'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.'
ACTUALLY -not quite. What you are promoting would be the "jewel". DADT was simply the leftists getting their foot in the door -you want to throw the door open and complete the dastardly deed.
It is called INCREMENTALISM -get a clue.
When bureaucrats start dictating military criteria for readiness and personnel qualifications we have a problem. When judges start dictating to military commanders who is acceptable and has a "right" to serve we have a problem. Your position is part of the problem. Carry it out to its ultimate conclusion and the military becomes but another government job with employees beholden to bureaucrats and rights that supersede mission...
Engaging in homosexual sex is NOT a noble attribute -not an action that should premise ANY rights or benefits...
So you are saying that "straight" people and homosexual perverts are not in any way different from each other. Funny thing, pretty much the only people who use the term "straight" are homosexuals. 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.
Apparently this is what you want - homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the military as long as they can do sit-ups, read, write, etc. Now you're being a bit more honest.
If somebody is willing to serve - the person should be respected.
Why should anyone be respected just because they're willing to serve in the military? Plenty of people are not qualified to serve in the military and if they're honest and know they are not, they should not be respected? Your point is very unclear.
DADT is dishonest, disrespectful policy that only dysfunctional Congress can come up with - half gay - half not gay policy.
Clinton came up with it because the country wasn't "ready" for flagrant perversion in the military. It is disrespectful to the normal men and women in the military, correct. But that's probably not what you meant. Furthermore, having "open" homosexuals in the military will be even more disrespectful to the normal men and women, in fact, driving many of them out of the military.
Every other country either accepts them or does not accept them. Only we have: i don’t see what I see cowardly policy.
Wagglebee has said repeatedly and I agree - so what if other countries allow mentally ill sexual perverts into the military? The United States of America is a sovereign nation and only leftist scum like Judge Ginsberg (for example) want to model our country's laws and customs on other countries' leftist agendas! Read the article I posted a link to about the General testifying in front of Congress! NATO commanders told him that homosexuals in the military harm readiness and morale! Apparently you want to harm readiness and morale in the US military, just to promote the homosexual agenda.
You weren’t clear and thus my question.
I think the poster is not as naive as you think, though. Especially considering the blog she posted yesterday that was pulled.
You don’t trust our military. I believe this is much more serious problem than the gays and we should be busy discussing it.
You make a great point - are bureaucrats in the military trustworthy? The ridiculous rules of engagement in Afghanistan are much more important topic than the gays in the military.
Because if we don’t trust our military - this is a horrible problem.
If we trust our military - it would be easy to sleep while they evaluate application for service.
I sense that you disrespect the military high officials and bureaucrats as much as you distrust the politicians.
I am afraid you are expressing a sad true.
BS!
Here is what YOU WROTE in post #149:
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.
Here is what you wrote earlier in #22:
Homosexuals should be evaluated like everybody else - they apply honestly if found able to serve - they serve
You can try say it's not the homosexual agenda all you want, but that doesn't change a thing.
I am pushing ‘honesty agenda’.
The "honest agenda" would be to tell the sodomites that they have an immoral and deadly mental condition. YOUR AGENDA is to put them in the military.
Could be. I tend to think most people agree with me, they just don't know it yet ;)
With all due respect that is a homosexual agenda. Do you really not see that?
An honesty agenda, as you posted earlier, would be bring back the ban.
Homosexuals should be banned from serving. Period.
Do you agree? Yes or no.
‘The “honest agenda” would be to tell the sodomites that they have an immoral and deadly mental condition. YOUR AGENDA is to put them in the military.’
If the military wants to tell them this - it is OK with me. DADT let’s them stay in the military without investigation - showering with everybody else.
If the military comes up on December 1 with recommendation to let them go out of the closet based on the NATO experience - what will you do to stop them?
I will go with the military whatever they decide.
If the military bans the homosexuals from service I will agree.
It’s quite clear that BB wants sodomites in the military:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2611884/posts?page=143#143
‘An honesty agenda, as you posted earlier, would be bring back the ban’
If the military recommends to bring back the ban - I would agree and so should the Congress.
Okay, let’s be really clear here.
It is the President and Congress who tell the military what to do.
NOT the other way around.
Our lame president and the Congress expect a report from the military in the beginning of December with recommendation.
I believe the Congress and O should go along with the military recommendation.
But will you trust the military with whatever they recommend?
Agree or go along with? They DO NOT mean the same thing.
Are you now recanting these earlier statments you made:
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!
Will you go along with the military recommendation on the issue in December?
You would honor the decision, but would you really agree with it?
That is the meat of the discussion. Your other blog pretty clearly supports gays in the military
What choice would I have troll?
We're not talking about what the public is forced to accept, we are talking about the militant homosexual agenda that YOU and your ilk are trying to force on the American people.
If only it were so!
A couple of points to consider - currently any EU country has to allow all kinds of leftist agendas including "gay rights" even if it is not accepted or wanted by their populations; "gay pride" parades in countries such as Serbia, Poland and Russia are heavily protested and the events often or usually turn into brawls. I also don't know how many European countries (EU or not?) have universal military service. When my DH escaped from and Eastern Bloc country in the early 80's military service was mandatory and "gay rights" were unheard of; homosexuality was certainly not permitted in the military at that time. So it would be interesting to find out the current status of universal military service combined with allowing homosexuals in the military for European countries. Another point is that anyone with children in school must have emigrated here way after the USSR fell, unless they were brought here as a child.
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.