Howard Fineman, 2012
More to the point, politically, two of Obama’s leading strengths are foreign policy in general and his performance as commander-in-chief, according to the polls.
A quick perusal is enough to make the point. In the most recent national CBS/New York Times poll, Obama has a positive rating of 46-36 for his handling of “foreign policy,” his highest rating on any major issue or duty. A CNN recent poll gives the president a 52-36 lead over Romney on the question of who would be a better commander-in-chief. The CBS poll gives Obama a 30-13 lead over Romney on the question of which candidate voters have “very” strong confidence in to be commander-in-chief.
Obama’s lead on these topics reverse, at least for now, a generation’s worth of Democratic Party political weakness on defense and foreign policy — a crushing burden on the Democrats ever since George McGovern ran on an anti-war platform in 1972 and lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_MDzf7zPM[/youtube]
“Al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQjztrnJzCM[/youtube]
Obama, 2011
‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.
This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack.
Joe Biden, 2010
“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.
“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
How inept is the Obama team?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za7IIAMC08g[/youtube]
Today
Mosul has fallen to Al Qaeda
Tikrit has fallen to Al Qaeda
Baghdad is falling to Al Qaeda.
Liberals constantly repeat the phrase “It happened on Bush’s watch.” Well, guess what. This is happening on Obama’s watch. It’s his. He owns it. He is making the sacrifice of more than 4,000 US soldiers meaningless. That’s more lives lost than on 9-11, and it’s solely because of ego, because of hubris, the consequences of trying to forge a legacy instead of respond appropriately to world events.
Two years ago I wrote that Obama tended to leave destruction in his wake.
Three years I warned of Obama building an Islamic Caliphate and the he was demanding that US taxpayers contribute.
Al Qaeda is not dead. Al Qaeda is not decimated. They control more territory than ever. Al Qaeda in Mali is armed with the best weapons thanks to Obama and controls much of Africa. Obama has sought to depose all the leaders, bad as they are, who kept a lid on Al Qaeda- Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad.
As Glenn Reynolds might say, it’s all proceeding as I have foreseen.
Barack Obama suffers from terminal narcissism and commemorates every single notable event on the calendar by including himself in a tweet and this is no exception.
The top image is courtesy of John Hinderaker. The bottom one is mine.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
George Wells
145 ,
yes, and I find also myself getting caught in that hate sometimes,
i believe that no one is immune from that negative and destructive power,
bye
Hi Retire:
I made it clear that this did not apply to the gay marriage issue. I was speaking specifically about the Texas sodomy law, struck down by SCOTUS. Since this topic came up in the arguments between you and George, I just thought it useful to point out that the Catholic Church is on record as being officially against laws criminalizing homosexual behavior, i.e. agreeing with the SCOTUS ruling striking down the Texas law. And, no, this is not wordsmithing. It’s factually accurate, as I’m certain you can readily confirm.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
I disagree. No where did the Vatican announcement say one word about the sodomy laws of Texas and those laws being struck. I think you are finding things in those statements that are not there. Sodomy is sin considered a sin by the Catholic Church.
And remember, the opinions of a pope are not absolute when it comes to doctrine.
Wordsmithing is what you are doing when you want to give legitimacy to same sex marriage by assigning it a different name. Again, a rose by any other name…………………………..
Hi Retire: Adultery is a sin. Should adultery be against the law, with criminal penalties? That is the case in some Muslim countries. Masturbation is a sin. Should this be against the law, with criminal penalties? Lying is a sin. Etc. etc. etc.
With regard to gay marriage, for the umpteenth time, I’m speaking about a fait accompli. It’s akin to legal abortion. Given that abortion is legal, what many Catholic politicians have done is to support mitigation laws, e.g. limits on late term abortions, etc. etc. etc. I’m speaking about precisely the analogous situation. Gay marriage is legal, where I live and where the large majority of the population of the USA also lives. Perhaps coming soon to where you live, as well. So this issue is mitigation, given legality. I’ve offered a practical suggestion. To date, you haven’t. I’d be interested in hearing a practical suggestion from you. What would be a reasonable course of action, were SCOTUS to do what it probably will, which is to affirm the lower court decisions affirming a constitutional right of same gendered people to marry each other? Something which would mitigate the threat to the concept of fidelity in traditional marriage. You don’t like my idea. Give me yours.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #150:
My entire post #146 is asking you one, simple question:
What happens if the average gay marriage turn out to be as stable and as faithful as the average heterosexual marriage?
Not “any couple,” as you changed it in your answer.
I did not predict that the average gay couple WOULD reach that goal, mine not-withstanding. I am suggesting that the typical opponent of marriage equality cannot accept that there is even the remotest chance of that happening, and is consequently unprepared to answer what I believed to be a fair question.
I will grant that a probationary period during which the success rates and the effects of gay marriage can be assessed might be warranted. But in such a case, isn’t it reasonable to ask what the goal of such a test is and what the reward will be if the goal is met?
It is a hypothetical question, but not an unfair one to ask. Someone with your mental acuity should have no trouble understanding that question and answering it honestly. That you ignored the question (or misunderstood it or intentionally misquoted it) and instead chose to bristle at my last remark, that “If you cannot answer this question fairly, or refuse to, what does that tell you about yourself?” tells me that you ARE having difficulty with the implications of the question.
You have spoken eloquently about irrational intolerance. I am asking as politely as I know how if the phrase “Physician heal thyself” doesn’t apply here. Your answers continue to be illuminating.
openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Just a tidbit:
“A form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 … a long-running “experiment” to examine for its results — which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy … A survey conducted in 1989 revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. …A survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays.”
Another tidbit:
“According to Religion News Service, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church voted to allow pastors to perform gay marriages wherever they are legal by a vote of 76% to 24%.”
Mainstream religions are moving toward marriage equality, not toward the separate and unequal distinction you are advocating and which Retire05 is condemning.
Marriage equality (not “gay marriage”) is the fait accompli you suggest it is. As I said before, I am sympathetic to your concerns, but I don’t see a path that will get you the marriage apartheid you hope for. Retire05 certainly hasn’t come up with a practical solution (per your #154) and yours has expired.
(This observation is offered with no feelings of gloat as you have previously suggested. It is an honest assessment of the obvious.
I apologize for failing to express myself with the facility you enjoy: I am not your intellectual equal. I do the best I can, and never intend to mislead, though Retire05 often accuses me of lying. I can only assume that such attacks are in lieu of legitimate rebuttal, as many of her assertions are provably false and many of mine are provably true.)
@George Wells: 112,
What a novel idea, that people have to go to a church to have morals and values. I know many people that have never been to church and are not gay. That statement seems to indicate that being gay is normal by people that have not learned morals and values and if only someone had gone to church a little sooner they never would have picked up the harmful immorality of being gay. I’ll have to confess George, that’s a novel concept coming from a gay person. Let’s face it, gays want to be accepted as normal so that they can be as promiscous as they desire without being condemned for it. What that interprets to, since most normal (non-gay) people are not promiscous and do not have affairs, is that gays are different. They want to continue to be gay but also be considered as normal. That ain’t gonna happen George.
@George Wells:
That question can’t be answered, there is no ‘average gay’ marriage only an average union of sexually active males. We already know that only about 2% of homosexuals want to get married and then only for the cloak of normalcy. That ain’t gonna happen. The marriage part, yes, the normalcy, nope. Making homosexuality legal doesn’t make it right.
@Redteam #158:
“Making homosexuality legal doesn’t make it right.”
Of everything you just posted, this one sentence alone is correct. To the best of my recollection, homosexuality itself was never illegal, at least in a wide context (and in countries such as Uganda, Syria, North Korea and Iran) so there hasn’t been any effort that I know of to make homosexuality legal here and now. But that doesn’t at all address the issue of “rightness” that you raise. Fortunately, the gay rights movement isn’t working to figure out how to make homosexuality “right,” it is working to gain equal RIGHTS for gays. There is a big difference.
Larry Weisenthal’s views on Homosexuality are relatively centrist, mine are clearly to the left, and Retire05’s are to the right. We each have different opinions on what is “right” regarding homosexuality. How wonderful that none of us get to impose our views of what is right on the others.
P.S., That “novel concept” you noted in the middle of your #157 isn’t mine. You may have inferred that it was, but you mistook my meaning. Instead of wasting your time constructing preposterous convolutions of my meaning, why don’t you read the illuminating series of posts here from Larry Weisenthal. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but he never runs off on wild, roller-coaster adventures in illogic.
@ Redteam:
So really, which shall we go with?
The “will of the people”?
Or Redteam’s “absolute truth of what is right.”
If it’s the “what is right” thing that wins, who gets to decide WHAT IS RIGHT?
If states vote to legalize marijuana or give marriage rights to gays, does the will of the people matter or not?
If the leadership of one sect of Christianity (Presbyterian) approves of gay marriage, while the majority of the lay of that sect disapprove (this detail is uncertain), is that more or less compelling then when the leadership of a sect (Catholic) disapproves of gay marriage while the majority of Catholic lay approve of it?
Are we a Constitutional Republic or a theocracy?
The first attempts to reconcile current public will with nigh-on immutable founding principles, while the second depends on current interpretations of ancient… stories, all of which cannot be true.
I support your free-speech right to say what you think, but don’t you want to spend a little more time thinking first?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Hi Larry,
I have given some more thought to your marriage-apartheid proposal. I believe that you are correct that some difference in terminology is needed to otherwise differentiate between gays and straights because the relative proportions of these two groups in the population are as different as they are. (I think that this is at least a small portion of your argument against a one-size-fits-all marriage title.)
When I show up at the doctor’s office and surrender my insurance card that carries my husband’s name, they recognize pretty fast that the card’s name isn’t my name, and they ask who “Paul” is. I say that he is my “husband” (not our preferred term of endearment) but I do not say that we are “gay-married.” In fact, the term “gay marriage” has ONLY turned up in discussions of the politics of marriage equality. The term isn’t used on our tax returns, isn’t on our marriage license or marriage certificate, and doesn’t show up elsewhere, either. I asked around among married (straight) friends, and none of them could offer an instance where the term “gay marriage” would be needed. Occasionally, one is asked to check either a “single” box, “married,” or “widowed.” But I never found an occasion – other than in political debate – where the term “gay marriage” would have any significance.
I predict that in the future, the term “marriage” will mean different things to different people, and the distinguishing consideration will be the term-user’s politics, not his or her sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of the person being described. In familiar company, both gay and straight, the term “married” will suffice. In unfamiliar company of either orientation, the term “married” by itself will be inadequate. In such settings, “Jim is married to Mary” tells enough, as does Phil and Dave are married.” It will never be socially graceful to say that one is heterosexually married (or straight-married) or that the other is homosexually married (or gay-married). But in this kinder, gentler way of conveying socially necessary information, gay and straight marriages will be distinguished when they need to be.
TIMEOUT EVERYBODY!
This thread shows why thoughtful, non-bigoted people are afraid to voice any concerns at all about the potential negative impacts on society of the gay marriage movement. It’s because the loudest, most strident voices in opposition to gay marriage are those of true homophobic bigots. And talk like that which has gone on in this thread makes it simple for the most militant gay marriage proponents to demonize everyone who voices gay marriage concerns as being a member of the homophobic bigot group.
The most effective spokespeople for the principle that gay marriage should not be called by the exact same name as traditional marriage are conservative gays. e.g. http://www.gaypatriot.net/category/gay-marriage/ And, yet, people like this, who agree with what I consider to be the most important concerns, are demonized — simply by virtue of being gay. I wish that the Flopping Aces blogmeister would invite some conservative gay political types to offer their thoughtful opinions as Guest Posts. But they’d instantly see that they are simply not welcome.
I want to make one thing 100% clear. My serious reservations about gay marriage do not in any way imply that I think homosexuals are deserving of anything less than the respect deserving of any human being, as well as equal protection under the law, which definitely includes the principle of reasonable accommodation. The reasons that young people today are so accepting of homosexuals in their lives and schools and workplaces is not because of “indoctrination,” but because gay people have come out of the closet and proved to their peers that they are worthy of respect and friendship. Full integration of openly gay people into the military has not had the predicted catastrophic effects. Gay people will never be put back in the closet, just as the genie won’t go back into the bottle. Wise people will accept this and move on. The bigots will become even more marginalized.
The “March for Marriage” was a disappointing catastrophe for people like me who want to provide equal protection under the law, respect, and reasonable accommodation, while still maintaining the meaning of traditional marriage as man/woman/fidelity. In the first place, virtually no one came. The “crowd” was smaller than the average pep rally at a public university and much smaller than the typical gay pride parade and a hundred times smaller than the big gay pride events, such as the one in San Diego. Archbishop Cordileone said that the Vatican supported the event, as evidenced by the presence of the papal nuncio. Well, I think it’s likely that the nuncio attended for the purpose of reporting back to the Vatican on what he saw, and what he saw was a sparsely attended event (a large part of the “crowd” were reportedly Hispanics who’d been given free bus tickets, promoted by the opportunity to see the sights of the nation’s capital). Then he saw speaker after speaker not supporting marriage in general and decrying pre-marital co-habitation and infidelity and divorce, but only decrying gay marriage, using mostly arguments derived from religion. And … “Every child deserves a mother and a father.” Well, duhhh. And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It was patently anti-gay and not patently pro-marriage.
You don’t think that SCOTUS pays attention to the mood of the nation? This disaster of a “March,” ending up on the steps of the Supreme Court building, just gave Justice Kennedy all the cover he needs to cast the deciding vote. And the nuncio will report back to His Holiness that Cordileone was a PR nightmare for the Church. Wrong venue/wrong bedfellows/wrong tone. It was a bad moment in the Church culture wars.
Having said all that, I haven’t changed my opinion that the best course of action is to try and make a popular culture (and parenting) distinction between “marriage” on one hand and “gay marriage” on the other. For reasons previously stated. And I’d ask George to carefully read through the thoughtful op-eds about gay marriage on the Gay Patriot website. You may not agree with these arguments, but they are not being made by people with a bigoted, homophobic agenda.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@George Wells: I really appreciated this comment, GW.
I recall, years ago, an ex-pat American gay writer who decided to live in Northern Europe (various countries.)
Bruce Bawer wrote about his long-term relationship with a Danish man and how, without a legal way to get married, the people all around them simply recognized them as a married couple because of their lifestyle which mirrored that of any married couple’s lifestyle in Denmark.
While there are tremendous advantages to being legally married, the simple act of quietly living a married lifestyle will do more than any fighting or posing in parades to move the public on this issue.
BTW, did you hear what Harry Reid said the other day about gay marriage?
He claimed that the LDS church was evolving on the issue.
This was rebutted the very hour the LDS church leadership learned of his statement.
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html?pg=all&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
It is easy to assume you are speaking of yourself since George decided to slam you as well as those of us who disagree with his agenda.
Ah, typical leftist rhetoric. If one holds conviction to their religious beliefs, and are not afraid to speak out against what they consider unnatural, and immoral, they can only be “homophobic bigots” in the eyes of someone who is willing to turn their back on the teachings of the very church they profess belief in.
Again, leftist claptrap. Perhaps you are so out of touch with what is happening in our elementary public schools that you are unaware of how the “gay” issue is being pushed on children of a very, very young age. Are you unaware of why Obama gave Kevin Jennings a prime spot in his administration until Jennings became so out of control that even Obama couldn’t keep him? Are you not aware of Jennings’ back ground and his promotion of not only the homosexual life style, but pedophilia, as well?
So the report that almost 14,000 male military personnel, released just 13 months ago, were raped by other men is not a catastrophic effect of the end of the DADT policy? You don’t consider almost 14,000 lives turned upside down by rape a major issue? Pleeeeeze.
I can only assume that you were disappointed because some Christians are not willing to co-op their Biblical faith in order to subscribe to your progressive beliefs. And when thousands of people go to Washington, D.C., on their own dime I might add, to express their support for traditional marriage and now allowing it to be bastardized by those who are sell-outs, I don’t consider that a failure.
Archbiship Cardileone also said this:
“And let us not forget: we must also proclaim this truth especially with love for those who disagree with us on this issue, and most of all, for those who are hostile toward us. We must be careful, though, not to paint our opponents on this issue with broad strokes. There is a tendency in our culture to do this to groups of people the powerful don’t know and think they don’t like. We must not do that. We must recognize that there are people on the other side of this debate who are of good will and are sincerely trying to promote what they think is right and fair. It is misdirected good will. But even those from whom we suffer retribution – and I know some of you have suffered in very serious ways because of your stand for marriage – still, we must love them. That is what our ancestors in faith did, and we must, too. Yes, it is easy to become resentful when you are relentlessly and unfairly painted as a bigot and are punished for publicly standing by the basic truth of marriage as a foundational societal good; it is tempting to respond in kind. Don’t. For those of us who are Catholic, we just heard our Master command us in the gospel proclaimed at Mass the day before yesterday: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44). We must not allow the angry rhetoric to co-opt us into a culture of hate.”
Your comment about Hispanics show that you seem to know little about Hispanic culture, a culture that has shown it is pro-life, and pro-traditional marriage as recently as March of this year when Wendy Davis, a typical progressive, saw her primary bid for the Texas Governor’s office by being defeated in 22 counties by a Hispanic pro-life, pro-traditional marriage candidate who didn’t even bother to campaign across the state. He won the Democrat primaries in those counties because Hispanics voted for him. Not white liberals.
I would also be interested in why you think that providing Hispanics with free bus tickets is a horrible thing (provide the link to that claim). How many protesters have liberal causes had their transportation, food and hotel, covered by those liberal causes? Did you have a problem with those liberal/progressive groups that recruited like minded people to show up at a protest in D.C.? If so, you certainly have never expressed that opinion.
If Supreme Courts justices are swayed by protest marches in D.C., and not by the Constitution itself, as they are directed to use, then we have no Constitutional justice system. Just a bunch of SCOTUS justices that are pandering to the crowd that shouts the loudest. That’s not justice, Larry, that’s tyranny.
How do you know that? Are you injecting your opinion as fact? You have no idea what the nuncio with report, and to claim that you have even the vaguest clue is absurdity in the extreme.
Hi Retire, Regarding military rape; it’s always been present, and there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence that its incidence has in any way changed as a function of either the institution of DADT or the repeal of DADT. That’s because most male on male rape is perpetrated by soldiers (or prisoners) who report themselves to be heterosexual. I think you are a woman and there is something I need to explain to you. I’d wager that a rather large majority of heterosexual men have fantasized, at one time or another, about anal intercourse, if not actually having had the opportunity to engage in it. The thing about being male is that sex happens. And when quite a few males are desperate for sex, a butt is a butt. So it’s not something that you can pawn off on any military gay policy.
I’ll address your other comments when I have time.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
So you are trying to convince us that “heterosexual” men are just hell bent on sexually attacking other men? You really want to go there?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/in-debate-over-military-sexual-assault-men-are-overlooked-victims.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
And who was president at the time who promised to repeal DADT? And you want to tell me that didn’t have anything to do with the rise of male on male sexual attacks in the military? Sorry, I’m not buying your snake oil, Doctor.
Yes, precisely!
[Mild personal insult redacted, with apologies] This phenomenon has been well studied and reported in both medical and social science literature.
e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21653264
You can download (for free) a PDF of the full text. Read the section entitled: “Assailants and Their Motivations”
The reason why the military incidence has ostensibly gone up is entirely coincidental and totally unrelated to DADT initiation or repeal. It’s a function of the heroic efforts by Senator Kirstin Gillibrand to bring this out into the open. It’s led to vastly increased self reporting by women, the increase in self reporting by men from a baseline of essentially zero, and the beginning of systematic investigation by the military.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Bullshit.
@Nanny G #163:
Yes, Nanny G, your x-pat American in Denmark’s experience mirrors my own. I’ve lived in the same neighborhood for 35 years – with Paul – and while we keep a fabulous yard and are generally very active in neighborhood events, we never made any announcements, and we never have marched in any parades. Our “situation” has been discretely understood for decades, and when we finally told several of our closest about the marriage last year, they were congratulatory and asked why it took so long. The “news” spread rapidly, and the approval was vocal and louder than expected. Not everybody, certainly, but most. There is some benefit to be gained by living reasonably as opposed to outrageously, and also a benefit to being known in this fashion as opposed to being completely closeted so that the example is lost to others.
The Reid thing is raw politics. The Presbyterian “evolution” is real, however, and this isn’t the only mainstream denomination that is so evolving. For that matter, the LDS HAS evolved, if only in having stopped pouring money into SSM opposition. (They know a lost cause when they see it.) In time, I suspect all churches will move somewhat in response to changing public opinion, but they will not lead in this change, and neither should they.
In 2011, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) eliminated barriers to ordaining clergy with same-sex partners. Since then, 428 of the denomination’s more than 10,000 churches have left for other more conservative denominations or have dissolved. The church now has about 1.8 million members.
Seems the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is losing membership due to their acceptance of homosexuality. Not exactly the wonderful world of fairies as indicated.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal) #162:
Very helpful.
I wish I had your skill.
I have been asked repeatedly why I visit and post here. It is largely because I think that it is useful to have other readers see how Republicans like Retire05 treat gay people like myself. She once responded to a comment I had made that it wasn’t WHAT I had said that troubled her, but that it was ME who said it. It was ME that she had problems with. I thought at the time that this was a perfect example of bigotry.
I’d much prefer a civil exchange to a loud and angry one, but if I can elicit nothing more than indiscriminately hateful invective, then such insults will be all that I have to work with and I will make do with them. You are correct that marriage equality has been well served by shrill, hostile and inflexible resistance to it. For self-serving reasons, I invite more of the same.
Hi Retire (#168):
Link
What you need to understand is that this is a very well studied phenomenon (male on male rape). In environments like prisons and the military, male on male rape in rampant and it’s heterosexual men doing the raping. In addition to the actual data, just use your common sense. Gay servicemen are vulnerable targets. And they are a distinct minority. What would you think that future would be for a gay man who raped straight men? Pretty rough vigilante justice from the straight military community, for sure. And gay men don’t generally have to rape gay men. Gay men generally have no problems getting whatever sex they want or need, unlike straight men in a female-poor environment.
You really are trying to convince us that effeminate, weak straight soldiers are being terrorized by macho gays, who are wielding the power? It’s nonsensical, and the serious academic, medical, and social science research into male on male rape bears this out.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@George Wells:
Why don’t you post my actual comments instead of trying to spin it to show what, according to you, a horrible homophobe bigot you claim I am.
You are one deceptive, deceitful, dishonest piece of work, George.
@retire05 #170:
“428 of the denomination’s more than 10,000 churches have left for other more conservative denominations or have dissolved.”
428 churches leaving amounts to 4.28% of the total number of churches, a small fraction. During the same period that you quoted, total membership dropped from 2.7 to 1.8 million, a 33% loss – a very LARGE fraction. Since you are attributing the 4.28% loss of churches on members leaving for more conservative venues because of the church’s acceptance of gay clergy, what are you blaming the other 28,72% loss of members on? Oh, I’m sure that you can blame gays for all of that, too. If it were not for gays, churches would be overflowing, divorce would be non-existent, and every family’s 2 1/2 children would graduate from college with advanced degrees. All of that seems to follow from what you are insinuating, as you didn’t bother to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between the two coincident events that you are happy to tie together.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal):
Oh, that guy. Aaron Belkin, a gay activist from the University of California. What are the chances that his “research” was tilted to provide a certain outcome? None, you’ll probably claim.
Oh, and he also thinks the military should supply “chaplains” for atheists and humanists. Yeah, the guy leans so far left that he probably needs a down guy to keep him from falling over.
@George Wells:
Obviously you seem to think that all those churches had the same number of members. More of your twisted logic.
I’m still waiting for you to provide my exact comments on your previous claim. Guess it will be like every thing else you claim about me; when pressed for exact comments, you run away like a scared rabbit.
@George Wells:
Thanks for showing what a major jerk you really are. And you wonder why I don’t like YOU?
@George Wells:
Where did you find that? I can’t seem to locate it. In 159, you said to me:
I might offer you that same advice. Where is the convolution of “absolute truth of what is right.”?
@George Wells: 159
You know better than that George, homosexuality has been illegal in many places throughout the US.
@George Wells:
Now you’re only into politically correct. Being correct on an absolute basis should never be considered as ‘politically’ correct, but in fact, an absolute. To refer to a member of the Negroid race as a Negro is absolutely correct, but not politically correct. It is only a method of being able to pretend that ‘it ain’t so’. To say that the term homosexual marriage is not politically correct or socially graceful is just to say that a pig with lipstick is not a pig. A homosexual marriage between two persons is still a homosexual marriage and not a ‘normal’ marriage. It is a facade to make you feel ‘normal’, that’s not gonna happen. You’re still gonna feel like a homosexual playing at married.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal): 167
Larry, excuse me, but you don’t seem to have a clue. I spent 4 years in the US Navy, 3 of those on a ship and I never heard of even one case of homosexual assault. (man raped by man)I don’t know who is making up some of these stories, but it’s clear what the objective is.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim (Larry Weisenthal): 172
And you wonder why gay men shouldn’t be in the military?
@Redteam:
If straight men are forced to shower and bunk with gay men, shouldn’t straight women be forced to shower and bunk with straight men?
I mean, it’s all about “equality”, right?
@retire05:
absolutely. Total gender blindness should be required. Also gay women should have to shower with straight men.
Anyone that does not agree with that does not believe in gender equality. It shouldn’t be limited to showering however. Women should be required to bunk with men or women, and Men should be required to bunk with women or men. If a man’s desire to not have to share a shower with a man can not be accomadated, then a woman’s desire to not have to share a man’s bunk should not be accomadated either. I mean, either there is gender equality, or there’s not.
George Wells
they ask you why you come here at FA, and you said it was to expose this blog,
what a small person you are, and what you also said to get one angry on purpose,
another face of your smallness profile you uncovered, I think you are a trouble maker,
and use your gay statue so proudly to discredit blogs which have allowed you to spin your gay shit,
and i think you should be ashame of having use the blogger to advance your cause,
you gave yourself away this time for good, and no blogger here will give you any respect from now on ,
you did use other good people and a lot better than you to advance the cause of gays,
shame of you and you have lead this blog away from the AUTHOR POST, ON PORPUSE AGAIN,,
i do apologize to the SMART AUTHOR TO HAVE ALLOWED SUCH DEROGATION OF A SUBJECT BY ONE WHO DOESN’T DISERVE ONE ANSWER FROM US ALL,
if all the GAYS are like you it”s because you made them believe that being dishonest with the normal peoples it will make them normal,
well i have news for you, it won’t never be normal, no matter the SNAKE BEHAVIOR YOU HAVE PLAYED HERE, all this time , NOW WE KNOW,
retire05 is very smart and he smell the rat in you
by geez he was right from the start, and i must appologize to retire to have thought that his answers where too harsh at time, well he had you figured out just right,
and he knew you are a troll liberal all along, cheap of you ain”t it,
that”s why i always say how smart the conservatives are and discerning other people,
this is the proof, you could fool me but never the smart conservatives,
it goes for all the libs who think that sneaking here and playing games,
of false representation are not getting away with their lies, they spit freely.
YOU ARE IN THE MUDD TO STAY, ENJOY THE WORMS
WE WANT NO PART OF IT,
Enjoyable thread.
George, masterful as always.
Larry, It’s clear you’re not a bigot, and that you spent a lot of time thinking about this, but I struggle to make any sense of your insistence that the semantics surrounding the use of “marriage” or “gay marriage” have tangible consequences upon any particular couple’s commitment to fidelity. As someone who seems to support marriage rights in everything but literally name, it’s an odd stance. It does, I’m afraid, have the taint – in my eyes – of “separate but equal” reasoning, despite any intent. Mostly though, you haven’t mounted a very convincing argument that quarantining “gay marriage” in this fashion is providing any tangible benefit to society in terms of protecting your idealized version of marriage. Am I going to think, or act, differently as someone who knows gay people who are married because of terminology? And in turn, will my heterosexual marriage be impacted either way depending on what you label their unions? You mentioned you have fears in this regard for your children, which I am very curious to understand. This all sounds like a Whorfian hypothesis to me. Please elaborate, if you would. The reality is that marriage is what it is now. Things change, and not always for the worse. Marriage in your idealized time wasn’t marriage 200 years ago. Straight people having the free will to treat their marriages with a reverence toward fidelity, or not, was a given long before this became an issue. Penalizing gays for acts of free will seems misplaced nostalgia run amok.
Retire and Red: brilliant as usual. You represent the Right in a very thoughtful, dignified and decidedly non-hilarious fashion. I hope you will continue to share your wisdom freely for we all share in the benefits.
Tom
your irony is visible, you could have spared everyone reading this unworthy comment
@retire05 # 173 and 176:
“I’m still waiting for you to provide my exact comments on your previous claim. Guess it will be like every thing else you claim about me; when pressed for exact comments, you run away like a scared rabbit.”
You’ll have to wait a bit longer. Upon your first request of the “source,” I started to search. I’ve been here over a year, so there are a huge number of threads to go through. You didn’t hear back from me last night because I was going through, month-by-month, everything on Flopping Aces that you and I have exchanged on, and the process takes about an hour per month. I finished four months and then went to bed. I remember the context but not the subject of the thread. I had discussed my conservative views on a number of constitutional issues unrelated to gay rights, and had asked if you found a problem with any of those positions, to which you had replied that you had no problem with what I had said, but that you had a problem with who I was. You had previously unleashed a long string of George-directed insults, and didn’t seem to want to relent in that regard.
Since you evidently intend to continue in this direction anyway, I won’t waste more time today looking for that quote of yours, but rest assured that when I do find it (and I promise that I will), I’ll post it on EVERY page of Flopping Aces as a attribute to your bigotry.
@Redteam #179:
“You know better than that George, homosexuality has been illegal in many places throughout the US.”
No, actually, I DON”T know better. I was aware that in many states (Virginia being one of them), homosexuals were routinely arrested for visiting gay bars, which the local courts had agreed to label “bawdry houses,” (“bawdry houses” was a legal term for “houses of prostitution”) and gays were also arrested for “public solicitation” and “indecent public acts” (interestingly, kissing and holding hands qualified as indecent public acts). Gays were also obviously subject to anti-sodomy laws prior to the SCOTUS’ Lawrence decision. All of the laws that targeted homosexuals were laws that criminalized specific behaviors, not orientation.
There was some conjecture concerning gays in the military that PRESUMED criminal behavior based on orientation, and this presumption was the basis for the exclusion of gays from military service. The courts were finding this rational increasingly difficult to accept, and it has been suggested that this contributed to the downfall of the prohibition of gays in the military.
But as far as I know, actually BEING a homosexual has never been a criminal offense. (Note that “as far as I know” gives me a degree of cover here. Maybe things were far worse in Texas – I had good reason never to go there.)
@Redteam #178:
“Or Redteam’s “absolute truth of what is right.”
“Where did you find that? I can’t seem to locate it.”
Well, you’ve been talking all along about what truth is absolute. Have you forgotten? Most recently, look at your post #180: “Being correct on an absolute basis should never be considered as ‘politically’ correct, but in fact, an absolute.”
Does that quote leave any wiggle-room on your idea of “absolute truth?”
You seem to be laboring under the impression that there is some absolute, over-riding, all-controlling truth that trumps everything else, leaving anyone who disagrees with you in no-man’s land.
Since you asked.
@Redteam #184:
Are you aware that the term “bunking with” doesn’t mean “sleeping with”? Each individual soldier or sailor has his or her OWN bed, and the personnel are forbidden to bed together. Often enough, these personnel are sleeping in the same large room, but they are not “sleeping together” in the Biblical sense.
Generally, the lowest enlisted ranks are grouped together so that their individual (bunk) beds are all located in a “bunk room” (in the Navy, often a below-deck, aft compartment of a ship). During WW2, bunking quarters were crowded because space was costly and the numbers of personnel needed were large because of the expected attrition associated with war. But since then, and well before women OR gays in the military became an issue, privacy concerns led to increasingly large and private spaces for personnel to both shower and “bunk” in, and the issues that seem to titillate you are not as problematic as you think.
The argument has been made that in combat, where at best a pup-tent might be available to sleep in, gays or women might be a problem, but in fact, the extreme nature of such combat pretty much puts sexual attraction on the back burner, so-to-speak. Not to mention that these personnel are all trained to kill and armed to the teeth in such situation. Under these conditions, do you REALLY think that a relatively small number of gays in the midst are a problem? The Joint Chiefs are not finding it so…
@George Wells:
What ever floats your boat, George.
Now, I take that statement as a personal threat that simply shows what a sniveling, vindictive, H8 filled member of the Gay Gestapo you really are.
George Wells
you are sick, get help,
@retire05 #192:
“I won’t waste more time today looking for that quote of yours, but rest assured that when I do find it (and I promise that I will), I’ll post it on EVERY page of Flopping Aces as a attribute to your bigotry.”
“Now, I take that statement as a personal threat that simply shows what a sniveling, vindictive, H8 filled member of the Gay Gestapo you really are.”
In beginning to review our very many exchanges (at your request), I have uncovered your repeated requests to provide precise quotes as if you never made such statements. You have made a habit of issuing this unreasonable challenge – unreasonable because there are so very many threads through which to search and no means to narrow the search. Yet you make the challenge and then quickly claim that the failure to surrender the location is proof that you never made the statements being credited to you.
This tactic is deceptive, and because you have used it repeatedly, I intend to expose it. Exposing a deceptive tactic isn’t “hateful”. In-so-far as exposing this deceptive tactic would VINDICATE my reputation – which you sought to impugn – yes, it is “vindictive”. “Sniveling”? I’m not sure how that would fit in, but I’m fairly certain that associating gay people with Nazi Germany (“Gay Gestapo”) IS “hateful.”
@George Wells:194
I suspect you’ll find several times where I asked you to state where you got a quote that you attributed to me, that in fact, you had just made up. To aid you in the future, when you quote someone, state the comment number in the quote and it will always be easy to find it. It will also eliminate you ‘making up’ quotes in the future.
@George Wells: Very funny, George, you quote me (you say) from 178 and then use 180 as your proof of what I had said that you were quoting me on. LOL.
and just where did I suggest that it did?
Privacy concerns? What privacy concerns? Why should they spend money providing private spaces when they are not distinct. ie, can’t keep persons apart just because they are both men or both women. If a private space can be provided for two men, why can’t it be for one man and one woman? If two men or two women can be required to bunk together and use the same shower, then why can’t one man and one woman be required to do the same thing? Don’t speak out of both sides of your mouth. Be consistent.
@Redteam #196:
Hi, Redteam,
I read and reread your last, about the bunking thing, and I apologize: I don’t understand what your point is.
I also apologize for making my explanation of the term “bunking” too long and detailed to follow.
The point that I failed to make was a simple and trivial one – that bunking and sleeping were not the same. (No, I didn’t say that YOU said that they WERE the same, so lets save time on that.)
I made that simple point because it seemed to me that the line of the discussion was trending toward equating the two terms (bunking and sleeping.)
Nothing more. I wasn’t trying to mix genders in a shower stall or under the sheets, and I wasn’t trying to get more than one serviceman OR servicewoman into a stall or a bed, regardless of proclivity.
Regarding “privacy,” I already explained the reason why the berthing areas of WWII ships were quite crowded, and I also mentioned that the ships made since then have featured increasingly spacious berthing accommodations. This progressive change over time either reflects privacy concerns or comfort concerns, I’m not sure that it matters which.
“Be consistent.”
That, too, is funny. I’ve been reading over old posts looking for one of Retire05’s quotes, and the task is impossible. There are thousands and thousands of posts, and absolutely no efficient way to search through them. But I have read a few hundred of them thoroughly, and I must admit that none of us have been entirely consistent. We change our positions, often to cover previous predictions that were not born out in the fullness of time. And we err, and occasionally even admit it. I have, and so has Retire05.
Be consistent? I try. We try. In one post, Retire05 denies that she ever said that I was “repulsive”, and then repeatedly calls me “disgusting” in later posts. Consistent? In one post, Retire05 says that she doesn’t hate, but in another post says that she might support killing gay babies. It is easiest to point to her inconsistencies because she has written so very much. But I have the same problem. At one point, I supported the baker who didn’t want to bake a gay cake, but later saw the similarity of that case to ones in which blacks were denied services, and I changed my mind. I think that we should have the right to change our minds, don’t you?
That is an outright bold faced lie.
@retire05 #198:
To my:
“Retire05 says that she doesn’t hate, but in another post says that she might support killing gay babies.”
You responded:
“That is an outright bold faced lie.”
Your words, copied and pasted:
“Of course, I may change my mind on abortion if the gay gene is ever discovered.”
Or were you disputing the part about hate?
@George Wells:
Provide a link. You have already proven yourself to be a liar, George. No one should take anything you say on your word alone.