December 30, 2010

CPAC: It's Not a Schism; Social Cons Still Attending
— Gabriel Malor

I hate to do another CPAC post for the second day in a row, but instead of doing another "Year in Review" post last night, I played Civ5 and watched the OK State game. So you're getting this instead.

One thing overlooked by some, but not everyone, is that while the groups boycotting CPAC this year are socially conservative, not all socially conservative groups are boycotting CPAC. A glance at the list of participating organizations reveals many are involved, including:

The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
Americans United for Life
Conservative Party USA
Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute
Christians United for Israel
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Let Freedom Ring
Prison Fellowship

In short, social conservatives are still welcomed at CPAC. Though the Left is gleefully snickering about a conservative crack-up (when are they not?), as usual, reality looks nothing like their claims.

The other thing I want to repeat from yesterday (because I keep seeing this places): Family Research Council did not "pull out" or "quit" CPAC over GOProud, notwithstanding its protestations to WND that it has been involved "for a decade." It hasn't been involved in CPAC for a few years and, in fact, now operates a rival conference, the Values Voters Summit. Though I'm certain FRC genuinely opposes GOProud's participation at CPAC or any other conservative event, FRC wasn't going to participate this year anyway. FRC's role in the boycott appears simply to be to draw groups away from its major competitor.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:05 AM | Comments (181)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I played CIV5 and watched football too...

Posted by: Dennis at December 30, 2010 03:08 AM (rM2tW)

2 Another flame war?

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 03:09 AM (M9Ie6)

3 fuck FRC those assholes generate like 95% of the complaints the FCC gets about TV shows.

Posted by: bannor at December 30, 2010 03:10 AM (6AXh/)

4 bannor, I think you mean the PTC. I know, I know. Acronyms gone crazy.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 03:14 AM (XVaFd)

5 GOPRoud=three losers with a fax machine.

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 03:16 AM (ncA3g)

6 Hey when is CPac anyway I might show up drunk and try to crash it. I wonder what my fiance would do if she saw me try to grope Michelle Maulkin.

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 03:17 AM (ncA3g)

7 For those in search of a flame war Christine O'Donnell will be on Fox in 15 minutes to defend herself against this latest "investigation".

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 03:20 AM (M9Ie6)

8 7 She should show up and start raving about how great an actor Nicolas Cage is in his new movie, Season of the Witch.

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 03:24 AM (ncA3g)

9 oops i think you're right.

Posted by: bannor at December 30, 2010 03:26 AM (6AXh/)

10 O'Donnell is just another unfocused "conservative" so the MFM will keep her in the forefront. Bu-bye love.

Posted by: dogfish at December 30, 2010 03:28 AM (U2iIz)

11 8 7 She should show up and start raving about how great an actor Nicolas Cage is in his new movie, Season of the Witch. ----------- Couldn't be better than his performance in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Singing iguanas, panty-less crack whores and questions of profound importance like "Do fish have dreams?"

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at December 30, 2010 03:36 AM (VYIYs)

12 He was also in some dumb ass vampire movie with no vampires. He just wore fake vampire teeth and went crazy.

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 03:40 AM (ncA3g)

13 Interview taken as fast as I could type:

Formal Investigation?

 Suspicious that AP tipped off before my lawyer, me, or my campaign were notified. This is the same charge from the same CREW people associated with Biden.

Evidence of VP got investigation?

Melanie Sloan from CREW is a former Biden staffer….interrupted by Fox

Have you ever used campaign money for personal use?

No ……..too much stuff.

Fox;  Crew says they are non-partison and you used war chest to pay rent.

Set record straight two disgruntled workers filed charges. These were from 2008 for a charge in 2009 when they were not working for us. Wasn’t true in 2008 and not true in 2009.  Used a Townhall rented by campaign for living after home was vandalized. I paid the campaign for the use of the Townhouse.

Note from me: CREW has been well documented as a far left wing liberal organization that never "investigates” anyone except Republicans.

 

 

 


Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 03:41 AM (M9Ie6)

14 The real question is.. Is Civ 5 any good? (Civilization was one of those games where I could play it all day long and not realize where the time went. I would start in the morning, play straight through breakfast and lunch until evening. and not realize that I had missed them until I had hunger shakes late that night)

Posted by: Dave C at December 30, 2010 03:44 AM (Jf/AM)

15 Is Civ 5 any good?

I tried Civ 4 and my computer would barely run it. Went back to Civ 3. haven't tried Civ 5. I can no longer afford to upgrade computer just to play games.

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 03:45 AM (M9Ie6)

16 I had Civ: Test of Time.. that was good..

Posted by: Dave C at December 30, 2010 03:48 AM (Jf/AM)

17 A cynic said something about this which is I think is right. Those two groups are doing this because they think it helps their membership rolls, its a publicity stunt for their own ends. They could care less if it does harm to the conservative movement as a whole just as long as it helps their drive for more members.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 30, 2010 03:48 AM (ROQj7)

18 I believe I pretty well covered my take on the whole thing yesterday.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 03:52 AM (/G5LI)

19
Couldn't be better than his performance in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Singing iguanas, panty-less crack whores and questions of profound importance like "Do fish have dreams?"

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at December 30, 2010 08:36 AM (VYIYs)


Hey, Lay off Nicholas Cage. I actually like most of his movies. I just saw "Kick Ass" the other day, and it was a hoot!

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 03:54 AM (/G5LI)

20 Oh and BTW, she came off pretty good in that interview, although she didn't make her case very well for the Biden connection.

But then again, Fox interrupted her and didn't let her finish that part. One wonders about that since usually news people love controversy.

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 03:55 AM (M9Ie6)

21 I believe I pretty well covered my take on the whole thing yesterday.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp

You did. I don't believe that Gabe can claim as good a job covering the tenets of GOPProud, but then he never responded to anyone who made objections to repealing DADT either, so there's no surprise there.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 30, 2010 03:56 AM (1O93r)

22 On a more important note, Alyson Camarada is looking MUY BUENA Y LINDA today. Out of the FNC gals, she is one I could see myself being pals with. She just radiates cheer and good times.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:01 AM (tJjm/)

23 Oh and BTW, she came off pretty good in that interview, although she didn't make her case very well for the Biden connection.

But then again, Fox interrupted her and didn't let her finish that part. One wonders about that since usually news people love controversy.
Posted by: Vic

The fact that  someone went from being a Biden staffer directly to a group that takes aim solely at Republicans? This is the state where DA Jane Brady wasn't rehired by her boss, (state DA Oberle) after she dared challenge Biden years ago. This is what Delaware politics is like. Don't just win; kick the corpse as well. The Delaware way is quite similar to the Chicago way (except without the sales tax).

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 30, 2010 04:03 AM (1O93r)

24 12 He was also in some dumb ass vampire movie with no vampires. He just wore fake vampire teeth and went crazy. Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 08:40 AM (ncA3g) Biden?

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:08 AM (tJjm/)

25 You did. I don't believe that Gabe can claim as good a job covering the tenets of GOPProud, but then he never responded to anyone who made objections to repealing DADT either, so there's no surprise there.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 30, 2010 08:56 AM (1O93r)


I have had arguments\discussions with people for Decades. One of the most irritating aspects of this is when you Nail them dead to rights, and they simply refuse to either comprehend or acknowledge that the point you made has blown their argument completely out of the water.

You can never win an argument with someone who refuses to be reasonable.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 04:09 AM (/G5LI)

26 Not this douche troll again.

Posted by: Helen Kellers Iron at December 30, 2010 04:10 AM (SJ6/3)

27 So what's the actual tally of organizations specifically boycotting CPAC because of gay groups?  If I back out Family Research Council there's only one that I know of personally.

Posted by: CrustyB at December 30, 2010 04:11 AM (qzgbP)

28 19 Couldn't be better than his performance in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Singing iguanas, panty-less crack whores and questions of profound importance like "Do fish have dreams?" Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at December 30, 2010 08:36 AM (VYIYs) Wait! Pantyless?

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:13 AM (tJjm/)

29 The fact that  someone went from being a Biden staffer directly to a group that takes aim solely at Republicans? This is the state where DA Jane Brady wasn't rehired by her boss, (state DA Oberle) after she dared challenge Biden years ago. This is what Delaware politics is like. Don't just win; kick the corpse as well. The Delaware way is quite similar to the Chicago way (except without the sales tax).

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 30, 2010 09:03 AM (1O93r)


It is my opinion that both Delaware and Rhode Island are so puny that they ought not even be states. I think it is wrong for such a small state to wield the power of two senators, especially as they are invariably north eastern liberals. 

What would be pretty cool is if we broke California in half, and let the nuts keep the side they messed up, and let normal people run the other half. Then Break Texas into 5 separate states. We would get ten additional Republican\Conservative Senators, and it would more accurately reflect the Political Demographics of the nation as a whole.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 04:13 AM (/G5LI)

30 You buttholes stay on topic.

Are there any gameplay differences in Civ5, or is it merely better graphics and additional content?

Posted by: FUBAR at December 30, 2010 04:22 AM (McG46)

31

I have no problem with teh gays coming to CPAC.

Why wouldn't we want more votes? And more importantly, why wouldn't we conservatives want to get the point across that our party welcomes fiscally conservatives or social conservatives of any stripe. It doesn't have to be both, it can be either or.

I'm not one who thinks the Republican party should pander to minority groups by trying to buy them off. I would rather they naturally gravitate to us because they agree strongly with some or all of our ideologies.

Let's be honest, there is a stigma to being a minority Republican. Whether your Jewish, Black, or Gay, they as a group tend to be less accepting or understanding when your a Republican. Quite simply because we've let the democrats and the media paint us as bigots for such a long time. Also, let's be fair we do have a few crazy out spoken people who've helped the media and the democrats.

We need to break that stigma. We need to make it okay to be black and republican, otherwise we can continue to see them vote 90-95% Democrat every election. We need to be pre-emptive about "hispanics" specifically first and second generation. We can't let them simply become part of the democratic party fold by default.

 

Also, I know no minority group is a monolith, but if you look at voting paterns most minority groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic. We need to reverse that and if letting GoProud into CPAC is a start, then so be it.

Posted by: Ben at December 30, 2010 04:23 AM (wuv1c)

32

David Horowitz-love that man-he's the man who was right in saying years ago that "the Left is vicious while Conservatives are too gentile to fight, always giving up the battle for another day"

 

He's proven right-take a look at all the silly blue smurfs in NYC wading through piles, piles and piles of yellow snow while the Union of Lefty Tyrants stand on the sidelines demanding more tax dollars to stand around and let people die in doorways, remain trapped in subways for endless hours without heat or toilets in which to crap put their blue misery, or smashing parked cars with those blue smurf-driven shovels.

 

I love watching NYC dwindle into shear blue-smurf idiocy while knowing I'll never have to pay another fucking Manhattan City Tax again.

NYC Blue Smurfs, to pay for your fucking Free Government Health Care go suck your tax dollars from Jon Stewart's ass and be sure to smile while you swallow.

 

 

Posted by: Susan at December 30, 2010 04:28 AM (p+8kM)

33 30 You buttholes stay on topic. Are there any gameplay differences in Civ5, or is it merely better graphics and additional content? Posted by: FUBAR at December 30, 2010 09:22 AM (McG46) I think the best strategy is to wait to buy the next generation of iPad, after all the bugs have been worked out.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:30 AM (tJjm/)

34 The more the merrier.  I'm quite fond of teh gheys, especially Portia del Rossi.

As for gay outreach, how does "I want you to have the same rights as unghey Americans" sound?

Hispanic (citizen) outreach: "I want to protect your paychecks from the onslaught of illegal immigration.  And Jesus is just all right with me."

Black outreach:  "How has all that voting Democrat treated you, hmmm?  Maybe someday try something else and expect a different result."

Posted by: FUBAR at December 30, 2010 04:30 AM (McG46)

35 I love watching NYC dwindle into shear blue-smurf idiocy while knowing I'll never have to pay another fucking Manhattan City Tax again. NYC Blue Smurfs, to pay for your fucking Free Government Health Care go suck your tax dollars from Jon Stewart's ass and be sure to smile while you swallow. Posted by: Susan at December 30, 2010 09:28 AM (p+8kM) I just don't feel the love, Susan...

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:31 AM (tJjm/)

36

On a related note, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell has forced hippie journalists to come out of the closet. Leftists no longer can claim the excuse of opposing ROTC because of DADT, now they have to come out and straight up admit they just hate the military, like Colman McCarthy in the Washington Post

"ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace."

Link:

http://tinyurl.com/28data7

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at December 30, 2010 04:33 AM (b0BN0)

37

Actually, I'm really interested in this too. Civ5? How is it an improvement on Civ4?

 

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at December 30, 2010 04:34 AM (GKQDR)

38 5 GOPRoud=three two losers plus Gabriel Malor with a fax machine. Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 08:16 AM (ncA3g) FTFY In all seriousness, one reason I love AoSHQ is similar to why I love the Episcopal Church: I can't think of another church that always has at least one resident Jew. And I can't think of another conservative site with a resident gay. But I actually like it: says to me we're doing something right.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:36 AM (tJjm/)

39 Personally, I don't believe it's a particularly big deal for the Family Research Council to disassociate themselves from a conservative conference.  In many ways, the FRC is not a conservative group, because they are in favor of using government power to limit personal freedom.

Here is a quote from their issues page:

Family Research Council supports efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to increase the fines and penalties for the broadcast of indecent and profane materials, and FRC believes such restrictions should be applied to cable and satellite transmissions.

I subscribe to satellite television, and did so with the knowledge that some stations would feature programming I might find objectionable.  I don't want my kids to flip through the channels and come across MTV, so I blocked that and a few other stations using the option given to me by my satellite provider.  The FRC apparently doesn't trust my ability to do that, so they advocate a greater government role.

Then there's this:

Family Research Council will monitor judicial, statutory, and regulatory developments in this area and influence national policy to make television, radio, and cable programming appropriate for the general public.

Who decides what is appropriate programming?  The FRC?  How is this any different from Michael Bloomberg's nanny-state tendencies.  The FRC wants to empower the government to decide what is good for you to watch, and what is bad because they think you are incapable of making such decisions for yourself.  That is not limited-government conservatism.

They hold similar positions on gambling and pornography.  Although I personally find both objectionable, I do not agree with the FRC that we should give the federal government the power to ban either. 

The FRC may hold socially conservative positions on issues, but the eagerness with which they embrace government solutions is troubling.

Posted by: Slublog at December 30, 2010 04:36 AM (0nqdj)

40 34 The more the merrier. I'm quite fond of teh gheys, especially Portia del Rossi. You know, I have to say - all arguments over psychology vs. genes, DADT, and gay marriage aside - the people I've known were gay have been pretty consistently the nicest people I've ever known. It's hard to dislike a group that on a personal level tends to be so nice. All except one guy that works at our local Agway. He flames so high its a wonder the roof doesn't catch fire, but is nevertheless the most ornery little bitch I ever had the misfortune of dealing with. I call him the Cranky Homosexual.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:39 AM (tJjm/)

41 I still think gay marriage is a hill to die on.

DADT as well. Maybe with a Lesbian exclusion, since that what was this was all about (and perhaps change/remove the blackmail thing, but that was really used against dikes to get blow jobs anyways)

Posted by: Zakn at December 30, 2010 04:42 AM (zyaZ1)

42 38 Gabes a member of GOProud?

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 04:43 AM (ncA3g)

43 @42: that was a joke, son. But he may well be - why not?

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:45 AM (tJjm/)

44

still think gay marriage is a hill to die on.

DADT as well. Maybe with a Lesbian exclusion, since that what was this was all about (and perhaps change/remove the blackmail thing, but that was really used against dikes to get blow jobs anyways)

Yeah, but here's the thing. Letting gays know they are welcome in the republican party, especially if they are at least fiscally conservative, isn't going to result in gay marriage getting passed through the legislature.

There is still some 30% of the Democratic party who will vote against gay marriage initiatives and politicians who support gay marriage. Just look at the numbers everytime it is put to a referendum, even in liberal states. It always loses by a healthy majority.

 

 

Posted by: Ben at December 30, 2010 04:45 AM (wuv1c)

45

I'm with slublog. I'm not found of the "christian interest groups" who want to regulate as much as the democrats just from the right.

There is nothing wrong with most christian groups, churches or people, but there are a few out there that want to make this as much of a nanny state as the liberal do.

Posted by: Ben at December 30, 2010 04:47 AM (wuv1c)

46 41 I still think gay marriage is a hill to die on. The idea that two people of the same sex can be "married" is just too much of a stretch for me. Civil Unions, all the rights of married people, etc., sure. But marriage? I mean, why not pass a law that Daytime can be Dark, too? That hungry people can be legally considered fully fed? That 2 and 2 now legally equal 5? Nope, I just can't buy off on that. On the other hand, we're approaching the point where soon the majority of kids won't know what it means to have a married Mom and Dad, sadly. One woman in our office is bragging about how her unwed daughter is knocked up, and people are congratulating her. It's bizarre - but apparently the world we live in.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:49 AM (tJjm/)

47

"Also, I know no minority group is a monolith, but if you look at voting paterns most minority groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic. We need to reverse that and if letting GoProud into CPAC is a start, then so be it.

Posted by: Ben at December 30, 2010 09:23 AM (wuv1c)"

Problem is, looks like about half of GOProud's platforms aren't conservative.  And this objection has nothing to do with God, immorality, or any of the usual boogeymen of gay activism.

But as Diogenes and Blue Hen have already pointed out, don't expect Gabe to actually address this issue.  His intellectual defense of it amounts to "But their board is faaaabulous!".

It's nice to know I can now skip most of AoSHQ's morning content.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 04:52 AM (fLHQe)

48 Damn, harsh crowd this morning. I can tell the few here are pissed they are working today. My office is fucking empty, yet here I am.

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 04:54 AM (ncA3g)

49 Blue Hen and Burn the Witch, I wrote about the legislative priorities list. You didn't like what I wrote and give no evidence you'll ever meaningfully engage on the topic. We're going to have to simply disagree. I think GOProud's stances on free market policies, school choice, tax reform, gun rights, and national defense are conservative. You don't. There's not much more to say about it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 04:56 AM (NfIvb)

50

Social Cons Still Attending
That's too bad -- I was looking forward to the Great Republican Jism.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 30, 2010 04:56 AM (7+pP9)

51 @48: good day to cruise the porn sites, mi amigo. Just do yourself a favor and don't search for "Helen Thomas + Oral"

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 04:57 AM (tJjm/)

52

O/T but I don't care:

THE SERVER POSTS!!!  WOOHOO!!!!

that is my Christmas present to myself

Posted by: chemjeff at December 30, 2010 04:57 AM (EEnvH)

53 On the other hand, we're approaching the point where soon the majority of kids won't know what it means to have a married Mom and Dad, sadly. One woman in our office is bragging about how her unwed daughter is knocked up, and people are congratulating her. It's bizarre - but apparently the world we live in.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 09:49 AM (tJjm/)


Cut off the government money subsidizing this behavior and people won't find it so wonderful. I personally think the state should hunt down the fathers in these relationships and force them to pay for their share of the upkeep of the child.

Do any of you think this is legislating morality? Damn right it is. My point being, that ALL laws are legislated morality. Some morality NEEDS to be enforced by law. (Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, etc. )

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 05:04 AM (/G5LI)

54 So, the proliferation of conservative conferences is presented as evidence of schisms. Clever. Slightly related: most newspapers are layout exercises for AP articles. Couldn't there be a news service of articles written by hyper-amygdalants? There are enough good journalists out there. And maybe start up a real physical newspaper using them until people start noticing, "Hey, this is pretty good!"

Posted by: t-bird at December 30, 2010 05:05 AM (kho+0)

55 I think the GOP are bigots, too, Ben, just like you and the media agree so outreach is essential.

Want a pancake?

And Civ sucks. Farmville is where it's at. Nothing runs like a Caterpillar Deere!

Posted by: rachel corrie at December 30, 2010 05:05 AM (2rOwc)

56 53, I think the argument is that you can only legislate morality for those who think those laws are redundant. That is, if you don't believe in the immorality of what you're doing (e.g., drinking during the Prohibition, or anything that a liberal constituency does), you're not going to accomplish much.

Posted by: t-bird at December 30, 2010 05:09 AM (kho+0)

57 I am always suspicious of any group that claims a set of goals but doesn't seem to put any effort into specifying what they are....  the GOPRoud site is pretty short on details as far as I can tell.  Heck, Gabe, you just listed more of their conservative priorities than their about page.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 05:09 AM (c7Pp2)

58 I think the GOP are bigots, too, Ben, just like you and the media agree so outreach is essential.

yeah that's totally what I said.

Posted by: Ben at December 30, 2010 05:10 AM (wuv1c)

59 Posted by: Slublog at December 30, 2010 09:36 AM (0nqdj)

There are going to be limits to what shows up on TV, and advocating against them is not realistic.  If ABC decided to broadcast a XXX movie at 9am on a Saturday instead of cartoons, I think 98% of the population (including libertarians) would be outraged and consider it inappropriate.

So guidelines obviously can and will exist, the question is how we define them.  I have no idea what FRC consider decent or indecent, but it seems fair to me that they lobby their fellow citizens to convince them that their ideas of decency should be the standard.  Because there is going to be a standard.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 30, 2010 05:10 AM (TpXEI)

60 Do any of you think this is legislating morality? Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 10:04 AM (/G5LI) Kirsten Powers - foxy little minx that she is, btw - argued that Obamacare was a "moral obligation." Apparently, legislated morality doesn't bother liberals... as long as it's their morality.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 05:11 AM (tJjm/)

Posted by: rachel corrie at December 30, 2010 05:12 AM (2rOwc)

62 That is, if you don't believe in the immorality of what you're doing (e.g., drinking during the Prohibition, or anything that a liberal constituency does), you're not going to accomplish much. Posted by: t-bird at December 30, 2010 10:09 AM (kho+0) Well, yeah, but at least we don't have to subsidize illegitimacy. Make single mothers pay the true, full price of illegitimate birth, and we might find that keeping their panties on isn't all that hard for them, after all.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 05:13 AM (tJjm/)

63 I'm flattered, Ben, but see you later, I've got a brunch date with comrades to go to but I'm sure there'll be alot more threads like this in the days to come.

Posted by: rachel corrie at December 30, 2010 05:14 AM (2rOwc)

64 And it seems to me that the conservative mindset would lead to a preference to be discretely gay (don't confuse that with "hiding in shame"). That doesn't square with their DADT position. So their conservatism seems like the conservative-until-I-like-something-better sort of conservatism. 

We already have that in spades with Murkowski, McConnell and the other squishy bunch.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 05:15 AM (c7Pp2)

65 A $15 trillion debt with another trillion or two tacked on every year affects my life directly, tangibly, and disastrously.

Two dudes getting married doesn't affect it a goddamn iota.

So maybe the social cons could just be patient for a couple-three years until we get this ship of state off the shoals, and then they can go back to freaking out about whose dick is going where. That would be very helpful.

Posted by: schizuki at December 30, 2010 05:15 AM (M+lbD)

66 Hey when is CPac anyway I might show up drunk and try to crash it. I wonder what my fiance would do if she saw me try to grope Michelle Maulkin.

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 30, 2010 08:17 AM (ncA3g)

Your fiancee will be the least of your worries.  Don't let the Boss' diminutive size fool you; she knows how to defend herself.

Posted by: steveegg at December 30, 2010 05:15 AM (51MkX)

67

Do any of you think this is legislating morality? Damn right it is. My point being, that ALL laws are legislated morality. Some morality NEEDS to be enforced by law. (Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, etc. )

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 10:04 AM (/G5LI)

That argument has always been a strawman argument. While I agree that crimes like murder are, in fact, immoral it is only because there is an overlap between what most people consider "immoral based on religious reasons" and just things that should be a secular crime.

When people talk about social cons crying for "legislating morality" what they are talking about for the most part are the "victimless crimes". Stuff like pornography, alcohol, etc. which most religious groups find offensive and a great many, if given power, would like to outlaw (and do in some parts of the South).

My view of what should be law is a variation of the old "golden rule". Your call for laws and restrictions stops when it impinges on my right to do what I desire and live the way I want. My right to do what I desire and live the way I want stops at the boundary where it impinges on your rights to do the same.

IOW my right to indiscriminately swing my fist stops at your nose. Or perhaps a less violent argument dealing with an argument I heard on Fox a few days ago; My right to scream obscenities ends at your ears. 

(Some idiot lawyer was trying to fight against the recent laws in Philly against yelling obscenities in public on 1st amendment grounds).

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 05:16 AM (M9Ie6)

68

Heck, Gabe, you just listed more of their conservative priorities than their about page.

Suggestion: they have a legislative priorities page. And a dozen or so press releases. And a blog. Eesh.

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 05:17 AM (NfIvb)

69 they have a legislative priorities page


They don't exactly advertise it.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 05:20 AM (c7Pp2)

70 @Vic: I can remember when liberal "educators" vehemently denounced Reagan Administration efforts to have them teach American values to kids. THAT, they said, was not the role of teachers. Instead, they've spent the last 3 decades brainwashing kids without their parents' permission about everything from global warming BS to alleged American imperialism and racism. Really, they paved the way for the African Marxist in the White House.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 05:21 AM (tJjm/)

71 Kirsten Powers - foxy little minx that she is, btw - argued that Obamacare was a "moral obligation." Apparently, legislated morality doesn't bother liberals... as long as it's their morality.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 10:11 AM (tJjm/)


My Point exactly. The argument is never IF morality is going to be legislated, it is instead WHOSE morality is going to be legislated. One way or the other, Morality is going to be legislated!

ALL Laws are "legislated morality."

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 05:21 AM (/G5LI)

72

And it seems to me that the conservative mindset would lead to a preference to be discretely gay (don't confuse that with "hiding in shame"). That doesn't square with their DADT position.

Not true at all. DADT repeal isn't about being a flaming homo in the military. It's about things as simple as getting to call or send email to your loved one from deployment without fearing getting discharged.  That's not a contradiction of being "discretely gay."

DADT repeal is about getting to keep a photo of a loved one in your footlocker without fear of getting discharged.

This are simple, little things that straight Service members do without even thinking about it and which gay members live in fear about.

DADT repeal is about being able to married a loved one (in those states where it is legal), something specifically prohibited by the DADT statute.  That's not a contradiction to being "discretely gay."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 05:22 AM (NfIvb)

73  Blue Hen and Burn the Witch, I wrote about the legislative priorities list. You didn't like what I wrote and give no evidence you'll ever meaningfully engage on the topic.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 09:56 AM (NfIvb)

Oh, so you mean engaging you point by point with explanations and valid criticisms isn't meaningful? 

If you're going to troll your own blog, you should try using a sock.  If you're going to project, just go ahead and call yourself a liberal because it's seriously unbecoming when conservatives do it.

But yeah, if you're going to respond with one of these liberal troll style responses, then yeah, there's no reason "meaningful engagement".

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 05:25 AM (fLHQe)

74 DADT repeal is about being able to married a loved one (in those states where it is legal), something specifically prohibited by the DADT statute.


DOMA trumps the repeal of DADT.  No federal recognition of SSM.  And UCMJ still criminalizes sodomy.  So there you go.

Or are you saying that the repeal of DADT wasn't really about all those discharged Arabic translators but rather about advancing the civilization-killing sodomite agenda?

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 05:26 AM (s3dMx)

75 I really don't get the objection to GOProud wanting to attend CPAC. They are choosing to attend out of their own free will, something few here are going to bother to do, and they are well aware of the resistance to their presence. If they feel strongly enough that the conservative positions they do face are worth them taking the abuse they know they will, I say more power to them. It's not like we can afford to throw votes away. If they want to advocate for gay marriage or other gay positions then let them. If their arguments are persuasive enough they will get support on those issues, if they aren't, they won't. How is this evil, subversive or dangerous? Gay people aren't going away. We can either work with gay people on issues of we agree on or write them off because their are some issues of disagreement. That seems like a particularly stupid position to me.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 30, 2010 05:27 AM (TMB3S)

76 "UCMJ still criminalizes sodomy" Lieberman removed that code on 3-4 days after the repeal of DADT as well.

Posted by: bunu at December 30, 2010 05:27 AM (FbCum)

77 @72: I have a feeling that in a couple of years most of the predicted horrors of DADT won't amount to a hill of beans, and this will be a dead issue. What WILL remain, however, will be the tendency of treating gays as a Protected Minority in the same way Major Hassan was treated - that even dangerous individuals won't be a removed, for PC reasons. And I'm sure there will be a handful of militant gays with chips on their shoulders that WILL be as "flaming" as possible while in uniform. It will be interesting to see how that gets handled.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 05:27 AM (tJjm/)

78 Two dudes getting married doesn't affect it a goddamn iota.

So maybe the social cons could just be patient for a couple-three years until we get this ship of state off the shoals, and then they can go back to freaking out about whose dick is going where. That would be very helpful.

Posted by: schizuki at December 30, 2010 10:15 AM (M+lbD)


If we are going to classify this as a concern with where dicks are going, then I suppose pedophilia or beastophila is exactly the same sort of issue for you.

After all, if we're not concerned about where dicks go, then these two practices fall into this category. So tell me, is diddling animals and children just another case of "freaking out about whose dick is going where." ?

If that's all it is, then by the same logic we should just ignore it.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 05:28 AM (/G5LI)

79 I can remember when liberal "educators" vehemently denounced Reagan Administration efforts to have them teach American values to kids. THAT, they said, was not the role of teachers.

While I somewhat agree with them they were being disingenuous obviously. What they meant was they wanted their "values" taught.

I say it ISN"T the place of the school to teach family values if that is the correct term. It is the place of the parents to teach that.

The problem that has occurred since LBJ is the creation of millions of children as a form of "income". Those children are nothing more than a meal ticket and they are left to be raised by "the street". All children are born as little barbarians and must be civilized by their parents (or someone).

We have entire generations now who have never been "civilized" and we are reaping that harvest now.

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 05:30 AM (M9Ie6)

80

of topic - Name than party.

CO Democrat State congress person(D) kills a 30 year old pregnant woman with her car.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at December 30, 2010 05:31 AM (0fzsA)

81 off topic - name thaT party oi.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at December 30, 2010 05:31 AM (0fzsA)

82

What WILL remain, however, will be the tendency of treating gays as a Protected Minority in the same way Major Hassan was treated - that even dangerous individuals won't be a removed, for PC reasons. And I'm sure there will be a handful of militant gays with chips on their shoulders that WILL be as "flaming" as possible while in uniform. It will be interesting to see how that gets handled.

Your concern was shared by the DOD Working Group, the Joint Chiefs, and Sec. Gates. To that end, the working group study and the implementation plan laid out some specific requirements on these issues:

First, it was the recommendation of DOD that gays will not become a regulatory protected class like the military already has for race, religion, sex, and national origin. The working group study found that would be contrary to the very point of repealing DADT and, given how many Service members expressed concerns about it, a significant hit to unit cohesion and morale.

Second, it was the recommendation of the DOD that commanders be reminded that they already have substantial options for monitoring and punishing disruptive behavior up and down the chain of command. Similarly, standards of dress and decorum exist in all Service branches and can continue to be enforced as they always have.

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 05:36 AM (NfIvb)

83 CoolCzech, keep in mind that the military isn't stupid or deaf to these concerns. I see them repeated so often, though, that it makes me think that many commentators don't know that DOD addressed them specifically in the report.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 05:38 AM (NfIvb)

84

But yeah, if you're going to respond with one of these liberal troll style responses, then yeah, there's no reason "meaningful engagement".

I hereby respond: ....I have no idea what will please you.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 05:39 AM (NfIvb)

85

GOProud? How can they be attending anything? I thought their ranks were decimated by the repeal of DADT, when all those proud Patriots were finally allowed to fulfill their dreams of serving in the military.

Oh wait, not a single one of them actually enlisted or ever plans to? I am shocked, shocked...

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 30, 2010 05:39 AM (ON0+x)

86 76 "UCMJ still criminalizes sodomy"

Lieberman removed that code on 3-4 days after the repeal of DADT as well.


Fortunately, Joe Lieberman is not king of America.  10 U.S.C. s 925 is still good law.  Oh, of course, there will be calls for the repeal of that statute too.  But that's a tougher sell.  I mean, I guess they could use Robert Mapplethorpe's photos in the ad campaign, but, oh, yeah, the MFM never let us see those either.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 05:40 AM (s3dMx)

87

70 @Vic: I can remember when liberal "educators" vehemently denounced Reagan Administration efforts to have them teach American values to kids. THAT, they said, was not the role of teachers.

Instead, they've spent the last 3 decades brainwashing kids without their parents' permission about everything from global warming BS to alleged American imperialism and racism. Really, they paved the way for the African Marxist in the White House.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 10:21 AM (tJjm/)

And that's why I can't be a libertarian.

The most lethal arrow in the liberals' quiver is probably the Gramscian one. Giving up on social issues results in the undermining of the foundations of social order. In a few generations wrong is right and bad is good. If you just let it go unchallenged, in the end there will only be chaos.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 30, 2010 05:41 AM (7+pP9)

88 The GOP is dead, they just don't know it yet.

Posted by: pam at December 30, 2010 05:41 AM (uDwml)

89 Day two of the Epic Fundamentalist vs the Ghey Menace.

I wager 40 quatloos on the newcomer.

Posted by: toby928 at December 30, 2010 05:43 AM (S5YRY)

90 I know! Let's fight each other, not the real enemy.

Posted by: USS Diversity at December 30, 2010 05:44 AM (DLxD/)

91

"It's about things as simple as getting to call or send email to your loved one from deployment without fearing getting discharged.

DADT repeal is about getting to keep a photo of a loved one in your footlocker without fear of getting discharged."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:22 AM (NfIvb)

Yeah, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.  On the high side, there must've been tens of people discharged for these two examples you cite.

DADT repeal is about pushing the Gay Agenda and creating another protected class in which membership crtietrion is a simple declaration.  This emotional heartstring argument is utter crap.  I find it hard to believe you actually believe your own bullshit there. 

"DADT repeal is about being able to married a loved one (in those states where it is legal), something specifically prohibited by the DADT statute.  That's not a contradiction to being "discretely gay.""

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:22 AM (NfIvb)

Are you fucking serious?  Being married in the military is very public.  So you're cool with gay servicepersonnel being married in states where it's legal, but where it's not...what...what happens?  They get divorced when they get transferred?  Because we all know they aren't going to receive protected class status and be limited to service in gay friendly states.

Oh wait, this is about gay marriage isn't it?  Couldn't see that one coming.  Oh, so DADT repeal is about pushing the Gay Agenda isn't it?  At least come all the way out and admit that instead of these bullshit arguments.

It's sort of like GOProud - they identify as Gay first and their platforms center on getting shit for the Gay Community.  Just be honest for fuck's sake.  But dear lord don't call you guys out on that, heavens no!

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 05:44 AM (fLHQe)

92

I hereby respond: ....I have no idea what will please you.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:39 AM (NfIvb)

You went to law school I presume?  May I also presume you know how to argue?  Something like: when met by reasonable criticism of your position by more than one person, then take the time and effort to craft a reasonable response instead of saying "But their board members are like soooo kewl!"

Something to that effect.  YMMV

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 05:47 AM (fLHQe)

93 Well, if you want to talk practical politics: there are no votes for the ghey issues.  SSM has been a loser in every election in the country.

OTOH, social conservatives have delivered winning pols in elections starting in 1972 for Nixon against McGovern's "amnesty, abortion, and acid."

So if you want to defeat the left, how about listening to the socons and telling the gheys to STFU?!


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 05:48 AM (s3dMx)

94 Second, it was the recommendation of the DOD that commanders be reminded that they already have substantial options for monitoring and punishing disruptive behavior up and down the chain of command.

If this is true why was Major Nidal Hasan still in the military at the time of his rampage.  More than one person noticed his 'keel my lanlord' mutterings and each was paralyzed by diversity worship.

Posted by: Adriane at December 30, 2010 05:49 AM (dIik4)

95

That argument has always been a strawman argument. While I agree that crimes like murder are, in fact, immoral it is only because there is an overlap between what most people consider "immoral based on religious reasons" and just things that should be a secular crime.

When people talk about social cons crying for "legislating morality" what they are talking about for the most part are the "victimless crimes". Stuff like pornography, alcohol, etc. which most religious groups find offensive and a great many, if given power, would like to outlaw (and do in some parts of the South).

My view of what should be law is a variation of the old "golden rule". Your call for laws and restrictions stops when it impinges on my right to do what I desire and live the way I want. My right to do what I desire and live the way I want stops at the boundary where it impinges on your rights to do the same.

IOW my right to indiscriminately swing my fist stops at your nose. Or perhaps a less violent argument dealing with an argument I heard on Fox a few days ago; My right to scream obscenities ends at your ears. 

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 10:16 AM (M9Ie6)


I argue with Libertarians all the time. A Favorite topic is Drug usage. They argue that this is a "Victimless Crime." It is not. It is in that catagory of behavior that the Victims are not immediate and obvious, but there exists victims none the less.

Some of my Libertarian friends believe that all drugs should be legal for anyone that wants to use them, and they cite alcohol as an example of a widely used drug. The notion that Alcohol kills 60,000 people per year and that other drugs have far worse characteristics is simply in their mind the cost of doing business.

I point out that in 1900, China had some provinces with an 85% Opium addiction rate among the male population. Decades later China was still dealing with the ramifications of widespread opium addiction, and I am firmly convinced that it played a significant role in the ease with which the much smaller Japanese nation managed to roll up China's defenses like an old rug.

Drugs, (and i'm settling on this particular topic of "Legislated Morality" because it would take too long to explore all the other examples such as sexual promiscuity, etc.) have the potential to become a threat to the survival of a nation if the libertarian mind set were to prevail. Drugs are like an infection that easily spreads from one individual to another and destroys their ability to be productive and survive. Infect enough, and the entire Nation becomes a victim unable to defend itself. 

Again, Not obvious, but victims non the less.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 05:49 AM (/G5LI)

96 That is, if you don't believe in the immorality of what you're doing (e.g., drinking during the Prohibition, or anything that a liberal constituency does), you're not going to accomplish much.

Posted by: t-bird at December 30, 2010 10:09 AM (kho+0)

I have to say I agree with you.

I mean what's with these laws that you can't just grope somebody? I was the president! And come on, what's the point in being an executive if you can't ask the peons to kiss it?

Posted by: Bill Clinton at December 30, 2010 05:50 AM (7BU4a)

97

10 U.S.C. s 925 is still good law.  Oh, of course, there will be calls for the repeal of that statute too.  But that's a tougher sell.

Actually, that was also part of the DOD implementation recommendations, partly because of DADT repeal, but mostly because the sodomy ban is already unconstitutional and unenforceable under Lawrence v. Texas. You would, of course, know this if you bothered to pay attention to the DOD on this issue rather than, I would guess, the FRC or the AFA.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 05:50 AM (NfIvb)

98 OT: President Jackwagon has again prolonged his departure from Namby-Pamby Land in order to spend more time with his family. ?? Because Michelle isn't going to fly back? You live in the same house- how much more family time do you need?

Posted by: t-bird at December 30, 2010 05:50 AM (kho+0)

99 I see them repeated so often, though, that it makes me think that many commentators don't know that DOD addressed them specifically in the report.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:38 AM (NfIvb)

Oh well there ya have it!  The problem was addressed in a report guys.  All fixed now.

All that's left to do is to put the finishing touches on the powerpoint slides and this whole thing will be over by the New Year!

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 05:50 AM (fLHQe)

100 Elton John recently had a healthy baby boy (in case you're looking for other thread ideas). 

Posted by: pitythefool at December 30, 2010 05:51 AM (BjQSh)

101 If this is true why was Major Nidal Hasan still in the military at the time of his rampage.  More than one person noticed his 'keel my lanlord' mutterings and each was paralyzed by diversity worship.

Posted by: Adriane at December 30, 2010 10:49 AM (dIik4)

Well, you know the real worry is if we let these occasional mass murders distract us from the importance of diversity.

Posted by: DOD Bureaucracy that will be administering DADT repeal at December 30, 2010 05:52 AM (7BU4a)

102 Here's my take. The members of GopProud support issues that don't require them to profess their sexual preferences in order to make their case. The only issue which would seem to be supported by professing their sexual preference is an issue which is contrary to the Republican platform and contrary to the morals of the majority of conservatives. I think a modified DADT is appropriate for conservative politics.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at December 30, 2010 05:52 AM (2oefE)

103 mostly because the sodomy ban is already unconstitutional and unenforceable under Lawrence v. Texas.

Is that actually true? There are plenty of rights that the courts have no problem with the military denying.


Posted by: 18-1 at December 30, 2010 05:54 AM (7BU4a)

104

we went thur this all yesterday. but just to summarize:

 

go to hell CPAC!

Posted by: Shoey at December 30, 2010 05:55 AM (ehKDD)

105 OTOH, social conservatives have delivered winning pols in elections starting in 1972 for Nixon against McGovern's "amnesty, abortion, and acid."

Not only are so-cons the largest bloc in the conservative movement, they are also traditionally the only group that feels motivated to actually help out with actual activism type leg work...


Posted by: 18-1 at December 30, 2010 05:56 AM (7BU4a)

106 37

Actually, I'm really interested in this too. Civ5? How is it an improvement on Civ4?

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at December 30, 2010 09:34 AM (GKQDR)

The problem with it is you can't ever win. Whenever you get close, an AI opponent gets Cam Newton and you're doomed.

Posted by: Josef K. loves to pick at scabs at December 30, 2010 05:58 AM (7+pP9)

107

First, it was the recommendation of DOD that gays will not become a regulatory protected class like the military already has for race, religion, sex, and national origin. The working group study found that would be contrary to the very point of repealing DADT and, given how many Service members expressed concerns about it, a significant hit to unit cohesion and morale.

Second, it was the recommendation of the DOD that commanders be reminded that they already have substantial options for monitoring and punishing disruptive behavior up and down the chain of command. Similarly, standards of dress and decorum exist in all Service branches and can continue to be enforced as they always have.

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:36 AM (NfIvb)


Oh, well if it's been RECOMMENDED then that changes everything! Obviously no one is going to ignore a RECOMMENDATION! 

If only they had RECOMMENDED that Muslims not be treated any different from ordinary Military personnel than Major Husan might not have been ignored for so long out of fear of his special status.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 05:58 AM (/G5LI)

108 100 Elton John recently had a healthy baby boy (in case you're looking for other thread ideas). Posted by: pitythefool at December 30, 2010 10:51 AM (BjQSh) Caesarian?

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 30, 2010 05:59 AM (tJjm/)

109

DADT repeal is about getting to keep a photo of a loved one in your footlocker without fear of getting discharged.

I see no reason why they couldn't keep a photo now.  Unless they trimmed it to the shape of a heart, left a giant lipstick kiss on the front, framed it in sequins and pinned it to their IBV, the presence of a photo of another dude would very likely go completely unremarked, and then they'd bump against the DA part of DADT.

Essentially what you are saying is that this is about protecting against imagined and paranoid fantasies of anti-gay military gestapo secret agent squads rooting out anything vaguely not explicitly hetero-sexual.

DADT repeal is about being able to married a loved one (in those states where it is legal), something specifically prohibited by the DADT statute.  That's not a contradiction to being "discretely gay."

Exactly what does DADT have to do with marriage? I mean, I can come up with my own logical conclusion (drawn by others before me), but I'd love to hear you say that this was all an attempt to create grounds to repeal DOMA in the courts, even if you have to use the military as the under-the-bus sacrificial lamb.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 05:59 AM (c7Pp2)

110 First, it was the recommendation of DOD that gays will not become a regulatory protected class like the military already has for race, religion, sex, and national origin.


Which will stay in effect for about 15 minutes after that first liberal judge gets a hold of a case on it. Everyone in the military is now afraid of the courts.

This is the worst part of how the repeal was done. It was entirely political and a study was trumped up to support it. All the military leaders are on record as having done this in fear of the courts. The fear of the courts tactic used to be gold for politicians but not anymore. People now want these issues fully litigated.  They are really sick and tired of the gray areas. Now these shit ass lower decisions are on the books and will be used to get even more ludicrous cases before a liberal judge.

Does anyone really believe for a second SCOTUS  was going to force the military to do shit about personnel issues? Bullshit.







Posted by: Rocks at December 30, 2010 06:00 AM (Q1lie)

111 f only they had RECOMMENDED that Muslims not be treated any different from ordinary Military personnel than Major Husan might not have been ignored for so long out of fear of his special status. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 10:58 AM (/G5LI) Nobody ignored Hassan. EVERYBODY who came in contact with him knew he was substandard and a wacko security risk. But EVERBODY was chiken shit scared to do anything about it. And from I have seen, nothing much has changed

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 30, 2010 06:02 AM (0GFWk)

112 Sodomy? No problem!

Posted by: The Royal Navy at December 30, 2010 06:02 AM (DLxD/)

113 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:22 AM (NfIvb)

DADT is about the military now being totally unable to EVER create a group for which internal sexual attractions can be assumed to be about zero. 

I asked you this before, but you refused to acknowledge the simple truth;

Can you admit that one of the clear QUALITATIVE differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals is that heterosexuals are the ONLY ones who are able to be broken into non-sexual subgroups (all male or all female).  Homosexual groups (larger than 3 people) can NEVER be formed in which sexual tensions will not be a considerable issue and must be accounted for and dealt with.

This is one example of a basic, substantive and qualitative difference between gays and straights.  I would like to hear you at least admit to this and let us know that you understand that, because of this dynamic, gay groups and straight groups are incomparable.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 30, 2010 06:03 AM (G/MYk)

114

10 U.S.C. s 925 is still good law.  Oh, of course, there will be calls for the repeal of that statute too.  But that's a tougher sell.

Actually, that was also part of the DOD implementation recommendations, partly because of DADT repeal, but mostly because the sodomy ban is already unconstitutional and unenforceable under Lawrence v. Texas. You would, of course, know this if you bothered to pay attention to the DOD on this issue rather than, I would guess, the FRC or the AFA.


(1) It's not at all clear that Lawrence strikes down the UCMJ--the statutes in question are easily distinguishable on a half dozen grounds.

(2) Whatever the DOD has recommended, you might remember from law school that it will take an act of Congress to change the UCMJ.  And guess what?  There's no way such an act passes the House in the next 2 years.

(3) So I was right: the repeal of DADT wasn't about a few brave queer soldiers.  It was about defining deviancy down and enforcing acceptance of open sodomitism.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 06:03 AM (s3dMx)

115

Oh well there ya have it!  The problem was addressed in a report guys.  All fixed now.

You guys act like DOD hasn't even considered this stuff, when in fact they have. How many times have we seen here in comments that DADT repeal means everything goes back to the old rules whereby all gays were summarily discharged, as if -- like idiots -- the DOD working group and, well, everybody missed that "obvious" result. Just as folks keep raising the UCMJ (as if proving alleged criminal activity in a military court is the same thing as filling out discharge paperwork under DADT).

The answer is: nobody missed this stuff. It was all part of the rather thorough process that led to the DADT repeal legislation.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 06:03 AM (NfIvb)

116 Similarly, standards of dress and decorum exist in all Service branches and can continue to be enforced as they always have.

Commander's Policy Memorandum #1

Don't be Ghey.

original signed

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 06:05 AM (c7Pp2)

117

Not only are so-cons the largest bloc in the conservative movement, they are also traditionally the only group that feels motivated to actually help out with actual activism type leg work...

Well, it's a good thing then that social cons will still be represented and welcome at CPAC. Y'know, the point of this post?

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 06:07 AM (NfIvb)

118 83 CoolCzech, keep in mind that the military isn't stupid or deaf to these concerns. I see them repeated so often, though, that it makes me think that many commentators don't know that DOD addressed them specifically in the report.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:38 AM (NfIvb)


Hell, we can't even deal with WOMEN in the military, let alone a third or forth additional sex.

My Nephew Left a career as a Nuclear Power Plant operator aboard an Attack Sub because he felt the Navy was seriously screwed up. He Joined the Marine corps because he felt they were a more appropriate expression of how he felt about being a warrior.

He said the women in boot camp (Where he had more seniority than his Drill instructor! ) were utterly useless. He told me time and again how they not only couldn't meet the physical requirements, but how they would whine and carp all the time about how hard the requirements were. He mentions that on one hike, two of the female recruits couldn't even carry their own packs, and the Drill instructor ended up carrying BOTH of their packs for them! When they got to the campsite they were hiking to, both of them opined long and loud about how they were going to complain to the CO when they got back to the base.

His opinion? Women are utterly fucking useless in a marine combat situation. Not only are they useless, they are a detriment to the readiness of the rest of the Marines.

Why did they get away with acting like children while the Male marines had to hump or get punished? The Drill Sargent, the CO, and everyone in the chain of command was utterly terrified of washing them out. They had Quotas to meet you understand, and not being good enough for the Marines was no excuse to wash them out under the Clinton Administration!

So tell me again how this stuff is going to work out in practice?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 06:07 AM (/G5LI)

119 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 10:49 AM (/G5LI)

Drug abuse IS a victimless crime. Any "victims" we have are the ones created by the laws. Sure the user eventually either straightens out or dies but I don't consider them a victim. They are just stupid and get what they deserve.

The public the victim of having to pay for medical care etc for drug abusers? They are the victim of bad welfare laws.

Drug abuser's wife and children victims? They are the victim of getting married to a drug abuser or not leaving them at the first signs.

As for the 85% population being addicted to opium I throw the BS flag there. In fact I throw the BS flag all statistics.

If we decriminalized all drug laws (something the congress is not authorized to do anyway) AND eliminated any support services for druggies, the drug problem would solve itself. The druggies would either all fix themselves are be dead. 

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 06:08 AM (M9Ie6)

120 CivV is a beautiful and buggy game. You will need a beefy computer with powerful graphics card to play the game properly. The game locks up on large maps when scrolling through units, which is frustrating as hell. For my money CivIV is much more playable.

Posted by: GaryM at December 30, 2010 06:10 AM (/s9Ci)

121 DADT is NOT about gays serving in the military. Even gay activists say there are tens of thousands of gays serving. Its about gay marriage. The lawsuits are ALREADY IN MOTION about partner benefits. What about a soldier married legally in Massachusetts to a same sex spouse - what happens when they transfer to North Carolina? This will create an automatic Federal recognition of marriages despite DOMA. Personally I am for gay marriage - why should only straights suffer? - but that it needs to be done through the democratic process. The courts will rule on this thing and there will be no choices - no chance for the people to decide. And another social wedge issue to distort politics for the next 40 years.

Posted by: blaster at December 30, 2010 06:10 AM (MrMxG)

122 I see them repeated so often, though, that it makes me think that many commentators don't know that DOD addressed them specifically in the report.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 10:38 AM (NfIvb)

No one trusts the idiots in the military who are nothing but PC bitches.  After all, Gen. George Casey's first reaction to a jihadi in our military shooting up Ft. Hood was,

"What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."

No one with a brain trusts insane idiots like that. 

Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 30, 2010 06:10 AM (G/MYk)

123 Nobody ignored Hassan. EVERYBODY who came in contact with him knew he was substandard and a wacko security risk. But EVERBODY was chiken shit scared to do anything about it. And from I have seen, nothing much has changed

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 30, 2010 11:02 AM (0GFWk)


Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle. You are making my point exactly. People are AFRAID of dealing with people of "Special status."

I know of someone who worked for a government agency. She was a complete screw up. Couldn't do anything right whatsoever. She was never disciplined, and was in fact promoted. She was a "Twofer". Female AND Black. Her supervisors were terrified of offending her, and as a result she got away with all sorts of insubordination and incompetence. She eventually retired.

It's just that simple. It doesn't make any difference what the law or rule actually says, you give someone a "special status" and they will be treated as though they have a "special status." 

Hasan was just an example of this phenomena.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 06:17 AM (/G5LI)

124

"What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."

Should have been immediately cashiered for that but he probably got a fucking Silver Star.

Think this country would win another big hot war?

Posted by: USS Diversity at December 30, 2010 06:19 AM (DLxD/)

125
I played Civ5

Watch out for those pesky Romans. Unless you are the pesky Romans?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at December 30, 2010 06:19 AM (BDH94)

126 Well, it's a good thing then that social cons will still be represented and welcome at CPAC. Y'know, the point of this post?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 11:07 AM (NfIvb)

And that's not what was being referred to in my post...was it? 

Some people, on this site no less, have called for kicking so-cons out of the conservative tent and this specific discussion was about the merits of doing so.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 30, 2010 06:21 AM (7BU4a)

127

The answer is: nobody missed this stuff. It was all part of the rather thorough process that led to the DADT repeal legislation.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 11:03 AM (NfIvb)


If you mean they "thought about it", then that is no doubt true. If you also mean that they convinced themselves that it would not be a problem, that is also no doubt true.

If you mean that there will in fact be no problem, that is entirely wishful thinking on behalf of people who want something to be true without knowing for certain that it will be true.

They are rolling the dice and hoping it doesn't affect their own personal career or reputation.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 06:21 AM (/G5LI)

128 Personally I am for gay marriage - why should only straights suffer?



That's a funny line, but it also goes exactly to the heart of this question.  Marriage is about the reconciliation of the sexes for the procreation and education of children.  Reconciliation--because there are real differences between them.  That's why marriage is sometimes difficult and a struggle and why married people sometimes "suffer" at their own hands.

When you subtract the reconciliatory aspect, you automatically subtract the procreative aspect, and what's left?  An "agreement" between two adults to do, what, live together until such time as they don't want to live together?  Lifelong monogamy?  The coffin for that was built with no-fault divorce, but the nail is the new calls for a different understanding of monogamy, forged along ghey lines, you know, where the partners aren't really sexually exclusive.

So, if you're really in favor of SSM, then what you're really in favor of is the destruction of marriage altogether.  That's been a position of libertines and free-lovers for centuries.  But at least have the honesty to come out and own that position.




Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 06:21 AM (s3dMx)

129 "Family" values are the family's.

Schools respected family values while 50 years ago schools did teach civic responsibilities and expected students to respect authority. We grew up reading and learning vocabulary (meaning intact) within the US Constitution since Grade 4 in order to appreciate our Pledge of Allegiance, and what our parents and ancestors fought for and sacrificed in order to protect, for us to abide and pass along. 

Better for "education" to stick to requiring responsibility from each student to study and learn lessons on time; imo: reading and writing, physical exercise and sports, mental calculation without gadgets, memorization via repetitive practical use, listening and singing, history.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 30, 2010 06:21 AM (H+LJc)

130 Its about gay marriage. The lawsuits are ALREADY IN MOTION about partner benefits. What about a soldier married legally in Massachusetts to a same sex spouse - what happens when they transfer to North Carolina?

This will create an automatic Federal recognition of marriages despite DOMA.
Posted by: blaster at December 30, 2010 11:10 AM (MrMxG)


Actually it won't. What will happen in such a case? Nothing. The gay couple in Mass gets no recognition from the federal government now so there is no reason to do it for ones in the military no matter where they get transferred. Those in civil unions don't get any either.

Although that will surely get added to the cases working their way to SCOTUS.

Of all the cases working their way to SCOTUS the one that will surely get tossed, or ignored for better arguments, is the Mass case trying to suggest the Feds need to do recognize their marriages because the states determine that. It's not going to happen. The idea that the states alone determine who is married is garbage. In their own state fine but the feds can do what they like as long as they do it for every state and SCOTUS sure as hell is not going to lay down a precedent which says any different.

Posted by: Rocks at December 30, 2010 06:23 AM (Q1lie)

131

The problem I have with DADT repeal is the sensitivity training. Anyone who has been in the service (at least at the time I served) knows that sensitivity training doesn't mean what you think it means. What it means is that you will be learning a whole new set of do's and dont's, mostly don'ts and if you violate the rules you will get reprimanded.

It has a tendency to create self segregation and that is a bad thing. Gays will be serving openly now, it's the law. IMO they should just serve like the majority with no special classes and now special treatment. If you can use the stereotype of joking with a southerner about marrying his cousin you can use the gay stereotypes. You won't be able to though.

Posted by: robtr at December 30, 2010 06:23 AM (hVDig)

132

Drug abuse IS a victimless crime. Any "victims" we have are the ones created by the laws. Sure the user eventually either straightens out or dies but I don't consider them a victim. They are just stupid and get what they deserve.

The public the victim of having to pay for medical care etc for drug abusers? They are the victim of bad welfare laws.

What about the family of four killed after being T-boned by an impaired driver?

Are they victims?

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 30, 2010 06:23 AM (7+pP9)

133 On, and Gabe, can you address the Hasan question?

You've put a lot of faith in the DOD bureaucracy in faithfully implementing this repeal in the best way for our actual fighting forces.

We've seen the opposite with how the military handled Islamism, where they allowed PC concerns to complete crowd out real security concerns, and even when one of these favored Islamists went on a shooting spree acted as if the real concern was people might draw a negative view on "diversity".

Do you truly have faith that the same people will NOT act the same way when it comes to implementing the DADT repeal? And if so, *why* do you think it will be different this time?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 30, 2010 06:25 AM (7BU4a)

134

You guys act like DOD hasn't even considered this stuff, when in fact they have.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 11:03 AM (NfIvb)

And you act like you know something about the military lifestyle, when in fact you clearly don't.

A government department was ordered to craft a report that supported a conclucion they were ordered to have.  Do you not see yet another obvious truth?

What The DoD Report™ has effectively done is wish away any justification for separating opposite sexes in billeting and hygeine arrangements.  But do you think they're going to start rooming men and women together and having them shower together at the same time?  Of course they're not.  For what should be obvious reasons.  

But now they're saying that homosexuals must somehow be immune from the sexual tension that exists between opposing sexes which is detrimental to good order and discipline and unit cohesion.  We all know this to be a lie (including you Malor), but by golly The DoD Report™ said so, so it must be true!!

And here you have the first inklings of the new Protected Class.  Gays are somehow different.  If you knew the first thing about the military, you'd know that quotas for promotion and retention were not factored into previous DoD Reports™, yet somehow, someway, for some like totally unforseeable reason, we have them now. 

But yeah, you go on publicly stating this is about pictures in footlockers and phonecalls home. (When you know it's not)

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 06:26 AM (fLHQe)

135

What about the family of four killed after being T-boned by an impaired driver?

Are they victims?

We already have rather substantial penalties for manslaughter/murder.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 06:26 AM (NfIvb)

136 Implementing the repeal of DADT will require appropriated funds. So, the next 'Pub congress gets the opportunity to direct those funds. Lets try out the "study" recommendations in a few unit/organizations and evaluate the results.

Posted by: Jean at December 30, 2010 06:27 AM (judfL)

137

What about the family of four killed after being T-boned by an impaired driver?

Are they victims?

We already have rather substantial penalties for manslaughter/murder.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 11:26 AM (NfIvb)

That doesn't bring those killed by an impaired driver back to life.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 30, 2010 06:28 AM (7+pP9)

138 Questioning whether social conservatives are themselves elitist regarding "family values" would depend upon meaning and application. Basically, teaching children to be responsible, productive and economically self sufficient while respecting "true love" for adult fulfillment seems a plateful.

On elitism, Hollywood takes the cake having exploited the existence of group think without noting it simply a part of human nature to be overcome through logic. It wasn't as if the Constitution ever lynched someone unjustly. But never let the truth get in the way of a story for profit and shock "value"--never squandering a crisis, always promoting catastrophe, blaming the "conservative" for liberal faults.

Propaganda mis-characterized civic responsibilities as overt expressions of "hate crimes" (ex: the sole motivation to bear judicial witness of a crime would be based upon bigotry; deny the record via revisionism, including unconstitutional dismissal of charges and guilty verdicts).  Corruption in the judicial system bends over backwards in repeated miscarriages of justice in order to institute "social justice".

As if either liberal socialists or social conservatives hold the monopoly on group think. Authoritarians of all sorts made it proper to spy and report on neighbor and family member for thinking independently, so far as we're concerned respecting the US Constitution. (That organized religious orders or ideological sects would do the same respecting their own dogmas is a tendency to avoid carrying over at least into governmental politics.)

What is significant now? America experiences a separation of citizenry from government via authoritarian subjugation of the masses in complete denial of the Constitution.  And that premise is illegitimate, conservatives rejecting the progressive dismissal of the Constitution. Conservatives uphold the Constitution's sole legitimate supremacy, the separation and balance of governing powers tending to temper mob mentality. And all begins at home in the family.

Meanwhile, many young adults avoid marriage, and if married and well educated, avoid pregnancy and child rearing. But that's a private matter.





Posted by: maverick muse at December 30, 2010 06:33 AM (H+LJc)

139 Leo don't pretend to know what's in my head. This is the top snarkiest blog on the intertubes or something like that. I have a pretty nuanced view of SSM. The alternative solution offered for gays is "civil unions" which to me is even more destructive, because it will have all of the rights etc. of marriage without being called marriage. And you'll see civil unions move out of the SS word - where did I see that happening? Something linked from Instapundit I think, about France? Creating a situation just like marriage while not calling it marriage sounds like a dishonest solution to me. And there is no way that creating "civil unions" can be kept just to the homosexual community. Here is where DADT is about SSM - if they just create "civil unions" then how can they possibly deny the same benefits to unmarried straights? Why can't Private Snuffy get his girlfriend on post to shop at the PX, or get medical care at the hospital? The snark of why should only straights suffer holds a kernel of truth. With "rights" come responsibilities, and when you look at the places where gays are allowed to marry, aside from the first day, it isn't like they are lining up to get married. Why is that?

Posted by: blaster at December 30, 2010 06:35 AM (MrMxG)

140 If we decriminalized all drug laws (something the congress is not authorized to do anyway) AND eliminated any support services for druggies, the drug problem would solve itself. The druggies would either all fix themselves are be dead. 

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 11:08 AM (M9Ie6)


I don't have time to rebut your points. I've personally known people who died from drugs. I've known dozens of others who wrecked their lives on drugs.

Suffice it to say, drugs short circuit physiological processes. They activate the pleasure responses in the brain. Getting people to respond sensibly under the influence of drugs is like trying to have an intelligent conversation with them during sexual climax.

Drugs remove the ability for people to make rational decisions for themselves, and for some the addiction is instant.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 06:36 AM (/G5LI)

141 Drugs remove the ability for people to make rational decisions for themselves, and for some the addiction is instant.

Being near the tail-end of a long string of boomers, my WWII vet dad's simplistic advice for us growing up was that if you never start, you never have to quit.

Posted by: maverick muse at December 30, 2010 06:39 AM (H+LJc)

142 Personally I am for gay marriage - why should only straights suffer? - but that it needs to be done through the democratic process. The courts will rule on this thing and there will be no choices - no chance for the people to decide.


And another social wedge issue to distort politics for the next 40 years.

Posted by: blaster at December 30, 2010 11:10 AM (MrMxG)


I look at "Gay" Marriage in the same manner I would regard someone who adopted a chimpanzee and tried to pretend it was their offspring.

It isn't, it's abnormal, and indicative of some sort of serious underlying psychological problem. 


Why anyone would want to humor people in this regard is beyond me, but to codify it in law? Just more evidence this nation has lost it's fucking mind.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 06:39 AM (/G5LI)

143 Gabe, you're right on. Anyone with five minutes of familiarity with GOProud could tell you that they are a true right thinking group. The shrillest critics here would be surprised to learn they agree with GOProud on more issues that many of the other CPAC attendees - I'm talking real gay conservatives not your imagined boogiemen.

Posted by: MFS at December 30, 2010 06:39 AM (c0XHa)

144 CPAC: It's Not a Schism, it's a G*d damn arms race.

Posted by: Fully Out Boy at December 30, 2010 06:41 AM (Q1lie)

145 What about the family of four killed after being T-boned by an impaired driver?

That is a secular crime, just as the family of 4 killed by a drunk driver or a cell phone talking idiot.

Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 06:43 AM (M9Ie6)

146 If we decriminalized all drug laws (something the congress is not authorized to do anyway) AND eliminated any support services for druggies, the drug problem would solve itself. The druggies would either all fix themselves are be dead. 
Posted by: Vic at December 30, 2010 11:08 AM (M9Ie6



This reminds me of my Dad's famous solution for the drug problem. This from a guy who was an alcoholic mind you. He said:

" Listen you take all the drug addicts and give them all the drugs they want, but put poison in it. TELL them it's poisoned. It won't matter, they're drug addicts. They'll take it anyway. No more drug addicts. "

Posted by: Fully Out Boy at December 30, 2010 06:45 AM (Q1lie)

147 The alternative solution offered for gays is "civil unions" which to me is even more destructive, because it will have all of the rights etc. of marriage without being called marriage.


Oh, I oppose "civil unions" as well.  Not merely on the grounds that they will bleed over, as you suggest, but because it's a completely empty distinction.  Since we don't have a state church and no requirement that couples be married in a religious ceremony, I don't know what "marriages" are in the eyes of the government other than "civil unions."  It's simply marriage by another name.

The true alternative is that we don't give any special legal recognition to any relationships other than traditional monogamous marriage.  Q.E.D.


The snark of why should only straights suffer holds a kernel of truth. With "rights" come responsibilities, and when you look at the places where gays are allowed to marry, aside from the first day, it isn't like they are lining up to get married. Why is that?


Yes, why indeed.  It tells me that SSM is not about marriage at all but about removing any legal or social stigma regarding homosexuality.  The leaders of the ghey movements have been quite clear about this for decades now.  The only surprise is that any observer would be surprised by this.


Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 06:48 AM (s3dMx)

148

Do you truly have faith that the same people will NOT act the same way when it comes to implementing the DADT repeal? And if so, *why* do you think it will be different this time?

I have faith in our military. And it will be different because, among other reasons, we'll have the fine folks at AFA and FRC screaming bloody murder if it isn't.

And you act like you know something about the military lifestyle, when in fact you clearly don't.

What are you talking about? When did I ever say anything about the military lifestyle?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 06:51 AM (NfIvb)

149 144 CPAC: It's Not a Schism, it's a G*d damn arms race.

Posted by: Fully Out Boy at December 30, 2010 11:41 AM (Q1lie)

I think we have our threadwinner of the day. Nicely done.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 06:54 AM (NfIvb)

150 When did I ever say anything about the military lifestyle?


Now, post-DADT, the military lifestyle is going to become much more like a lifestyle you are apparently familiar with.

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at December 30, 2010 06:54 AM (s3dMx)

151 I have faith in our military.

Yet they called for keeping DADT in place to begin with.

And it will be different because, among other reasons, we'll have the fine folks at AFA and FRC screaming bloody murder if it isn't.


So the people who were ignored to implement the change will be the people we rely on to keep the bureaucracy honest? That's a tough sell.

And its not as if there weren't copious complaints about how the military was handling Islamism prior to Hasan's diversity outbreak - which wasn't even the first Islamist frag fest...

Posted by: 18-1 at December 30, 2010 06:55 AM (7BU4a)

152 As the Congressional committee stated, there WILL have to be "sensitivity training" for the normal guys/gals in the military, and "special medical" issues as stated by Brown in that hearing.

Just like the "training" they do in our public schools.  You know, dressing up anal sex with flowery civil rights language.

Should be fun to watch the GOP implode even further with this one!

Posted by: pam at December 30, 2010 06:58 AM (uDwml)

153

So the people who were ignored to implement the change will be the people we rely on to keep the bureaucracy honest? That's a tough sell.

Everyone involved has an incentive to see DADT repeal go smoothly and without disruption...except, now that you mention it, the people who oppose repeal. They'll want maxium disruption so they can say "I told you so."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 07:03 AM (NfIvb)

154 It was reported that social conservatives got GWB elected POTUS.

I fail to see how claiming "family values" strengthened anyone, let alone the family unit, given the paving of bigger spending (greater bail-out national debt compounded by the executive order "making" the Sec./Treasury autonomous) for "new, improved" comprehensive reformed federal authoritarian  bureaucratic government, aside from the obviously unconstitutional DHS, that includes invasive federal authoritarianism within public education (no child left behind) and religious freedom (faith based initiatives mandated what recipients of federal funds must propagandize).

CPAC better stick with the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. No good having too many cooks spoil the broth. 

Posted by: maverick muse at December 30, 2010 07:10 AM (H+LJc)

155

Everyone involved has an incentive to see DADT repeal go smoothly and without disruption...except, now that you mention it, the people who oppose repeal. They'll want maxium disruption so they can say "I told you so."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 12:03 PM (NfIvb)

So the people that you are relying on to make sure the repeal will go smoothly can, and will be, ignored because it will be claimed they have a vested interest in make the repeal not go smoothly.

Doesn't this invalidate your earlier point?

Also didn't not address how you trust the military to implement the repeal, but didn't trust them when they said we should not to repeal it. So which is it?


Posted by: 18-1 at December 30, 2010 07:16 AM (7BU4a)

156 Civ5 seems kind of lame compared to the older ones.  Didn't like only having one unit per space and not needing to keep armies to protect cities when I played the demo.  What do you think of it compared to Civ 4 gabe?

Posted by: Dunkirk at December 30, 2010 07:18 AM (nfaVd)

157

What do you think of it compared to Civ 4 gabe?

Here's the thing. I played Civ3 for probably months of cummulative time. Loved it; still love it. My brother swears that I also played Civ4 endlessly, including the expansion. Unfortunately, I can't remember it at all. At. All. I can't even visualize what it looked like.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 07:23 AM (NfIvb)

158

I just can't wait.....mmmm  mmmm  mmmmm

DADT repeal is butt lickin' good

 

Posted by: Army RumpRangers at December 30, 2010 07:23 AM (PqLK/)

159

What are you talking about? When did I ever say anything about the military lifestyle?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 11:51 AM (NfIvb)

You're speaking as if you have a clue.  As if the whole issue was because of pictures in footlockers and phonecalls home (quote possibly two of the dumbest arguments I think I've ever seen on this issue by the way).

I'd say that a significant number of people with whom you're talking are current or former military, yet you're trotting out The DoD Report™ as if it ends all discussion. 

Really dude, this is the second time you've pulled the deer-in-the-headlights act (the first being the pathetic "I have no idea what will please you") and it's as irritating as you ignoring valid criticisms of GOProud. 

Not that I expect anything better from you at this point. 

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 07:24 AM (fLHQe)

160 156 CivV doesn't have that same turn based strategic feel as the other games. The resources are too plentiful, which means there is no blocking an enemy from a resource....meaning there is no strategic point of going to war. Again, this game looks good, but suffers from playability issues.

Posted by: GaryM at December 30, 2010 07:25 AM (/s9Ci)

161

You're speaking as if you have a clue.  As if the whole issue was because of pictures in footlockers and phonecalls home (quote possibly two of the dumbest arguments I think I've ever seen on this issue by the way).

Again, this is where I'm fairly certain I'm more informed than you. I've read discharge papers and I've seen the DADT trials. In fact, those two things are what gets some people discharged. You seem to live in this weird fantasy land where gays in the military still got to do and say things that would reveal them as gay, but not get them discharged. I don't know where you get it, but it bears no resemblance to reality under DADT.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 07:27 AM (NfIvb)

162

"I have faith in our military."

Of course you do when they're told to bend to your whims.

"And it will be different because, among other reasons, we'll have the fine folks at AFA and FRC screaming bloody murder if it isn't.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 11:51 AM (NfIvb)"

Do you even have anything filed away in the "among other reasons", or did you just trot that out 'cause it seemed the thing to say?  

I only ask because history isn't on your side with that one. 

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 07:28 AM (fLHQe)

163

Do you even have anything filed away in the "among other reasons", or did you just trot that out 'cause it seemed the thing to say?  

As I wrote subsequently, the parties involved all have an incentive to see it go well. Are you even reading my comments?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 07:42 AM (NfIvb)

164

Again, this is where I'm fairly certain I'm more informed than you. I've read discharge papers and I've seen the DADT trials. In fact, those two things are what gets some people discharged. You seem to live in this weird fantasy land where gays in the military still got to do and say things that would reveal them as gay, but not get them discharged. I don't know where you get it, but it bears no resemblance to reality under DADT.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 12:27 PM (NfIvb)

First off, let me say I respect the service to your country in reading discharge papers and DADT trials.  My own 20 years of service probably carries no weight against such a heavy record of service from your point of view, but in my professional opinion and experience, allow me to say in as polite a manner as I can muster - you don't know shit.

As I said earlier - on the high side, I'm sure tens of people were discharged for phone calls home or pictures in their footlocker.  Despite what you and your fellow gay activists think, the DoD policy is quite explicit in how it is to be carried out and does quite a bit to protect gays who are serving. 
If, and that's a huge fucking IF, there were a few people (and I guarantee it was only a few unless you can dig up some data) who were discharged for the silly reasons you cling to, then the commanders were in violation of DADT policy. 

Plain and simple.

That vast majority of DADT discharges were voluntary.  Personally know of a few who decided to "tell" and it was usually to get out of something.  Seen a few more who were just substandard who decided to play that card to draw fire from their technical proficiency.

So spare me the armchair lawyering as if you know fuckall about how DADT "goes down" (if you'll pardon the pun) and what it's like to serve in a Department that's been dealing with this for years and years.  You don't know and you'll never know, so spare me the talk about fantasy land.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 07:45 AM (fLHQe)

165 You've seen a trial where the prosecution was based upon the presence of a picture in a footlocker? Or was the picture mentioned ina trial in which a pile of other relevant material was presented and the picture was mentioned but wasn't a core part of the case? I don't believe for a second that a soldier was convicted on that lone piece of evidence. I do believe that it's a convenient strawman for you.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 07:47 AM (D5sfV)

166

"As I wrote subsequently, the parties involved all have an incentive to see it go well. Are you even reading my comments?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 12:42 PM (NfIvb)"

This coming from the guy who apparently doesn't read comments that are inconvenient to his activism.  Sorry dude, two can play at that silly assed game. 

Grow up.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 07:48 AM (fLHQe)

167

I don't believe for a second that a soldier was convicted on that lone piece of evidence. I do believe that it's a convenient strawman for you.

First of all, no one gets "convicted" under DADT (see what I mean about you guys having no idea what you're talking about), you get discharged. It's not a trial, it's an investigation and than a shit ton of paperwork. The "trial" reference above is to the civil trials that have been held on this, including Major Witt's trial and the Log Cabin Republican trial.

Second, I did not say that any "lone piece of evidence" resulted in a discharge; that's your strawman of my comment. What I said and I'm gonna quote so you get a second chance at reading comprehension: "DADT repeal is about getting to keep a photo of a loved one in your footlocker without fear of getting discharged."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 07:54 AM (NfIvb)

168 Btw I'm coming up on 16 years of service. All of that in the DADT era. I have a pretty good idea of how much is never asked about. If someone does wind up tossed on something that seems trivial (especially at anytime in the last 10 years), I gurantee you that their performance or attitude made their command very motivated to remove them for anything they could possibly make stick.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 07:56 AM (lH44y)

169 "In fact, those two things are what gets some people discharged. " Your words asshole.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 08:00 AM (lH44y)

170

"In fact, those two things are what gets some people discharged. "

Logically then, one of those things, a picture in a footlocker, couldn't be the "lone" reason for discharge, could it... Again, this is what I mean about reading comprehension. I wrote what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

 

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 08:12 AM (NfIvb)

171

Are you serious, is Malor retreating to dickish pedantry on top of just flat out ignoring arguments?  No wonder Malor's a lawyer because he's fucking useless.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 08:13 AM (fLHQe)

172

Logically then, one of those things, a picture in a footlocker, couldn't be the "lone" reason for discharge, could it... Again, this is what I mean about reading comprehension. I wrote what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 01:12 PM (NfIvb)

That one thing is not what he was discharged for either, dumbass.  But keep acting like you know what you're talking about. 

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 30, 2010 08:15 AM (fLHQe)

173 Extend and escape, Gabe.

Posted by: toby928 at December 30, 2010 08:28 AM (S5YRY)

174 Fine. Those two things, in combination with each other, and in the absence of any other supporting evidence or statements, did not, all alone in their togetherniness result in the ejection of anyone from the military.

Here's what happened:

Not gay soldier: "hey man, who's picture is that you keep in your locker"

Gay soldier: "My boyfriend"

Not gay soldier: "ummm... hey, maybe you ought to keep that to yourself"

Gay soldier: "No. I'm sick of this place. I'm going to show SGT Notgay this picture of my boyfriend too."

Months later:

Gabriel Malor: "Hey man, you were discharged under DADT? What happened?"

Gay soldier: "I had a picture of my boyfriend in my locker"

Gabriel Malor: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 08:36 AM (c7Pp2)

175 pardon the grammatical errors.

Posted by: ef at December 30, 2010 08:40 AM (c7Pp2)

176
This reminds me of my Dad's famous solution for the drug problem. This from a guy who was an alcoholic mind you. He said:

" Listen you take all the drug addicts and give them all the drugs they want, but put poison in it. TELL them it's poisoned. It won't matter, they're drug addicts. They'll take it anyway. No more drug addicts. "

Posted by: Fully Out Boy at December 30, 2010 11:45 AM (Q1lie)


This is sort of how China solved it's drug problem. They told the addicts that they had some period of time to give up drugs. After that, they executed them.  A bunch of people got executed, and China no longer had a drug problem.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 30, 2010 08:46 AM (/G5LI)

177

Extend and escape, Gabe.

Like the scorpion said... ;-)

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 08:47 AM (NfIvb)

178 ef, that was very funny.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 30, 2010 08:48 AM (NfIvb)

179 The FRC can go take a pogo stick shove it sideways up there you know what and go ride their hobbyhorse in the corner..

Posted by: Lc Scott at December 30, 2010 09:08 AM (vBWaP)

Posted by: ngekngok at December 31, 2010 06:33 AM (K///b)

181 that is ok

Posted by: kevin at April 23, 2011 06:28 PM (1choM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
211kb generated in CPU 0.2, elapsed 1.171 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0186 seconds, 417 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.