal opinions necessary
First the thread was hijacked because the lot of you think you found someone you could bash as being sympathetic with gays. Then pile on without regard to her valid points that DADT is bad policy.
What does any individual opinion matter except for the purpose of fueling some weird "if you aren't repulsed by gays as much as us you're no conservative" crap?
You mock that her abiding by the military decisions "as if she has a choice" at the same time accuse her of an agenda as if her disagreeing with you makes any real difference in the situation. As it stands they are allowed by condoned lying. Either let them or don't let them in is what I hear her saying. No personal opinions necessary.
Actually, I was trying to get her to answer a yes or no question.
Based on statements like the ones below I don't think I'm asking too much:
According to Congressional testimonies the US military has over a million gay veterans. Most of them served honorably.The integration of the gay men and women in the military has similar obstacles with the integration of the women: sexuality and social stereotypes. The Defense Department already has centuries of experience and knowledge about problems that may occur when men and women live, train and serve together.
We did not ban women to be openly women in the military. Thousands of them served honorably, conquering challenge after challenge and guess what: the military still maintains high moral and discipline.
American people allow gays to be treated differently in the military judging them by group stereotypes instead of individual assessment.
Gay men and women who are able and willing to serve honorably should be able to show up at the recruiting station and offer their lives to America with dignity. And America should be able to accept their sacrifice with respect.
The right question for serving in the military is not ‘Do you have legs, penis and citizenship?’, but ‘Can I entrust you with my life?’. And if in front of you is able, honorable and trustworthy human being: Give the Gay a Chance!
So, don't say that I'm "accusing her of an agenda" when her own words clearly demonstrate that she has an agenda.
First the thread was hijacked because the lot of you think you found someone you could bash as being sympathetic with gays. Then pile on without regard to her valid points that DADT is bad policy.
Her "valid points" about the DADT policy are nothing more than an attempt to push a militant homosexual agenda.
What does any individual opinion matter except for the purpose of fueling some weird "if you aren't repulsed by gays as much as us you're no conservative" crap?
I don't know why any sensible person WOULD'T be repulsed by sodomy; however, those that aren't should at least refrain from trying to push it on a conservative forum.
Here she is trying to discuss something else and it was others who brought it back up. DADT is bad policy and in this thread she is not pushing that agenda.
As for that other thread, she is in the minority and an immigrant - they don't understand volunteer military and miss the bigger issue imo.
Nope, she made her credentials an issue in post #5 when she claimed to be "very conservative."
Keep in mind that she didn't just post the other thread, she WROTE it.
Wagglebee already explained that she evaded answering whether she thought homosexuals in the military were a good thing, and her comments said it without answering directly. There is a history here of an article she posted which was pulled, in which she supported homosexuals in the military.
Many on FR and many who are not are getting fed up to here (hand way above head) with the evil homosexual agenda and will fight it with everything we’ve got.
If you have a problem with that, too bad.
You think immigrants who have lived here for more than 2 months don’t know or understand that our military is voluntary? That’s pretty insulting to immigrants. One of the reasons my DH escaped an Eastern Bloc commie controlled country was he was being inducted into the commie controlled military and he didn’t want to be ordered to fire on his fellow citizens!
So he came to America and became a US citizen as soon as he could and is angry and sorry to see his adopted country turn into a commie hell hole.
I am back. I see you don’t trust the military to evaluate people.
My point is gays are people and should be evaluated by the military like everybody else (all other people) - if there is one gay that the military evaluates to be able to serve I have no problem with him/her serving.
This is my whole point.
You don’t trust the military - I do.
Once you stop promoting the homosexual agenda you might be able to get yourself on the right path.
The homosexual agenda is ALL ABOUT big bureaucracy! Big bureaucracy imposes it, subsidizes it, promotes it, and shoves it down the throats of society...
YOU wish to be on the right path -time to shed the useful idiot brainwashing...
What do you mean by "evaluate"?
I have no doubt that there are sodomites who are able to read, pass an aptitude test, run, do sit ups and everything else that is required of someone enlisting. I don't want them in the military BECAUSE they are homosexual.
My point is gays are people and should be evaluated by the military like everybody else (all other people) - if there is one gay that the military evaluates to be able to serve I have no problem with him/her serving.
Thank you for finally admitting that you ARE pushing the homosexual agenda.
You don’t trust the military - I do.
Do I trust the leftists that Zero handpicks to rubberstamp his desire to fully sodomize the military? NO!
Thank you.
My point is, you cannot answer the question: Do you think all straight should serve in the military?
Military evaluates their applications and denies or approves them.
It should be the same process for all people.
if the military evaluates one gay to be able to serve - I am fine with it.
If somebody is willing to serve - the person should be respected.
DADT is dishonest, disrespectful policy that only dysfunctional Congress can come up with - half gay - half not gay policy.
Every other country either accepts them or does not accept them. Only we have: i don’t see what I see cowardly policy.
Do you always mis-interpret what I post for kicks?
In nations where it's mandatory everyone serves being gay is not a restriction as it has been here and with DADT still is. That is what I find many immigrants seem confuse as the issue when thy bring up how gays should be treated the same when in fact they want special treatment
‘The homosexual agenda is ALL ABOUT big bureaucracy!’
DADT is the jewel of the big bureaucracy - let’s close our eyes and pretend gays are not serving in the military.
The military has the UCMJ that already apply for everybody in the military and they already have bureaucracy in place that evaluates applications.
No problem.
I can answer that question. No.
It should be the same process for all people. if the military evaluates one gay to be able to serve - I am fine with it.
Actaully before DADT it was, all people were to be hetrosexual for one thing. I agree it is dishonest, but I don't agree that homeosexuals deserve to serve. I happen to be in the camp that it is a chosen lifestyle, therefore their choice not to serve.
Every other country either accepts them or does not accept them. Only we have: i don’t see what I see cowardly policy
I see your point here. and agree
1. It has been told to you a number of times that the military does not get to decide if DADT is repealed or not or whether mentally ill sexual perverts aka “gays” are allowed to enter the military or not.
It is up to the leftist scum in DC.
2. If you have no problem with homosexuals in the military, and you have made it crystal clear that is your POV, then if you keep repeating it over and over, your stay on FR will be thankfully short.
“You don’t trust the military - I do.”
Then you’re crazy as Hell. The real Military guys were co-opted long ago and what you have left are the “perfued princes “ticket punchers and “politicians” sucking up to the Liberal establishment running the show.
I’m speaking as a veteran.
Here are four articles that explain why homosexuals should not be in the military. Please read them and then explain why they should be allowed without the little butt-covering “if the military thinks they should” fakery. The military does not think homosexuals should be allowed to serve and they have said so repeatedly. The only ones who think they should are some higher up Perfumed Prince career guys who either have no clue or are weird themselves, and are willing to kiss administration butt to help their own careers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts
In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2608320/posts
Court Cases Reveal the Destructive Effects of Homosexual Misconduct [In the Military]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608193/posts
Homosexual Assault in the Military
‘So he came to America and became a US citizen as soon as he could and is angry and sorry to see his adopted country turn into a commie hell hole.’
You understand how I feel: I am she and I am horrified by the path to socialism America is on. Obama is speaking like my Marxism-Leninism teacher. It is maddening. I am glad the Americans are waking up to fight the evil.
During the 2008 election I was trying to explain to the people around me that ‘bottom up’, social justice, fairness is Marxist crap - nobody believed. Now folks are seeing the consequences and are listening.
I am not pushing homosexual agenda
I am pushing ‘honesty agenda’. Military is hiding behind the Congress DADT - they should step up and they should be making the decision like they do with all other people.
They can deny application if you have a tattoo on a wrong place - they should be men enough to make a decision about the gay individual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.