Jumping In Puddles Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 That is enough of the clapping. Enough!:lol: J/K You know I love you!:D The clapping guy is funny. :lol: That clapping guy is funny... and I miss you :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 :lol: That clapping guy is funny... and I miss you :) I know, me too. We should meet in Princeton again.:D I still swoon over your avatar. Ahhhhh.:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 I know, me too. We should meet in Princeton again.:D I still swoon over your avatar. Ahhhhh.:lol: See, there is ALWAYS common ground! :D I would love to meet in Princeton. We should try to schedule something this fall or at the very latest in the spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 See, there is ALWAYS common ground! :D I would love to meet in Princeton. We should try to schedule something this fall or at the very latest in the spring. Yes! We definitely should. I very much enjoyed our political conversations. Civil discourse is possible.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 Thanks to everyone who posted their very thoughtful replies. I can see we really run the spectrum here on every issue! I do feel less alone now that I know all of you are out there! Here is to more thoughtful, tolerant, respectful discourse in the future! :cheers2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 We're everywhere and we're taking over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 I still swoon over your avatar. Ahhhhh.:lol: Oh, me too! I LOOOOOVE to see JIP's avatar in a thread! Ahhh...such eye candy! astrid:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 :hurray: Add my kudos! No need to tag their thread just because one or more of them tagged ours. :iagree: and adding my kudos too. :thumbup1: It is so nice knowing that I'm in such mature company. This is a really classy bunch. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 This thread is fabulous!!! Silly stars. :lol: I agree. I haven't had this much fun in a long time. :D You guys crack me up! :smilielol5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) I'm a liberal if that means I believe you should be able to serve your country even if you marry the person you love. Phred....this is more of a logistical issue than anything else. On board ships the men and women have separate berthing because of, well, sex. If women didn't care that men were in their quarters, showers, etc, they probably wouldn't be bothered by a lesbian in there, either. Having a homosexual male on a submarine is detrimental to morale because most men on board don't want to shower with another man who is attracted to men. You can't change their feelings any more than you can change the homosexual's feelings. It's natural, I think, that people don't want to be nekkid around others who may be attracted to them unless the attraction is mutual, ya know? It's not an anti-homosexual issue. It's simple logistics.:001_smile: Edited September 19, 2009 by Aggie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 We're everywhere and we're taking over. Only temporarily. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen in CO Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 I've never understood why pacifism is considered "liberal." Or cosleeping. Or cloth diapering. Or, for heaven's sake, trying to reduce carbon emissions. You know? I'm thinking too much tonight. Julie Good Point Julie. Of course, my conservative brother is against cosleeping (you'll smother the baby) against cloth diapers (that's what disposables are for) and despite his years of science and math at college can't connect the dots between the exhaust from his tail pipe to the brown haze in the sky around his city and the wheezy cough he gets when there is an air quality alert. Hmmm. No connection at all. Really. I think our terminology is very outdated and there is very little difference between the political parties and great variety of people that can't be easily stuffed into one of two boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Having a homosexual male on a submarine is detrimental to morale because most men on board don't want to shower with another man who is attracted to men. You can't change their feelings any more than you can change the homosexual's feelings. It's natural, I think, that people don't want to be nekkid around others who may be attracted to them unless the attraction is mutual, ya know? I'm a bit confused as to whether this is universally true... if so, who should shower with whom in public showers (schools, gyms, barracks, etc.)? Gay men with women? But the gay men might be attracted to each other, and what if some of the women are lesbian? As far as I can tell, we'd need separate facilities for: Straight women (with perhaps one gay man at a time) Straight men (with perhaps one lesbian at a time) Bisexuals would have to shower and change in private stalls or wear blindfolds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen in CO Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 As far as I can tell, we'd need separate facilities for: Straight women (with perhaps one gay man at a time) Straight men (with perhaps one lesbian at a time) Bisexuals would have to shower and change in private stalls or wear blindfolds Um - that will never work - you can't have straight men with a lesbian. And bisexuals would probably be much happier showering together - that's kind of the point isn't it? And Aggie - you are trying to protect big strong men in the shower. Okay I won't comment on that but. What about the wonderful, brave, gay men and women that have served in the armed forces all over the world and made important contributions? How much longer would it have taken to defeat Hitler if Alan Turing had not been in the British military? You cannot just pretend that your shower argument trumps history and reasoned discourse. Have you served on a ship? If so then, your personal experience will be given more weight. My sister served on several ships. She was far more concerned with the maggots in the rice than who was in the shower, and she even had a few bisexuals and lesbians on her ship. Shhh. Don't tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna in Texas Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 I'm a bit confused as to whether this is universally true... if so, who should shower with whom in public showers (schools, gyms, barracks, etc.)? Gay men with women? But the gay men might be attracted to each other, and what if some of the women are lesbian? As far as I can tell, we'd need separate facilities for: Straight women (with perhaps one gay man at a time) Straight men (with perhaps one lesbian at a time) Bisexuals would have to shower and change in private stalls or wear blindfolds I think we'd just need two. One for the exhibitionists and one for the shy people. That way it's eyes up or eyes down. While I find my husband very attractive, he does make it out of the door in the morning in a timely fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Were I at war I'd care a lot more that the guy next to me could shoot strait, than if he was "straight". Who dives a ****? Really! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted September 19, 2009 Author Share Posted September 19, 2009 While I find my husband very attractive, he does make it out of the door in the morning in a timely fashion. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kari C in SC Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Is there a group for Reasonables? How about Logicals? That's the one to which I belong. I cannot say I'm entirely conservative (I'm not old enough), and I cannot call myself a liberal (I'm so not young enough). I'm waiting for the right group to come along...my whole life.(no, I don't think I'm Libertarian, either) This pretty much describes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwimmyKids Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Raised by and nurtured in the tradition of Kennedy democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Were I at war I'd care a lot more that the guy next to me could shoot strait, than if he was "straight". Who dives a ****? Really! Bill Well......WE ARE AT WAR and in poll after poll United States servicemen have stated that they do NOT want the ban repealed. Indeed (recent Military Times poll), some 10% say they would not reenlist and 14% say they would consider not reenlisting. This does not mean that the rest support lifting the ban (as they do not... see the scores of poll numbers) but that they would just live with it. As it appears that you have not served on a submarine, a Navy Ship, in a foxhole, in a missile silo, shared a tent with another soldier etc (as many of my friends have done) I suppose you don't give a **** but those who do live in those conditions certainly do give a **** and they have said resoundingly NO. So to answer your question the majority of the servicemen currently fighting a war do give a ****. Those of us who live behind the shield that they provide, who sleep safe because of the sacrifice that our military makes should perhaps just leave this issue alone, especially in time of war. Lets not make our servicemen's lives any more complicated. GOD BLESS our Servicemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Um... do I still qualify as a liberal if I have no idea what to do about GLB service personnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Well......WE ARE AT WAR and in poll after poll United States servicemen have stated that they do NOT want the ban repealed. Indeed (recent Military Times poll), some 10% say they would not reenlist and 14% say they would consider not reenlisting. This does not mean that the rest support lifting the ban (as they do not... see the scores of poll numbers) but that they would just live with it. Hate to break it to you but equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and can't be violated based on polls or other majoritarian claims for discrimination. That is un-American. As it appears that you have not served on a submarine' date=' a Navy Ship, in a foxhole, in a missile silo, shared a tent with another soldier etc (as many of my friends have done) I suppose you don't give a **** but those who do live in those conditions certainly do give a **** and they have said resoundingly NO.[/font'][/color] I know you with your "men in my family have served in militaries for a thousand years" think you have the only say about things military. But you are dead wrong. If we don't extend our freedoms to all we are all slaves. So to answer your question the majority of the servicemen currently fighting a war do give a ****. Those of us who live behind the shield that they provide, who sleep safe because of the sacrifice that our military makes should perhaps just leave this issue alone, especially in time of war. Lets not make our servicemen's lives any more complicated. GOD BLESS our Servicemen. Like I said majorities don't get to take away the inherent rights of those they disapprove of in this Nation. If you think otherwise you have a very dangerous and warped understanding of American values. I'm guessing you are not a "liberal"? :D Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Hate to break it to you but equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and can't be violated based on polls or other majoritarian claims for discrimination. That is un-American. I know you with your "men in my family have served in militaries for a thousand years" think you have the only say about things military. But you are dead wrong. If we don't extend our freedoms to all we are all slaves. Like I said majorities don't get to take away the inherent rights of those they disapprove of in this Nation. If you think otherwise you have a very dangerous and warped understanding of American values. I'm guessing you are not a "liberal"? :D Bill Do you think any of them fought in Alexander's army? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Agreeing! Although the older I get the more against shooting at all I get. Yeah, guess I am getting more and more "liberal" aren't I? Dawn Were I at war I'd care a lot more that the guy next to me could shoot strait, than if he was "straight". Who dives a ****? Really! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 I am a Christian and I don't like living in the Bible Belt! I never knew I was quite so "liberal" before I moved down here! But my views, juxtaposed with some in this area.....WHEW! I am a flamin' commie! Dawn Liberal atheist here......and I live in the bible belt. (not by choice) :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 (edited) Originally Posted by pqr Well......WE ARE AT WAR and in poll after poll United States servicemen have stated that they do NOT want the ban repealed. Hate to break it to you but equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and can't be violated based on polls or other majoritarian claims for discrimination. That is un-American. You might actually want to check your facts on that little one. The military IS allowed to be selective on those who it allows to join and who it kicks out. I am sure that we would both agree that Klansmen have no place in the military and while they may have the protection under the law to be Klansmen that does not extend to the military. In a similar manner the military can and does limit the type and location of tattoos that a serviceman may have and can limit the weight height physical limitations mental limitations and psychological behavior of a serviceman. The courts have ruled that the military CAN be selective. So I hate to break it to you but the military is within its rights. Originally Posted by pqr As it appears that you have not served on a submarine, a Navy Ship, in a foxhole, in a missile silo, shared a tent with another soldier etc (as many of my friends have done) I suppose you don't give a **** but those who do live in those conditions certainly do give a **** and they have said resoundingly NO.[/color] I know you with your "men in my family have served in militaries for a thousand years" think you have the only say about things military. But you are dead wrong. No actually there are others on the board who professes to be the final arbiter. Nevertheless when someone asks who gives a **** and I am able to give chapter and verse as to who actually does give a ****, I would expect that individual to admit their error. In that expectation I was dead wrong. Originally Posted by pqr Indeed (recent Military Times poll), some 10% say they would not reenlist and 14% say they would consider not reenlisting. This does not mean that the rest support lifting the ban (as they do not... see the scores of poll numbers) but that they would just live with it. Like I said majorities don't get to take away the inherent rights of those they disapprove of in this Nation. If you think otherwise you have a very dangerous and warped understanding of American values. No.... we must disagree, while I would not accuse you of having either dangerous or warped understanding of American values (common courtesies you see) you completely misunderstand military service. Not everyone has a right to serve. I will stand up for the rights of the individual over the State in almost all areas and reject excessive government. So no I am not a liberal. Edited September 19, 2009 by pqr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Cloth diapering is a liberal thing? Wonder what they did in the "good old days" when the nation was new and the men were red-blooded and blah blah -- toilet train at birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerine Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 We are but one anecdotal liberal, pro-gay military family who so very enjoyed those little capitalist gems as free health care, subsidized housing, and tax free food. I've never felt more like socialist than in the military. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/ Personally I would prefer a cross dressing soldier that understands Farsi to a white supremacist who is likely ignorant and by definition , a bigot but to each his own. Of course, the military can be selective I just wish they would actually do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/ Personally I would prefer a cross dressing soldier that understands Farsi to a white supremacist who is likely ignorant and by definition , a bigot but to each his own. Of course, the military can be selective I just wish they would actually do so. The article if true, but then again can you really believe the words of the individual profiled about the Army being aware of his beliefs, is a sad indictment. Even so it did state "Army regulations prohibit soldiers from participating in racist groups, and recruiters are instructed to keep an eye out for suspicious tattoos." We argree they certainly should be selective and keep individuals such as that profiled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 The article if true, but then again can you really believe the words of the individual profiled about the Army being aware of his beliefs, is a sad indictment. Even so it did state "Army regulations prohibit soldiers from participating in racist groups, and recruiters are instructed to keep an eye out for suspicious tattoos." We argree they certainly should be selective and keep individuals such as that profiled out. When my husband was in company command he threw a few soldiers out of the military for having neo-nazi paraphernalia in their rooms. BUT, that's the way the military works-they rely on the company commanders to know this stuff and kick out the people involved with that stuff. The units we've been in have been known to kick people out. I will say many of the units we've been in are more selective and strict than may be typical. My husband has a subordinate with extensive Hawaiian tattoos (he's Hawaiian). They recently had to take photos of them all and provide write-ups explaining that they were cultural and not gang related or anything. That's where the cultural tattoos come in, there are a surprising number of Polynesians in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Time Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 We are but one anecdotal liberal, pro-gay military family who so very enjoyed those little capitalist gems as free health care, subsidized housing, and tax free food. I've never felt more like socialist than in the military. :lol: It is interesting you should make this comment. I've been thinking about this idea a lot as my husband draws closer to military retirement. It has been a long, long 20 years. You make a wise observation about the socialistic nature of military life, but the flip side to those perks is the handing over of your personal freedom in many other ways. Our great country has handled all these things so successfully for so long that one almost forgets that while being part of the military, you are no longer free. I think that the military is an interesting case. Within the military, people submit to a socialist, State controlled lifestyle voluntarily for the specific purpose of making sure the rest of the country can maintain a republic free of socialism. But the very heart and soul is that it is entered into voluntarily and (hopefully) temporarily. And the State, in return, offers many benefits to assure a population willing to volunteer. The freedoms that the private sector enjoy are temporarily abdicated by the military member for no other purpose than to protect those very freedoms. And all of this was wisely allowed for under the Constitution. It does not follow that all other forms of socialism are allowed for under the Constitution. What I am trying to say is that despite the many positive aspect of socialism in military life, it was never supposed to extend to the entire population as those positives will most certainly become overwhelmed in time with corruption caused by excess power by the gov't. On the part of the private sector it is wise to forego some of the real or perceived “benefits†of socialism in favor of the risk and responsibilities of freedom since it is in confronting and overcoming challenges that we aspire to our highest and best selves. It is the difference between remaining forever a juvenile (with the State as guardian) and becoming truly an adult (the State controlled by the people). I will depart now as this is quite off the main topic. Please to forgive the intrusion. As I stated, all things military are on my mind these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Cloth diapering is a liberal thing? Wonder what they did in the "good old days" when the nation was new and the men were red-blooded and blah blah -- toilet train at birth? No, they were liberals, obviously. :D (See for ex. On Becoming a Liberal - Guidance of George Washington ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFSinIL Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You might actually want to check your facts on that little one. The military IS allowed to be selective on those who it allows to join and who it kicks out. I am sure that we would both agree that Klansmen have no place in the military and while they may have the protection under the law to be Klansmen that does not extend to the military. In a similar manner the military can and does limit the type and location of tattoos that a serviceman may have and can limit the weight height physical limitations mental limitations and psychological behavior of a serviceman. The courts have ruled that the military CAN be selective. So I hate to break it to you but the military is within its rights. Please tell me you are not equating men and women who are born with a homosexual orientation to members of violent racist organizations. Or attempting to suggest homosexuals are incapable in ways those with mental disabilities may be. As it appears that you have not served on a submarine, a Navy Ship, in a foxhole, in a missile silo, shared a tent with another soldier etc (as many of my friends have done) I suppose you don't give a **** but those who do live in those conditions certainly do give a **** and they have said resoundingly NO The same tired argument was used for years to segregate blacks in the military. Bigotry is un-American. I will stand up for the rights of the individual over the State in almost all areas and reject excessive government. So no I am not a liberal. You say you stand for the rights of the individual over the State, yet you are fully supportive of the State trampling on the rights of gay Americans. I'd call that "cognitive dissonance," or worse. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen in CO Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Hey! Cool. For myself I am pro life (and I have the 7 kids to prove it. *g*) but I have a hard time with a law restricting it. The same way I am pro gun, think drugs should be legalized and everyone should marry who they want-I don't want what I believe made into law for everyone. But I can totally get behind feminists for life. :iagree: Wow - can I say - I like you? Only three kids here, but yes. I think the part about not making my beliefs into laws for everyone is one of the big things that will always have me tossing toss myself into the liberal pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meet me in paris Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 We are but one anecdotal liberal, pro-gay military family who so very enjoyed those little capitalist gems as free health care, subsidized housing, and tax free food. I've never felt more like socialist than in the military. :lol: :iagree: Count us in! I can't help but laugh at all my military spouse friends that are screaming NO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE! Hellooooooo??? It's been pretty good for us for about 13 years, sooo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen in CO Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 :iagree: Count us in! I can't help but laugh at all my military spouse friends that are screaming NO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE! Hellooooooo??? It's been pretty good for us for about 13 years, sooo.... :lol: Oh that is great. I was raised as a military dependent with government health care as my only health care for 20 years. It wasn't perfect, but neither is my current non-government health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theresatwist Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I respectfully disagree. "Caring" is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue. The difference (as I see it) is that conservatives don't believe that it's the federal or state government's job to deal with societal issues. We tend to put responsibility for helping others on the individual and on local organizations, not on the federal government. Lisa I think "caring" is perhaps the wrong word choice. However, I agree with that OP that on the issues they listed liberals and conservatives really have radically different views. I do not see conservative views on those issues as being caring, but I do not think that means that the people who hold those views are not caring people. Yes, definitely liberal here. Actually, the only area where I'm perhaps somewhat conservative is education. I am a big feminist, etc. but I believe kids should be taught the classics, learn grammar in the traditional fashion, memorize math facts, etc. I am politically liberal though and had no problem with Obama speaking to school kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I dislike politicians who rant about how evil the government is. I don't know what party that makes me, but I don't quite understand the patriotism of those who are violently opposed to the concept of a government that's supposed to be of, by, and for the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Pease tell me you are not equating men and women who are born with a homosexual orientation to members of violent racist organizations. Or attempting to suggest homosexuals are incapable in ways those with mental disabilities may be. No I was not equating the two. I was simply showing that despite your wish the military DOES have the right to limit those who are allowed to serve. Your selective answer failed to address the fact that I also stated that the military could refuse those who were simply too tall or short. Incidentally women are not allowed to serve on submarines, is this bigotry too or do you accept the reasons provided by the military? You may equate the military with being un-American (because they oppose lifting the ban), you may think that the majority of our servicemen (those who oppose lifting the ban) are bigots and you may state that in public... but when you do you should think, for just a minute, about the impropriety of your comments. The same tired argument was used for years to segregate blacks in the military. Bigotry is un-American. The argument is NOT the same and I can find many blacks who take great offense at this opinion, including a great many from your state who voted on your latest proposition. Simply repeating this does not make it true and if you do not see the difference well that is a conscious decision on your part. You say you stand for the rights of the individual over the State, yet you are fully supportive of the State trampling on the rights of gay Americans. I'd call that "cognitive dissonance," or worse. You love calling people names don't you? "Vile bigotry, cognitive dissonance, a very dangerous and warped understanding of American values" etc but if you were correct then these terms also apply to over 50% of the voters in your State. Does this mean that in addition to demonstrating disdain for our military you feel the same way about our nation? Nevertheless, to accept that military occupies a special place and has the ability to be selective in who may serve and what behavior they must demonstrate is reasonable, legal and makes sense. You may not like it, you may disdain our military as being bigots but this will not change reality. Even were one to agree with your position: Surely the middle of a war is not the time for social experimentation with our military. Surely we do not need to further complicate the lives of those who are putting their lives on the line for us. Surely we as a nation cannot afford to see in the region of 10% of our servicemen not reenlist because some want to experiment with the military. A question for you. Do you not feel it is stretching the bounds of credulity to constantly call those who oppose your views bigots? Simply because I and the majority of Americans oppose special rights for homosexuals does not make us bigots but it may make those who freely throw that term around intolerant. Food for thought. GOD BLESS our military. They are heroes and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 A question for you. Do you not feel it is stretching the bounds of credulity to constantly call those who oppose your views bigots? Simply because I and the majority of Americans oppose special rights for homosexuals does not make us bigots but it may make those who freely throw that term around intolerant. Food for thought. GOD BLESS our military. They are heroes and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. How come when people argue against lifting the ban, they seem to always end off with a sentence about the sacrifice of the military? As is saying it makes them more patriotic than the person who wants freedom for all people within our country? From Merriam Webster: Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\ Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot Date: 1660 : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance — big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective — big·ot·ed·ly adverb That's why Spycar used the word bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) How come when people argue against lifting the ban, they seem to always end off with a sentence about the sacrifice of the military? As is saying it makes them more patriotic than the person who wants freedom for all people within our country? No, it doesn't mean they are more patriotic than the next guy. What it means is that they recognize that the people serving in the military are not just pieces of meat, cannon fodder or players on a chess board. It is a way of showing respect and gratitude to those service members who's lives and profession we are so willing to debate as if it were just another intellectual exercise rather than something far more real and human. Is it not enough that they are willing to sacrifice their lives for our country but they must do it in the manner proscribed by a bunch of civilian armchair generals? And yes, there is no better ending for such a post than to reference their sacrifice. That is where their service begins and ends. Edited September 20, 2009 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 How come when people argue against lifting the ban, they seem to always end off with a sentence about the sacrifice of the military? As is saying it makes them more patriotic than the person who wants freedom for all people within our country? . I do not claim to be more or less patriotic than any other American, but in a thread where the US servicemen have been called bigots and un-American I thought that it was appropriate to make a statement defending these superb individuals. It wouuld never cross my mind to shower disdain on our military, but that is just me. Oh yes. GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY AND MAY HE BRING THEM HOME SAFE AND SOUND Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacia Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Well, getting back to the intent of the original post... Hi! I pretty much fit into this group. :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisley Hedgehog Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I don't consider myself a 'Liberal' but I am certainly liberal compared with most of the people I know. So I guess that makes me a Moderate ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 You may equate the military with being un-American (because they oppose lifting the ban), you may think that the majority of our servicemen (those who oppose lifting the ban) are bigots and you may state that in public... but when you do you should think, for just a minute, about the impropriety of your comments. I didn't equate the military with un-Americanism, and it's a really cheap tactic to suggest that I did. We can all see the "straw man" argument for what it is. The "military" is not a monolith. Plenty of service people recognize that bigotry against homosexuals is wrong, and counterproductive to our military's mission. The argument is NOT the same and I can find many blacks who take great offense at this opinion, including a great many from your state who voted on your latest proposition. Simply repeating this does not make it true and if you do not see the difference well that is a conscious decision on your part. As I've said repeatedly you can't vote peoples inalienable rights away by a majority vote and call that justice under the American Constitution (or the California Constitution for that matter). Eventually justice will prevail over bigotry. You love calling people names don't you? "Vile bigotry, cognitive dissonance, a very dangerous and warped understanding of American values" etc but if you were correct then these terms also apply to over 50% of the voters in your State. Does this mean that in addition to demonstrating disdain for our military you feel the same way about our nation? Pot, kettle, black my good man. I don't distain the military, and you show no decent respect in suggesting otherwise. Nevertheless, to accept that military occupies a special place and has the ability to be selective in who may serve and what behavior they must demonstrate is reasonable, legal and makes sense. You may not like it, you may disdain our military as being bigots but this will not change reality. You can repeat your ugly falsehoods over and over but they don't become more true in the repetition. A question for you. Do you not feel it is stretching the bounds of credulity to constantly call those who oppose your views bigots? Simply because I and the majority of Americans oppose special rights for homosexuals does not make us bigots but it may make those who freely throw that term around intolerant. Food for thought. They are not "special rights" they are equal rights. And I know bigotry when I see it. GOD BLESS our military. They are heroes and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. Yep. People paid the ultimate sacrifice to make sure freedoms were extended to ALL AMERICANS, and that sacrifice is too great to allow bigotry and discrimination to tarnish those sacrifices. You are on the wrong side of justice and human freedom. And your position shames those sacrifices. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nata Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I don't know really what I am, but I know I'm not very conservative, except maybe when it comes to some moral issues. I research all the alternatives and then choose what works best for myself and my family. Basically I "walk my talk." This is how I arrived at homeschooling, homeopathy and a whole multitude of lifestyle options that work for us. I believe in the importance of local community, honesty, and hard work and don't believe in government regulation of the nuclear family, but most definitely do of industry and those things which affect the country or planet as a whole. So what does that make me? Renata in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 As for religion. I love religion. I love the celebrations, the rituals, the metaphors, the stories. From the ancient Greeks and Zeus to Job to Jesus to why people cover to bathing in the Ganges to Mormon undergarments. It's exciting and fascinating. I don't believe in a deity, or evangelizing, or the mean parts (killing doctors or chopping off heads for adultery etc) but it doesn't mean I don't love religion. 'cause I do. :iagree: 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I think we'd just need two. One for the exhibitionists and one for the shy people. That way it's eyes up or eyes down. While I find my husband very attractive, he does make it out of the door in the morning in a timely fashion. :lol::lol::lol::lol: and :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts