Pelosi: ‘Don’t ask’ will be ‘memory by end of this year’
“The Pentagon’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will be nothing but a memory by year’s end, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared Wednesday.
Pelosi, in an interview with The Hill, stopped short of laying all of her strategic cards on the table. She wouldn’t say whether the House will take the lead on the issue or predict when the Clinton administration-era tenet would be repealed.
But she made it clear ending “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is at the top of her agenda.
“I don’t have any doubt that ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ will be a memory by the end of this year,” she said.”
As The Hill notes, the bill that would end DADT still has just 192 co-sponsors, 24 short of a majority. But Pelosi has shown a willingness to fight for what she wants, and if she’s willing to make statements as stark as this, she must be pretty confident that the votes will be there.
Some conservative Democrats have said they don’t want to vote on the controversial bills, especially in the wake of tough votes on healthcare and climate change.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
225 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
8:07 am
Well about damn time. This is a political no-brainer, unless the Dems manage to somehow stage-manage this so’s to pry defeat from the jaws of victory.
Road Scholar
May 21st, 2010
8:12 am
So if the Repubs (and the Demos) don’t want to debate, construct and vote on controversial bills, why are they voted back into Congress? They don’t seem to have a problem obsessing over abortion and guns!
Normal
May 21st, 2010
8:17 am
Got dead threaded downstairs, but I needs ta know…
A question to ponder…and I hope someone will answer.
It costs thousands of dollars to make a household (including cars) self suffienct in energy usage. How long will it take to recoup those dollars with savings in energy/gas bills?
As for DADT, I stand with Stands. It’s a no brainer. I think it says somewhere that all Americans regardless of who or what they are, have been granted equal rights in life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.
RB from Gwinnett
May 21st, 2010
8:19 am
Jobless numbers continue to rise and DADT is at the top of her agenda??? I guess if she had an R by her name, that would matter to Jay.
Something tells me her re-election chances will be only a memory by the end of the year too.
godless heathen
May 21st, 2010
8:23 am
C’mon Nancy, Get a pair!
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
8:26 am
If you want a quick batch o’ polls on the topic, have a scroll here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
I find very little in there to disavow me of the notion that there is broad public support for ending this discriminatory policy.
I also believe that the right wing moles in the military working furiously to gin up poutrage from the Corporal Scouts so’s to preserve their little mostly-boys/all-straight/Gods-Guns-Republicans vision of our armed forces are not as bright nor as powerful as they think they are.
But be prepared for a lotta noise from that element.
=======
Normal @ 8.17, as to your dead-threaded question, I’ve got but a little time so I’ll keep it general. It’s always a difficult, delicate balance between carrots and sticks. You provide tax credits and positive incentives for people to change, but you also provide penalties to those who stubbornly don’t. And some otherwise decent people will wind up getting hurt in the process; there are always winners and losers. But I don’t think we have much of a choice here, it’s gonna happen sooner or later so we might as well try to plan for it humanely.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
8:30 am
Yes…lettuce Hope Ms Nasty Pelosi will be a “memory by end” of this years. What a nice Change.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
8:32 am
Good morning, Normal and others.
Way to go liberal traitors!
At this rate, that “overwhelming percentage (LOL) of people in the military who identify themselves as Republicans” will have to join the Iranian army” where, there are of course, NO homosexuals.
Then we’ll have a helluva time getting the manly and godly *true* patriots to leave their comfy stations in the 101st Chairborne and get their valorous butts out there on the front lines where they can kill a whole bunch of towel heads.
Like King George (who for gawdssakes gave up golf!) said, We must make sacrifices.
So you chickenhawks go sacrifice yourselves and I’ll go shopping.
If you’re not prone to nausea watch this bungling POS “explain” it all…
http://www.revver.com/video/146167/george-bush-definition-of-sacrifice/
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
8:36 am
For you qu**rs in uniform!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpRnaOq6raQ
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
8:36 am
RB, Outhouse, I don’t suppose you could actually comment on the topic at hand, rather than fantasizing yet again about what you’d like to do with Nancy Pelosi?
If you think keeping DADT is swell, bring it. Be manly men. Don’t wait for Corporal Scout to do your dirty work with his musty collection of Readers Digest era copy/pastes and tea-tard homilies.
Otherwise, admit that DADT needs to be taken out back and shot.
Gale
May 21st, 2010
8:38 am
RB, DADT is just a C item on the to do list. The sooner it’s history, the sooner it becomes a non-issue.
Soothsayer
May 21st, 2010
8:39 am
If you have a minute to spare, watch the vidio midway down the page. I recommend watching it full screen. Here’s a kid with a “blue-chip” degree in Mechanical Engineering (not basketweaving) and unable to find a job. This video says more than all the politicians ever could.
md
May 21st, 2010
8:39 am
OG – beat me to it, but highly doubtful her district will change its thought process any time soon. Best hope is she at least loses her speaker position if the dems lose the house.
Her head cheerleading position was especially despicable yesterday when Calderon bashed AZ for doing what she and the rest of the misfits choose not to do. That was sickening to watch – our lawmakers standing and applauding for the lack of enforcing the very laws that come out of that very chamber.
md
May 21st, 2010
8:44 am
Normal,
Longer than most folks plan to stay in their homes these days, and with home prices continuing to fall, recouping gets even tougher.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
8:47 am
sfd…suffice is to say…lettuce Hope Ms Nasty Pelosi will be a “memory by end of this year.” What a nice Change.
PS…an even nicer memory will be that of Barry goin down in flames.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
8:47 am
It costs thousands of dollars to make a household (including cars) self suffienct in energy usage. How long will it take to recoup those dollars with savings in energy/gas bills?
I have no hard facts Normal, but, you and I are too old to ever see any savings from it.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
8:50 am
…………… and our military will be less because of it …… “an Army of two”.
So be it.
Yoohoo
May 21st, 2010
8:51 am
Still, for all their ambition, lawmakers left some gaping questions on how to tackle some of the most significant financial sector weaknesses exposed by the 2008 financial meltdown — from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to unsettled disputes over banks and their derivatives business and requirements that they hold more capital. And in the rough and tumble give and take of writing laws, they rejected tougher measures that would have forced behemoth banks to downsize, required securitizers to retain some credit risk in their loans, and compelled home buyers to put a downpayment on their loans.
Move along, nothing to see here. Political pomp at its best.
david wayne osedach
May 21st, 2010
8:53 am
She hasn’t done too badly. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.
md
May 21st, 2010
8:58 am
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – wasn’t that the healthcare bill?
Just another “show pony” bill for political points. A toothless finance bill, a credit card bill that raised everybody’s rates, and a PayGo bill that has done nothing but collect dust since passage.
Smoke and mirrors in an election year.
Moderate Line
May 21st, 2010
9:01 am
Average Satisfaction Survey with how things are going in the US?
1982-24%
1986-60%
1990-40%
1994-33%
1998-60%
2003-53%
2006-31%
2010-23%
Perhaps the Dems should be worried about something other than Don’t ask don’t tell.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
9:03 am
Vis a vis, the senior senator from California, I never thought much of her as a politician. Crooked, craven, pro-corporation, pro-crime and self serving like virtually all of them in Washington are now.
But the final straw came in 2006. After the Democrats took every single, solitary, contested election – an historic and epic 36 out of 36 race sweep from the hemorrhaging neo-cons – what did she and Barry and Hillary and Harry do?
They “took off the table” the impeachment of those two deadly f___ups in the White House!
Spineless lapdogs, who are nothing more than Republican-lites…
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
9:03 am
I know one person (a lesbian) that served 12 yrs. in the Army. She says she got out because straight women have no business being in the military. I’m still trying to figure that one out!
But....
May 21st, 2010
9:04 am
What about homosexual urges in the fox holes, communal and bas Kmart restrooms? Non-gays should not be force to have to defend themselves against this.
And what about the gays recruiting our young soilders into a life of homosexual sodomy, which is against The Bible law.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
9:07 am
Dang, Am Vet, just tell us how you really feel!
And,good morn to ya.
Gale
May 21st, 2010
9:09 am
Scooter, your lesbian acquaintance probably got tired of seeing straight service women get pregnant while serving.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:13 am
Morning, Jay
Hope the insomnia gets better. Or are you just an early riser?
It’ll be nice to have this behind us. Political risk? DoD’s on a six-month timeline for the study. The Spkr can just leave it ’till after the Nov elections, then call a vote.
What the Pres should do: Take all the administrative discharges over the last decade or so. Upgrade them to “Honorable” (other categories are such as “Under Other Than Honorable” and “General”). Then offer the people their jobs back. Can even sweeten the pot with no loss of rank or even a promotion. Let them decide.
Golly gee, we’d get back all those mideast language experts and fighter pilots and explosive ordinance disposal experts.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
9:17 am
Hey Scooter!
How Mssrs. Bush and Cheney are not at this very moment in a nine by seven is a travesty of justice.
I know, I know. We’ve got a war on terror on our hands and we don’t have time for such quaint and outdated ideas as justice and habeus corpus and illegally spying on Americans and…
Duty calls. Seey’allafterawhile…
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
9:17 am
Paul @ 9.13, thanks for getting to the practical/implementation/legislative side of things. What you’ve posted makes sense to me.
And for the others, a reminder–the topic is not “Just How Much Does the He-Man Woman Haterz Club Hate Nancy?”
Soothsayer
May 21st, 2010
9:18 am
Hordes of Hired Guns Earned About $19 Million Per Day As Lobbying Soared to Nearly $1 Billion in First Quarter
Ever wonder who “owns” the politicians you elected? Here it is in black and white. This is who your elected officials work for.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
9:19 am
Gale
May 21st, 2010
9:09 am
She did mention that Gale, and said they are whiners that always expect special treatment.I still have a hard time understanding though. (being she is a woman)
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:22 am
It will be amusing to see how the military handles the first “cross-dressing” sergeant ………. you know “transgenders” have protection under the law also. And of course the American taxpayer will then have to pay for the surgery.
BTW ……… I hope it’s the Air Force.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
May 21st, 2010
9:22 am
Well, ain’t there some room for compromise here? Maybe we could put all the gays in their own platoons and companies and such. I mean, you expect a little gayness in the Navy, but it’s too much for a soldier or a Marine to be wondering about if the guy that sleeps in the bunk below him is That Way. And when it comes to Bible study off duty, you’d have to skip over whole sections of the Bible.
Seems to me the libruls are going hog-wild. I mean, I remember back in my service days when the Sgt. would give a lecture about what bad things were going to happen to you if you got caught doing You Know What with another man. That kind of stuff is a Tradition and it would all be ruint. I’m just glad my service days are behind me. I’d hate to be in those showers and wondering if the guy next to me was lusting after my body.
Have a good day everybody.
Gale
May 21st, 2010
9:22 am
Scooter, It’s a woman thing. You wouldn’t understand.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:23 am
Jay:
I hope you are monitoring this morning as I know how you feel about this. The “off-topic” people are really abusing their privilege.
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
9:25 am
prolly gonna regret this but…
Spineless lapdogs, who are nothing more than Republican-lites…
yes, AmVet, I know, I know.
You belong to j-nix’s charming club. The “Obama Sucks because he hasn’t fixed everything that sucks yet and it makes me hoppin’ mad, y’hear, mad!” club.
Out in the real world you need legislation and votes ‘n stuff. In the real world you get to hope for what Paul proposed as a reasonable outcome @ 9.13, actually coming true, and celebrating when/if it does.
And you guys can strum yer geetar and sing Phil Ochs’ “Love me I’m a liberal”, call the President Ima Gonna, and call me an incrementalist corporatist swine, but last I checked, that’s the way it works.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:25 am
Scout
“It will be amusing to see how the military handles the first “cross-dressing” sergeant”
I imagine they’d handle it the same as they’d handle anyone who showed up not wearing the uniform of the day.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
9:28 am
“It will be amusing to see how the military handles the first “cross-dressing” sergeant ”
Gee, they “deal” with them every day…all of those female sargeants wearing those MEN’s uniforms. Didn’t you know the women were not meant to wear PANTS?
And somehow I just seriously doubt the armed forces are going to issue special “female” uniforms to male cross dressers. They’ll just be stuck wearing the same uniform as everyone else they serve with.
kayaker 71
May 21st, 2010
9:29 am
Unemployment rising, foreclosures rising, the debt getting larger every day, more Mexicans crossing our borders, the majority of Americans with a less than favorable opinion of Bozo and his policies….. and Queen Nancy and Bookman are crowing about gay rights.
Unemployment, according to Business Insider today, is up to as high as 18% in some areas of the country and the value of homes has dropped as much as 65% in areas like South Florida and Vagas. And Bookman and Pelosi are worried about gay rights.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
9:31 am
“I imagine they’d handle it the same as they’d handle anyone who showed up not wearing the uniform of the day”
I wonder how the Scottish armed forces handle it?
Soothsayer
May 21st, 2010
9:32 am
Dow off 80 points in first minute of trading
Peadawg
May 21st, 2010
9:32 am
“But Pelosi has shown a willingness to fight for what she wants”
You got that right. We saw w/ the HC bill how low she’ll stoop to get votes.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:34 am
Scout
““cross-dressing” sergeant ………. BTW ……… I hope it’s the Air Force.”
I’ve noted before – we’re talking about an organization where men where patent leather shoes and polyester trousers; where pilots wear one piece jump suits with zippers and velcro, and where the elites in one or two services wear thigh-high boots with puffy-leg trousers tucked in.
And you’re about how they’ll look if gays can serve openly?!!?
Soothsayer
May 21st, 2010
9:35 am
Dow off 135 points in first 2 minutes
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:35 am
Wear. not ‘where’. Where o wear is my focus this morning?
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:35 am
Paul:
“I imagine they’d handle it the same as they’d handle anyone who showed up not wearing the uniform of the day.”
They can’t ……….. transgenders now have protection under the law. Just wait until it all goes to court.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
9:38 am
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:25 am
But what if they showed up at NCO Club after thier duty hrs. in drag? serious question Paul!
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:38 am
Doggone/GA :
They don’t have to be “issued” uniforms. You can buy them. You have to buy your own after the original issue anyway.
This will get interesting. They will push the envelope as far as they can …….. they always do. Ever seen a gay pride parade? They don’t show them on television anymore …….. they can’t.
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
9:39 am
Unemployment rising, foreclosures rising, the debt getting larger every day, more Mexicans crossing our borders, the majority of Americans with a less than favorable opinion of Bozo and his policies….. and Queen Nancy and Bookman are crowing about gay rights.
Indeed! The very idea! Imagine, giving a good crap about those silly gay people! Silly patriotic, taxpaying, productive same-sexers! Imagine being concerned about their silly civil rights!
It’s not like they’re actual real human beings (who, by the way, are presumably impacted by all those issues you raised) or anything. Can’t they just wait another ten, twenty, forty years, until some other generation finds them less icky?
Jeez. Be back later. Try not to fire anyone on the basis of sexual orientation while I’m away. And maybe someone can ask Scout why he thinks about trannies so much–my bet is he got a little something extra than he paid for, once upon a time, if ya know what I mean.
RW-(the original)
May 21st, 2010
9:39 am
sfb,
While you’re busy scolding everyone for straying off topic because you think the topic is the merit or lack thereof of DADT I urge you to reread the column. People that are talking about Speaker Pelosi’s methods and their consequences to her party’s electoral chances are much closer to the topic than you are. I see nothing in Jay’s column that suggests the topic is the actual DADT law.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:40 am
Scooter:
Most of these posters have never been in the military and they don’t care how it’s affected. Some of them like “Private” Obama actually loath the military.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:41 am
RW-(the original):
Don’t get your “panties” in a wad. I’m just messing with him.
Compromised Position
May 21st, 2010
9:41 am
RB, Outhouse, I don’t suppose you could actually comment on the topic at hand, rather than fantasizing yet again about what you’d like to do with Nancy Pelosi?
If you think keeping DADT is swell, bring it. Be manly men. Don’t wait for Corporal Scout to do your dirty work with his musty collection of Readers Digest era copy/pastes and tea-tard homilies.
Otherwise, admit that DADT needs to be taken out back and shot.
Damn! I mean, just, damn! What a post! I ’bout fell out of my chair.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
9:42 am
The markets appear not very settled over the Greece bailout. Perhaps they know Spain is next to be followed by the EU.
RW-(the original)
May 21st, 2010
9:42 am
Well I nevah !
Scout
May 21st, 2010
9:42 am
Out on patrol for awhile. Check in later ……………
Ooo Rah ! (I wonder how you do that with a lisp) ?
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:42 am
Scout
[[They can’t ……….. transgenders now have protection under the law. Just wait until it all goes to court.]]
But of course you know such nondiscrimination protections do not extend to such factors as deciding what mandatory-for-all uniforms will be worn.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
9:43 am
“They will push the envelope as far as they can ”
“They” won’t do it while on duty, period. On duty “they” will be subject to exactly the same rules and regulations that cover ALL soldiers. What they do when they are off duty is their business.
And I notice you didn’t address the issue that exists RIGHT NOW of all those female cross-dressing soldiers.
Curious Observer
May 21st, 2010
9:44 am
You have to buy your own after the original issue anyway.
You buy your own original issue, Scout—at least you had to when I was in. I remember how surprised I was that the cost of the uniforms issued at Parris Island was deducted in installments from my pay. Of course, I was surprised and delighted anyway when I got that first 10 dollar bill as my first month’s pay.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:44 am
Scooter
“But what if they showed up at NCO Club after thier duty hrs. in drag? serious question Paul!”
Why do you care? As I’ve already noted, the men at the Pentagon show up for work every day wearing patent leather shoes –
Or are you okay with some obviously gay apparel but not others?
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:45 am
Scout
“They don’t have to be “issued” uniforms. You can buy them. You have to buy your own after the original issue anyway.”
Enlisted receive a monthly clothing allowance to replace worn-out uniform items, further strengthening the position that what one wears while on duty is not a matter of personal preference.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:47 am
Scout
“Ooo Rah ”
When I hear people making noises like that, I think “They should eat more fiber.”
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
9:47 am
cross-dressing” sergeant ………. BTW ……… I hope it’s the Air Force.”
Hey Scout, I proudly served in the USAF and you can kiss my arse!
Curious Observer
May 21st, 2010
9:48 am
As I’ve already noted, the men at the Pentagon show up for work every day wearing patent leather shoes –
Officers had them, Paul, but enlisted men had to go through the tedious process of dying the issued dress shoes, then polishing them. Of course, I’m not even going to get into the “boondockers” that essentially looked like leather with the rough side out.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
9:50 am
“Or are you okay with some obviously gay apparel but not others?”
Of course he is…he’s only concerned with male cross dressers. Female cross dressers don’t bother him a bit, can’t you tell?
resno2
May 21st, 2010
9:51 am
Couldn’t we all just pray that the Pelosi itself will be a distant memory by the end of the year?
TGT
May 21st, 2010
9:52 am
“Some conservative Democrats have said they don’t want to vote on the controversial bills, especially in the wake of tough votes on healthcare and climate change.”
Many Dems (such as the one in Penn. 12) are running against almost the entire Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. See here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/21/anti-obama-tack-buoys-some-democrats/
John Birch
May 21st, 2010
9:58 am
Pelosi owns her district and will be re-elected as long as she wants to serve. I detest most of her over-the-top liberalism, but on this issue she is absolutely correct. I see no correlation between sexual orientation and whether or not you are a good soldier. DADT was step one, it’s time to become fully enlightened and end the discrimination altogether.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
9:59 am
Paul,I guess I don’t get out much these days. I know nothing about gay apparel. I do know that if a man showed up at the club with a dress on, he is probably gay. ???????
Paul
May 21st, 2010
9:59 am
Curious Observer
That must’ve been a pain. Guys I’ve known, enlisted, have been wearing the same patent leather shoes as officers for decades. I saw an AF enlisted guy the other day, wearing a BDU lighter in color with blue tones. Said it was the new one (out for a couple of years). And to show you how much things have changed, he said they’re wash and wear only, ironing and starch prohibited!
Doggone/Ga
“Female cross dressers don’t bother…a bit, can’t you tell?”
That’s always struck me as an interesting phenomenon. Not wanting anyone to pursue this, but it seems to me guys I’ve known, they get uncomfortable with the idea of two guys holding hands, but let it be two women and they start grinning and getting…. animated.
Sheesh. Talk about a double standard.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
10:01 am
Scooter
Actually, many, many cross dressers are confirmed heterosexuals.
I learned that by reading “Dear Abby.”
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:01 am
“I do know that if a man showed up at the club with a dress on, he is probably gay. ???????”
Not necessarily, cross-dressing crosses all sexual orientation lines.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
10:01 am
I hope one day the military will see fit to allow enlistment of those involved in the ancient art form of beastiality.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:04 am
“I hope one day the military will see fit to allow enlistment of those involved in the ancient art form of beastiality.”
What makes you think they don’t allow it now?
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
10:05 am
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
9:50 am
I know nothing about lesbian apparel either Doggone. I’m trying to be serious here, please save your smart remarks for someone else. Thanks in advance!
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
10:07 am
What would make me think they do?
Mr. Right
May 21st, 2010
10:11 am
Obama, Reid and Pelosi Wow! Are we in trouble or what? This country has never had such inept leadership at all three branches of government before.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:11 am
“I’m trying to be serious here, please save your smart remarks for someone else.”
Reality hurts, doesn’t it? By “conventional” standards any woman who wears pants is a “cross dresser” By those same “conventional” standards a man wearing a kilt is a cross dresser. From you prior lack of response, I concluded that neither of those bothers you very much.
It appears that the thought of a male cross dresser IN UNIFORM is what bothers you the most. Well, get over it, they won’t be dressed in skirts and high heels. They’ll be IN UNIFORM just like every other soldier.
And just to bother you a bit more, during the Vietnam war a quite masculine friend of mine, wife, kids and all, wore his wife’s underwear while he was “over there.” Said it brought him good luck. He’s still alive, still married to the same woman, still got the same kids. But yes, he DID “cross dress” while in uniform.
Doesn’t that just make you want to squirm?
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:12 am
“What would make me think they do?”
When was the last time you heard of someone being discharged for that reason?
Compromised Position
May 21st, 2010
10:13 am
This one goes out to all the cross-dressers scouting out the dives out there on swing street.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
10:13 am
If Pelosi feels that way, then there’s probably signs that lead her to believe the support is there somewhere. Personally, I don’t see the need for DADT anyway. It appears to be nothing but sanctioned discrimination anyway. In uniform, military personnel have a job to do and an image to conform to. Off duty, they still have to uphold guidelines and regulations. At some point, people should be able to live their private lives in private without government interference.
Some conservative Democrats have said they don’t want to vote on the controversial bills, especially in the wake of tough votes on healthcare and climate change.
If they don’t want to vote on them, replace them with someone who will. The reason for them being in office is to vote on legislation, whether they vote for it or against it. If anyone else decided they didn’t want to do their job they would get replaced. What’s so different or special about them?
Del
May 21st, 2010
10:16 am
Once again we have Polosei talking out from where the sun never shines. Of course she represents a district comprised mostly of left wing loon’s and her popularity begins and ends there. DADT is a perfectly good piece of legislation made better by recent changes making it difficult for a homosexual service member to be targeted out of hate or revenge. This liberal left theater of celebrating sexuality hasn’t a place anywhere and certainly not in our armed forces. Those who have never served in a combat arm have this delusional image of military culture they don’t understand, yet they want to make the military another playground for their misguided social experimentation. Hopefully, smarter more objective members of congress will continue to hold back Pelosi and the other hard-left idiots up on the Hill.
Shawny
May 21st, 2010
10:16 am
Pelosi’s constituents are San Francisco. She better push for this in an election year, given the anti-incumbent sentiment.
The more moderate dems fear revoking this Clinton era policy with their jobs on the line in November. Should be interesting to see how they side.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:16 am
“What’s so different or special about them?”
Unlike regular employees…we’re stuck with them until the next election, unless they do something stupid enough to warrant a recall election. Can they be impeached? I’m not even sure.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
10:16 am
They probably wouldnt want it getting out. Them being animal lovers and such. We need DADT for this issue.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
10:17 am
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:11 am
Maybe your mind reading ability needs to be honed just a bit.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
10:18 am
Bruce Hornsby? Please dont.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
10:18 am
SoCom
“people should be able to live their private lives in private without government interference.”
Sounds quite Libertarian.
To all the rest of you who cheer for Ron Paul and Rand Paul: isn’t this just the kind of minimalist government interference they champion?
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:19 am
“Maybe your mind reading ability needs to be honed just a bit”
Has nothing to do with mind reading. Like it or not, we ALL reveal something about ourselves by what we do and don’t respond to, and how we respond when we do. You’re no different.
md
May 21st, 2010
10:23 am
“And for the others, a reminder–the topic is not “Just How Much Does the He-Man Woman Haterz Club Hate Nancy?””
And next those that disagree with Barry are gonna be racists – right.
My what a broad brush you use to label those you disagree with – walmart does carry smaller brushes – try one. In case you didn’t notice, the speaker happens to be a woman – hence the use of terms such as she and her. Had she been a man, she would be a he and we would probably not be “haterz”.
But I’m guessing that doesn’t fit your agenda.
And for the topic, last I haeard jay sets the rules and he doesn’t agree with you. We all get 2, but you don’t like it until you do it.
Rafe Hollister
May 21st, 2010
10:25 am
I worked with a guy who was a former Naval Intelligence Service Special Agent. He used to say that they tracked down homosexuals and put them in the brig for most of his career, then they changed and began tolerating homosexuals, and he was retiring before it became mandatory to be a homosexual. Times they do change.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
10:26 am
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:19 am
You lost me on that one Doggone! I thought I responded properly. ??????
RW-(the original)
May 21st, 2010
10:28 am
SoCo,
The job of legislators is far more complex than just voting for or against legislation. Crafting and compromising legislation often requires holding up votes through whatever means necessary to better the product before it comes for a vote. Had you said that voting “present” once a bill makes it to the floor then I would agree with you. We did get rid of the last legislator that continuously employed that tactic. Unfortunately he now works out of the Oval Office.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
10:28 am
Doggone
Some are probably up for re-election this fall. If they don’t want to participate and do their job, now would be the time to replace them. Treat them like batteries in the smoke detector. Replace them with some new legislators.
Paul
Notice I said, “At some point”. You’ll still need the government “interference” to keep pedophiles, rapist, and such in check. However, people should be able to enjoy some privacy.
Paul
May 21st, 2010
10:31 am
Rafe
Well, if that’s the most the guy could do to protect national security for the Navy, I’d say he’s on the right track by retiring.
SoCom
To me, that’s a given. But given the disconnect some Libertarians have between theory and the practical impact of reality….
John Birch
May 21st, 2010
10:32 am
Jay – It’s almost time to run another piece on how the economy is making such a strong recovery thanks to Obama’s great leadership. Then I’d like one on how the drug/violence/illegal alien issue has been solved by Obama publicly kissing Calderon’s behind.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:33 am
“If they don’t want to participate and do their job, now would be the time to replace them”
Yes, it would be…but I have very little faith that we would be getting anyone that’s any better. Different isn’t necessarily better. All these candidates with the signs that say “not a politician” are just lieing through their teeth. I don’t care what you were “yestereday” if you throw your hat in the ring for a political job today…you’re automatically a politician. And I don’t trust most businessmen (or women) as far as I could throw them. I trust politicians even less.
md
May 21st, 2010
10:33 am
“Some are probably up for re-election this fall. If they don’t want to participate and do their job, now would be the time to replace them.”
I doubt seriously it is as easy as “want to participate”. I can only imagine the level of pressure applied from the nice little party bosses – on both sides.
One pays dearly for those cushy committee seats, sometimes with their soul.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
10:35 am
RW
I may have misinterpreted Jay’s statement or something. I took “said they don’t want to vote on the controversial bills” to mean that the behind-the-scene legwork was already going on. I’m the son of a politician, so I have a pretty good understanding of how things are done, to include the stalling techniques. The statement Jay made makes it seem as if they’re saying that they don’t want to even engage in the debate to make those bills better, or at least that’s how I understood it.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
10:39 am
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:33 am
Now,THAT I can understand and agree with! (I know you hate it when I agree with you)
RW-(the original)
May 21st, 2010
10:39 am
SoCo,
Since Jay B provided no names or quotes it appears more to me that he’s just following the “conventional wisdom” that says they probably don’t want to take the tough votes.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
10:40 am
Killer Rattlesnake lose on Captiol Hill, I mean in Berrien County.
Dave R.
May 21st, 2010
10:43 am
Scooter, thanks for serving with the boys and girls in Air Force blue – me too! Aim High!
On the subject at hand, I am all for getting rid of this anachronistic embarrassment of a policy.
I’m also all for getting rid of the title “Speaker” being in front of the name “Pelosi”. Her district can be stoopid for as long as they wish to be, but she had, and has, no business running our government into the ground as she has done.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
10:46 am
“(I know you hate it when I agree with you) ”
Looks like YOU need to brush up on your mind reading skills. You may THINK you “know” I hate it, but you don’t really KNOW it. Especially as it isn’t true at all.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
10:50 am
RW
ok, that changes everything then. If nobody’s said it for sure, then whoop-de-doo. I take back that last part of my original statement then. At least for now.
Big D
May 21st, 2010
10:55 am
Are you dumba%$#@ too blind to see a SMOKE SCREEN. With all the BIG problems we have this IDIOT Pelosi wants you to become outraged about WHAT…WHO you want to have sex with. This is just crazy as hell…LIBS are IDIOTS leading IDIOTS.
Big Mac
May 21st, 2010
10:59 am
Surely this is more critical than 20% real unemployment, exploding deficits and lawless borders. Glad to know our leaders are focused on the big important stuff.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
11:01 am
Are you dumba%$#@ too blind to see a SMOKE SCREEN. With all the BIG problems we have this IDIOT Pelosi wants you to become outraged about WHAT…WHO you want to have sex with. This is just crazy as hell…LIBS are IDIOTS leading IDIOTS.
Her smoke screen must be working as you’ve obviously gotten worked up over it.
Just sayin…
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:03 am
“Surely this is more critical than 20% real unemployment, exploding deficits and lawless borders”
Why do some people find it so hard to believe that working on one problem does NOT mean ALL other issues are being totally and completely ignored? Every heard of multi-tasking?
Big D
May 21st, 2010
11:04 am
SC, no I’m simply making an observation on how stupid liberals are and pray they will keep doing just what they are doing until November.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
11:04 am
Paul, do not feed the troll! (J/k, the Corporal clearly needs a lot of manly love…)
The Libertarian mantra of “smaller government” is without a doubt a tad more sane than the puritanical, war first GOP’s.
BUT…I still get the feeling that their idea of it is to eliminate the organizations and people who are charged with protecting us from the criminals who run rampant in the “free market”.
Granted, those governmental organizations, like MMS, EPA, SEC and innumerable others, work FOR said criminals, so the conned have to some great extent, succeeded in their idiotic goal.
Besides to the garden variety, Reaganesque neo-con, smaller government means MORE laws and MORE amendments and MORE expenditures and MORE bureaucracy, usually outlawing behaviors they find unacceptable.
Here comes the sex police, they’re at your bedroom door
Movin’ in next door, searchin’ from floor to floor
You know what they’re lookin’ for
Someone’s always keepin’ score every time you dip the oar
Love isn’t fun no more…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxW4U-SOqN8
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
11:06 am
Oh, sorry about that. The all-caps kinda threw me off.
Del
May 21st, 2010
11:06 am
What I find most disconcerting about this issue is the complete disregard for those who are serving on active duty and who lay their lives on the line. Now we’ve heard testimony before Congress from commanding Generals representing both the Army and Marine Corps saying that repeal of DADT would potentially be detrimental and recommending against it. Those comments from professional military leaders should definitely give pause to those in our legislative branch of government. Unfortunately, we have far left Democrats like Pelosi, Levin, Reid and Obama disregarding the recommendations from those who serve. Why, so they can vote pander to a small minority special interest, while putting our national security at risk.
Big Mac
May 21st, 2010
11:07 am
“Why do some people find it so hard to believe that working on one problem does NOT mean ALL other issues are being totally and completely ignored? Every heard of multi-tasking?”
What statements is she making on the other topics showing a certainty of getting something substantive done? Defend all you want, but sorry, it shows a lack of priorities and perspective by Ms. Speaker.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:09 am
Curious Observer :
Nope – my first two dress greens were “free”. BTW: What color were the buttons on your dress green blouse? Black? Mine were brown!
Ooo Rah! Old Corps!
Paul/Doggone/GA:
You are forgetting one thing. Wait until the “flaming” liberal courts get involved. Everything is on the table and anything can happen. No one even twenty years ago would have ever thought we would even need DADT let alone get rid of it.
The downhill slide continues ………………..
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
11:12 am
ACU uniforms are one size fits all. They do no differentiate between male and female. Dress uniforms are strictly male and female. Cross dressing could occur in those situations but would be strictly forbidden by current regulations.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:12 am
“Why, so they can vote pander to a small minority special interest, while putting our national security at risk.”
Then our national security is at risk right this very minute…from all of “them” that are serving, and serving courageously and honorably as we speak. They’re out there, they’re serving and they are NO detriment AT ALL to our national security. And they won’t be when DADT is finally repealed. I’m not sure I can be as positive about the safety of our national security from those who think gays should stay closeted.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:13 am
Outhouse GoKart:
Yep. They will all be in Scout-Dog platoons.
Scooter:
USAF? The world’s largest quasi-military organization? Well, in spite of that, you guys saved my life more than once ………………
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
11:13 am
On the subject at hand, I am all for getting rid of this anachronistic embarrassment of a policy.
I agree with you Dave R. but on the Pelosi thing all I can say is I don’t share her views but a lot of voters must.
nique0401
May 21st, 2010
11:15 am
wow there r some really crazy comments here…does anyone know how long they actually discuss this stuff each day? sure one or two ppl may be on it all day fighting to get it passed, and giving it its due credit. but 99.9 % of the people that would have a say on this repeal talk about it… for about 2 minutes, AT MOST its not like they r brushing aside everything and only focusing on this… and if youbelieve that your an idiot… your complaints about 20% unemployment and all that crap, give or take a few about 50 % of americans say they would accept gay / lesbians in military and in general. 50 % of americans! (yes half). Just because someone is gay doesnt mean that they will jump all over a person and if they r in military the straight people have to be worried bout being molested.. or being flirted with… the stereotypical gay person who thinks about SEX SEX SEX 24/7 isnt true, and obviously even you pea heads can understand that! stop complaining about them taking 2 minutes to deal with something important to many Americans…and ending the large amount off discrimination going on in the US.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:15 am
JKL2:
Those regulations will be challenged in the courts. They are already “unconstitutional” in the civilian world (i.e., the workplace). It’s just an easy step to apply them to the military. Rest assured the “transgenders” WILL push the envelope. You are a little naive if you think otherwise.
Del
May 21st, 2010
11:16 am
“Then our national security is at risk at this very minute”
When, where, how and in what branch did you serve?
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:16 am
“No one even twenty years ago would have ever thought we would even need DADT let alone get rid of it.”
We wouldn’t have needed it if people insecure in their own sexuality didn’t make such a big issue out of “gays in the military.” They’ve always served, they always will serve. It’s not the GAYS that are the real problem.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
11:19 am
but you don’t really KNOW it. Especially as it isn’t true at all.
Great response Doggone! I wish I had responded to you with that a few posts back.My hindsight is 20/20.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:19 am
OFF TOPIC #1:
Bumper Sticker: “It’s We the People, Not Me the President”
Joke:
The woman applying for a job in a Florida lemon grove seemed to be far too qualified for the job.
The foreman frowned and said, “I have to ask you this: “Have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?”
“Well, as a matter of fact, I have!
“I’ve been divorced three times, owned 2 Toyotas, and I voted for Obama.
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
11:20 am
I personally fall in the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it camp”. DADT was put into place to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against. It’s not a secret that we have many homosexuals in the military. Brave, couragious, and competent. DADT was implemented so that they could serve without being openly discriminated against.
The problem with homosexuals is the same as the problem with women in the military. It leads to sex which leads to irrational behavior and a breakdown in unit cohesion. Sex in the workplace causes problems everywhere. Now imagine if you were now at work 24/7/365. It’s just a problem that should be avoided if possible.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:21 am
Doggone/GA:
“They’ve always served, they always will serve. It’s not the GAYS that are the real problem.”
You are correct …………. it’s the “Openly Gay” issue that’s the problem.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:22 am
“II personally fall in the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it camp”. ”
But it is “broke” – good, reliable, courageous and even decorated soldiers have been “outed” by someone else and have been discharged for it.
“The problem with homosexuals is the same as the problem with women in the military”
Hmmm…well being female, I’d say it’s having heterosexual MEN in the military that leads to sex. Or are you of the opinion that the woman is always the one at fault?
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:23 am
“it’s the “Openly Gay” issue that’s the problem”
Why? There doesn’t appear to be any problem with “openly heterosexuals” in the armed forces.
Big D
May 21st, 2010
11:23 am
SC, got your attention…huh. The people of this country fall prey to this “feel good” liberal type of BS big government when they are in an era of comfort and become complacent and lazy to the point that they become stupidly philosophical and elect Democrats. Then they wake up see their lives in ruin, out of work and the country going into so much debt it may never fully recover. I believe this is the best thing that could have happened if we survive it.
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
11:24 am
Scout – Rest assured the “transgenders” WILL push the envelope. You are a little naive if you think otherwise
I would agree with you, but the military is not a democracy. In ways they can govern what you can’t wear in your off-duty time on Post, they can easily keep uniforms gender specific.
jconservative
May 21st, 2010
11:25 am
“Some conservative Democrats have said they don’t want to vote on the controversial bills…”
Do you think Pelosi will bring the DADT bill up after the election during the lame duck period? Do you think she would actually do that?
Dave R.
May 21st, 2010
11:27 am
“Or are you of the opinion that the woman is always the one at fault?”
Usually. You’re the ones that got Clinton and Hope & Change elected after all.
Del
May 21st, 2010
11:27 am
JKL2,
Bingo! The left see’s this issue as a major component of their ideology…like abortion, wealth redistribution, govt, run health care, global warming, anti-business, getting God out of America among other causes. It’s not about protecting homosexuals, it’s all about celebrating them as homosexuals.
nique0401
May 21st, 2010
11:28 am
@JKL2
i dont understand how you dont see the DADT is not broke? an estimated 10% of americans are GLBT. that is around 30 million people… more then asian population in the USA. you are saying that it is ok to restrict about 30 million people from a career or life that they might want to live because sex. COULD happen? yet the DADT isnt broke? descrimination being forced onto people doesnt make this broke? the LARGEST non white minority in the USA is african americans and they are about 13 or so percent…. so imagine restricting 80% of african americans male and female from joining a job, and then tell me its not broken….
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:29 am
JKL2:
Don’t bet on it …………. just give it time.
Doggone/GA:
Well, what unit did you serve in?
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:33 am
“Well, what unit did you serve in?”
Not germane to the issue, and none of your business.
Dave R.
May 21st, 2010
11:35 am
“it’s all about celebrating them as homosexuals.”
Actually, it’s all about celebrating them as human beings.
Unless you don’t think they are. Do you?
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:35 am
Doggone/GA:
A little testy are we? I thought so ……………………
Well, I was in and it was a problem. Always has been ………. and now it will get worse.
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
11:35 am
Doggone- soldiers have been “outed” by someone else
That falls under “Don’t Ask”. Not to say it hasn’t happened, but the person doing the “outing” is the one in violation.
“I’d say it’s having heterosexual MEN in the military that leads to sex. Or are you of the opinion that the woman is always the one at fault?”
So your solution is to keep heterosexual men out of the military? Sex is a 2-way street no matter who the participants are. I’m saying in the military it often leads to trouble. That’s why females are not allowed in combat jobs. They are an unnecesary distraction.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:37 am
Dave R. :
Yes ……….. they are human beings engaging in perversion.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:38 am
JKL2:
” That’s why females are not allowed in combat jobs. They are an unnecesary distraction.”
Those days are numbered also. The decline of our military will continue until we mirror the Europeans (which we can now lick with one hand tied behind our backs but that won’t last much longer).
Dave R.
May 21st, 2010
11:39 am
Perversion in your opinion, Scout.
Not in the eyes of the law, which is paramount in this case since we are not a theocracy.
Big D
May 21st, 2010
11:42 am
I find homosexuality a cruel thing to have to live with, but it is a malady that has been scorned by most societies from antiquity to now. My sexuality is no ones business because it falls within the accepted norm, but if it didn’t I would expect it to be scrutinized to some degree.
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
11:42 am
nique-
Who’s being discrimated against? They can serve all they want. They are just asked not to bring sex into the workplace. I guess the military should start recruiting racists, gang members, and even muslim extremists too, because you don’t want to discriminate against those groups either.
Del
May 21st, 2010
11:43 am
“Unless you don’t think they are”
You’re ASS_U_ME_ING…leave me out of that one and you can enjoy it all to yourself. Can’t see how celebrating anyone’s sexuality has anything to do with celebrating humanity. That would be like celebrating someones diet preference in the name of humanity.
Dave R.
May 21st, 2010
11:44 am
“I find homosexuality a cruel thing to have to live with”
Really? If your sexuality falls within the accepted norm, how would you “know” that homosexuality is a cruel thing to live with?
Gale
May 21st, 2010
11:45 am
The sooner DADT is behind us, the sooner it will stop politicians from hauling it out to divide and distract the electorate from the real problems and the politicians’ failure to solve the real problems.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:45 am
Dave R:
“Perversion in your opinion, Scout. Not in the eyes of the law, which is paramount in this case since we are not a theocracy.”
Sorry ………. right now the law (military law at least) sees it as perversion. That’s why we have DADT and THAT IS THE LAW until it is changed.
So today ………….. it is perversion in the military.
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
11:45 am
My what a broad brush you use to label those you disagree with – walmart does carry smaller brushes – try one. In case you didn’t notice, the speaker happens to be a woman
md. dude. It’s an Our Gang reference.
Put another way, I was making accusations of childishness; I was hoping to head off at the pass the usual “EWW BOTOX PELOUSI!! SHE IZ HIDEOUZ!!!” posts that breed on the internet, which clog up such comments page, and which are so pre-pubescent it’s arguable whether they even rise to the level of “sexist.”
Jack
May 21st, 2010
11:49 am
It ain’t right. No amount of talking is going to make it right.
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
11:50 am
Off topic post Numero Uno:
Is this a happy headline or a scary one?
Financial Stocks Turn Higher After Senate Passes Reform Bill
Big D
May 21st, 2010
11:51 am
Dave, 57 years of observation of family members, employees, fellow workers…99% are not happy with the situation. Sure, they will say they are , but just look at this topic, it would not be a topic if they were normal and PLEASE don’t say homosexuality is normal to any degree.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
11:51 am
Big D
I tend to disagree with your last statement that it’s really a good thing if we survive it. Call me a dreamer or whatever, but I already know this country will survive it. People give their opinions based on their personal perceptions. However, I know that two people can see the same exact thing and perceive it in two entirely different ways. What may currently be perceived as a disaster for one person could be someone else’s blessing.
This country was already falling deeper into debt, even as you say people got complacent and lazy. The deficit didn’t just happen in the past few years like everybody wants to make it seem. This has been a long, long journey. Things have exploded in the past few years, but that deficit train left the station a long time ago. We need to quit all the bickering and figure out how to get things back on the right track. Griping and pointing fingers will not reduce the debt, but sound fiscal managment will. As of lately, nobody has been fiscally responsible.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:51 am
I think the Army needs a “nudist brigade” ………..
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
11:53 am
Ah, for the “good old days”.
When we could beat and kill those fairies with impunity?
And “lawfully” keep them and those filthy darkies out of our godly military.
Damn progressives; ruined everything…
Big D
May 21st, 2010
11:53 am
SC, I do agree with you for the most part, but I do really have a problem with not only the debt acceleration, but this insane social engineering by a government.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
11:55 am
OFF TOPIC #2:
Jay:
Did you see Luckovich’s cartoon today?
It shows “Lady Liberty” missing from her pedastal and a bunch of people in a boat with the caption, “She was here illegally and got deported back to France.”
I have a suggestion for you to pass on to him.
How about drawing one of an Arizona rancher shoot to death outside his home as an illegal alien with a smoking gun stands over him and the caption, “He was here illegally and the rancher got deported to eternity.”
Gale
May 21st, 2010
11:55 am
Big D, being left-handed is also no “normal”.
Big D
May 21st, 2010
11:57 am
Gale, but you have to agree that the writing on the pen “is” upsdide down.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
11:57 am
“That falls under “Don’t Ask”. Not to say it hasn’t happened, but the person doing the “outing” is the one in violation.”
but it was not THAT person who was discharged…it was the Gay soldier.
“So your solution is to keep heterosexual men out of the military?”
Sounds good to me, they’re nothing but trouble anyway. How many female soldiers have been convicted of raping their male counterparts?
” Sex is a 2-way street no matter who the participants are. I’m saying in the military it often leads to trouble. That’s why females are not allowed in combat jobs. They are an unnecesary distraction”
So you DO blame the women after all.
AndrewW
May 21st, 2010
12:01 pm
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi has privately told her politically vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.”
December, 2009 – The Hill
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72461-pelosi-to-shield-vulnerable-members-from-tough-votes
The Senate isn’t going to “act first.”
She promised her fellow politicians. They are more important than we are.
While it is difficult to find any “promises” that are actually kept – the ones they make to each other are the most reliable. Kind of an “honor among thieves” thing.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
12:01 pm
…99% are not happy with the situation…
99% of who?
I recently read that 99% of a__holes just make up horses__t to sound like they have a clue of what they are talking about…(lol)
This seems to be a corollary of the Dickhead Doctrine – “If there is even a one percent chance of a neo-con ever being correct about anything, we have to treat it as a certainty.”
dw
May 21st, 2010
12:03 pm
Jay,
Somehow I see the economy as more important than if some gay/lesbian military member can “shout out” their preference. But with this regime, it is all about social flip-flop at the expense of all other areas.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
12:06 pm
“Somehow I see the economy as more important than if some gay/lesbian military member can “shout out” their preference. But with this regime, it is all about social flip-flop at the expense of all other areas”
And here all this time I thought government was the problem, not the solution. Guess that only applies to gays in the military, but not to the economny…THEN it’s government that MUST find the solution. Learn something new every day.
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
12:06 pm
I guess the military should start recruiting racists, gang members, and even muslim extremists too, because you don’t want to discriminate against those groups either.
They already do.
A group of racists were found at Ft. Bragg a while back.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-867621.html
Gang members:
http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/online/2010/gangs_in_the_military.html;jsessionid=4542B3B64898414D6572D4A81268EF84
And of course, the whipping boy of muslim extremists, the Ft. Hood guy.
Outhouse GoKart
May 21st, 2010
12:06 pm
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
11:50 am
Doesnt mean the two are related.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:06 pm
I guess the Army will have to change their “Army of One” slogan to “Never Leave Your Buddy’s Behind” ?
Big D
May 21st, 2010
12:07 pm
AMVET, 99% of all people jailed for drunk driving told the arresting officer they had not been drinking. When confronted with the truth that hurts or has consequences, one will tend to lie. I do understand your tendency to try and say something to make you feel better about yourself.
Soothsayer
May 21st, 2010
12:08 pm
To the 24% of the populace who believes the U.S. exited recession in fine fettle, I offer a “Two Scoop Special”: a Double-Dip recession is guaranteed for the following reasons:
1. The Eurozone is heading into deep recession, taking U.S. corporate profits with it.
2. China’s unprecedented bubble in credit and real estate will implode, taking down China’s economy.
3. Once China goes down, so do the housing bubbles in Canada and Australia, and the Asian economies which depend on sales to China for their own growth.
4. Local government in the U.S. will have to shed tens of thousands of jobs.
5. Bank reform will force layoffs and consolidation in the financial sector.
6. Housing’s bogus government-induced “rally” will implode.
7. The massive Federal bailouts accomplished nothing but propping up a rotten status quo for a year.
8. The vaunted “recession-proof” sickcare industry will start shedding jobs as Medicare and other funding sources implode.
Let’s wait and see if he’s correct.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:08 pm
Southern Comfort:
“They already do.”
But it’s a DADT of a different sort ………. once you “out” yourself as a gang member or racist (or you are found out) you are gone. The Marine Corps won’t even recruit anyone with a Confederate Flag tattoo.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
12:09 pm
“A little testy are we? I thought so ”
You thought wrong. My reply was a plain statement of fact. Any “testiness” you “hear” is in YOUR mind, not mine.
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
12:09 pm
doggone-
I guess you better go sign up then. The WACs are looking for a few good women.
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
12:11 pm
Doesnt mean the two are related.
So I’d imagine; whenever I see a financial news story saying “Stocks did X because of Y” my BS meter goes into the yellow, if not the red.
Doggone/GA
May 21st, 2010
12:11 pm
“I guess you better go sign up then”
Then? Why “then”? Plus, I’m too old now.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
12:12 pm
Well, I have said it before and will say it again. This is a matter for the military to decide not politicians!
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:17 pm
JKL2:
Doggone is an “armchair generaless” …………..
Doggone:
“You thought wrong. My reply was a plain statement of fact. Any “testiness” you “hear” is in YOUR mind, not mine.”
You didn’t respond to my second point …………….
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
12:17 pm
So little d, answer this question – 99% of who???
SoCo, these never-served 101st Chairborne here have no freaking clue about who is in uniform. Not one.
In their delusional, romanticized world, everybody is a valorous, exemplary warrior. Except for the homos.
It never occurs to them that there are still plenty of uncaught criminals, dead enders and misfits in our all-volunteer services. And yes, racists, xenophobes, misogynists and gang members.
ALL because these perfected godly types won’t go down to the local AFEES and help fill quotas!
(They too must have been out shopping when King George talked about sacrifice.)
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:17 pm
Scooter:
Excactly !
stands for decibels
May 21st, 2010
12:19 pm
This is a matter for the military to decide not politicians!
uh, no. Doesn’t work that way.
Executive Order 9981 stated that “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.” The order also established an advisory committee to examine the rules, practices, and procedures of the armed services and recommend ways to make desegregation a reality. There was considerable resistance to the executive order from the military, but by the end of the Korean conflict, almost all the military was integrated.
JohnnyReb
May 21st, 2010
12:19 pm
Scooter – right on. I was wondering how many blogging here in favor of DADT abolishment have served in the military themselves? This issue is obviously political payback considering where it should be on the priority list. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!
theyeshaveit
May 21st, 2010
12:20 pm
Question: How many countries allow gays in the military?
Answer: According to one source, these countries allow openly gay people in their military.
Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa.
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK
JohnnyReb
May 21st, 2010
12:21 pm
Scout – I wish you would lay-off the Air Force. You are hurting my delicate sensibilities!
Big D
May 21st, 2010
12:22 pm
Scooter, Amen…the peacetime military is always preparing for the ultimate in insane affairs…war. The support sections of the military and politicians can have all this useless dialog about sexual orientation, but the grunt that’s getting shot at and living in hell could not give a damn.
JohnnyReb
May 21st, 2010
12:23 pm
theyeshavit – there you go. If gays have this overwhelming desire to serve in the military, they have lots of options.
@@
May 21st, 2010
12:23 pm
Pelosi has brushed Gates aside? That oughta be interesting. Wasn’t it Obama who decided to wait for a military review of DADT?
Nancy’s feelin’ froggy…kinda risky given her approval rating.
Oh well…
Southern Comfort
May 21st, 2010
12:24 pm
Scout
I was merely showing that the military already recruits in those areas where JKL2 stated that they should start recruiting them.
Big D
May 21st, 2010
12:26 pm
AmVet, you need to lay off the boose this early in the day…your assuming you are the only soldier on the blog.
Normal
May 21st, 2010
12:27 pm
JohnnyReb
May 21st, 2010
12:19 pm
I served for 20+ years in the Navy, and yes, I’m in favor of doing away with DADT. I served with men who were gay and had no problem with it. As far as I was concerned, they were Sailors. They did their jobs, they fought like hell, some gave their lives for their country and one saved my life. No, I have no problem with them at all. I also know that the one who saved my life could kick yours, mine and two others tukus’s any time, any place, and any way.
Scooter
May 21st, 2010
12:28 pm
Executive Order 9981 stated that “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.” The order also established an advisory
DB, I see nothing about sexual behavior in this. ????????
Big D
May 21st, 2010
12:29 pm
They shave it, (joke) So…
theyeshaveit
May 21st, 2010
12:30 pm
SoCo, of course, the military does not actively recruit gang members or racists. Nevertheless, they find their way into the military. I have talked to Army and Navy recruiters recently (no, I am not joining at my age, I have already done that, thank you) and they tell me that they conduct background checks to weed out the criminals.
Scout, are you baggin’ on the Air Force?
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:30 pm
JohnnyReb: I’m sorry. They still saved by butt a few times.
P.S.
Don’t you know that your handle is “racist”. The USMC won’t even recruit you if you have a Confederate Flag tattoo. Now “that” is discrimination ……………..
theyeshavit:
Yes ……….. and our military (at least the Marine Corps) can whip them man for man any day of the year …………… your point ?
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:32 pm
theyeshavit:
NO! They are the world’s largest quasi-military organization !
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
12:32 pm
AmVet- SoCo, these never-served 101st Chairborne here have no freaking clue about who is in uniform. Not one
You know better. I’m wearing a lovely green pixelated outfit today. I could probably even find a 101 patch if I wanted to dig thru the drawer by my left knee.
But the sheep are listening so please continue.
RB from Gwinnett
May 21st, 2010
12:33 pm
“your assuming you are the only soldier on the blog.”
That’s nothing new. Wait ’til you get the “you can’t be for war unless you’ve served (like I did!!) or are headed down to sign up” routine. You’re not even allowed to have any opinion about it in amvet land.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:36 pm
At ease, I’ll be in the company area all day !
theyeshaveit
May 21st, 2010
12:36 pm
Scout, my point is that there are good soldiers everywhere and they well be gay. As for the Marine Corp being able to whip anyone these days, what’s your point?
On a subject of some levity, when I was in Air Force and stationed at Fort Meade, I was walking back to my barracks one day, when a bunch of jarheads leaned out their window, waving their arms at me in the imitation of flight. Our football team whipped the marines real good t hat day. Our quarterback played at the Air Force Academy. I cannot tell you if he was gay or not.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
12:41 pm
Poor, put upon, misunderstood RB.
Because he is so utterly full of self-serving ____, he thinks I advocate for his voice not being heard.
Are you kidding me??? He is one of the the greatest recruiters (get it, armchair?) imaginable for anti-Republicanism.
Big D, still waiting for your cogent answer. 99% of who(m)?
LOL…
Even back then…
Scout
May 21st, 2010
12:44 pm
theyeshavit:
………..” I cannot tell you if he was gay or not.”
And you make my point. That goes for everyone in the military. Keep it to yourself !
JohnnyReb
May 21st, 2010
12:45 pm
Normal – I respect your and and any other blogger’s opinion on this topic who has actually served in the military. Those that have not served may think they understand, but they do not. As to kicking my butt, it would not take much. 1 – I’m 63, and 2, my military training past basic was how to chase electrons. I can, however, bomb the hell out of you and send petro up to a circling thirsty fighter!
theyeshaveit
May 21st, 2010
12:49 pm
Scout, you know THAT was not the point. The point is that there some good men and women in the military at this very moment and a number of them may be gay. That they are should not preclude them from serving their country. It IS their country, too, you know.
Big D
May 21st, 2010
12:49 pm
You were answered…you’re just in denial, but I’m sure you’ve heard that before.
AmVet
May 21st, 2010
12:56 pm
Big D, so humor me and repeat it!
99% of who?
LOL…
Gale
May 21st, 2010
1:05 pm
“The support sections of the military and politicians can have all this useless dialog about sexual orientation, but the grunt that’s getting shot at and living in hell could not give a damn.”
And the military has discharged some of those grunts who were decorated for bravery in combat just because they were gay. Face it, the flamboyant types are not enlisting. The gays that enlist just want to serve in the same way straights want to serve. The only “openness” they want is to stop the need to lie about themselves.
Jenkins
May 21st, 2010
1:11 pm
The only people against it are secretly homosexuals anyway. Just like those evangelicals and ministers who rail against it and have been caught w/ their pants down. Kinds like that marine guy in American Beauty
JKL2
May 21st, 2010
1:12 pm
It’s the ones who hold press conferences to try and prove some point or Soldiers who want to get out and use this as an excuse to get that are discharged.
There are always exceptions, but generally the system works well.
williebkind
May 21st, 2010
1:45 pm
If we end DADT then we must initiate the draft! I want all liberals to have a chance to be a part of something they do not believe in.
williebkind
May 21st, 2010
1:46 pm
Jenkins
May 21st, 2010
1:11 pm
That is a lie! You can find progessive liberals disguised as republicans in every election.
williebkind
May 21st, 2010
1:47 pm
If it is vile and disgusting, the liberals are for it.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
1:49 pm
theyeshaveit:
Yes there are ……….. and again you make my point. Just keep it to yourself.
williebkind
May 21st, 2010
1:54 pm
DADT allows them to serve! What else do you want? To have sex with the platoon! On the parade field! Besides what I can tell most homosexuals in the military are women–or want to be. Oh well it is not about serving in the military it is about making our country accept homosexuality as NORMAL. Not in my family.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
1:57 pm
williebkind:
Ooo Rah! Fix bayonets ……………..
casual observer
May 21st, 2010
2:00 pm
Hey Bookman ??? Why don’t you serve in the military before you try your liberal social program. And your Daddy doesn’t count.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
2:05 pm
casual observer:
“Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Samuel Johnson (1709-1784).
However, in his defense we are all trying to be “journalists” here …………………
williebkind
May 21st, 2010
2:10 pm
Scout
May 21st, 2010
2:05 pm
Well watching CNN or Fox News you have to be a lawyer to become a journalist. Jay needs to go back to school.
kjdf
May 21st, 2010
2:37 pm
i guess amvet is ready to put the current prez/vice prez on trial and in jail as they have not changed any policy of the former administration and even have embraced many of them.
kjdf
May 21st, 2010
2:40 pm
Pelosi will be ‘memory by end of this year’
8:00 am May 21, 2010, by Jay
DannyX
May 21st, 2010
3:21 pm
We just can’t have gays serving. Most of the guys I’ve talked to are against it because it would be too tempting. They are away for long periods of time. This would open up the army to tons of sex. Not gay sex, just you know, minor stuff.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
4:42 pm
williebkind @ 2:10 :
LOL !
DannyX
May 21st, 2010
5:16 pm
Hey Scout, would you have been more inclined to be on the receiving end of a hand job if gays were allowed when you served? The fear in getting caught I’m sure stopped you before. Would you have given in? Out of desperation of course.
Jenkins
May 21st, 2010
6:45 pm
Williebkind…This isn’t a political ruse; it’s about sexual orientation stupid. I have found that those who usually jump up and down and yell the loudest AGAINST being gay, usually embrace it in private. But are cowards afraid to let the general public know their real feelings. It’s OK if you are gay, we still accept you and value your opinions.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
7:59 pm
DannyX:
That was quite an infanitle response but I’ll humor you. First of all, Gays were in when I served. Mostly in the Air Force, Some in the Navy, Coast Guard and Army and even a few in the Marine Corps (although the Corps made it a practice of weeding them out in bootcamp). They have always served in our military from the Revolution forward and some of them quite honorably and heroically.
That’s not the point. The point is keep it to yourself and there are others that do not want to know about you perverse sexual orientation and are repelled by it. It’s just that simple.
Dino S.
May 21st, 2010
10:31 pm
It is time for don’t ask don’ t tell to go period. US Representative Patrick Murphy is the first Operation Iraqi Freedom Vet to serve in congress and he is the lead sponsor of the repeal. Comon people get a clue.
Scout
May 21st, 2010
10:46 pm
Dino S.
…………. and he is a politician looking for votes ………….. not a career military man.