Feisty your last remark was uncalled for. Cindy McCain is speaking up for a cause she believes in. There is no need for your sarcastic remarks

It's no wonder that there has been a dramatic increase in bullying the past couple of years... stop and take a look at how the parents are behaving! You see it every day on the board here... nothing to say but threats and taunts!

Thoes who live in glass houses, should not throw stones..

We all know that McCain believes in repealing DADT, but can't say so publically because he'd be a goner during the next election with the way Republicans have pivoted towards the far, fringe right.

So he sends his daughter and wife to espouse his true beliefs. Think about it, common McCain is more liberal than he's pretending to be for political calculations. LOL. Old man should just retire and be free. For all I know, he may still just be in the closet and hoping for change.

Memo to Lisa: Remind me again WHY I care what you think?

It NO secret that Johnny boy has some serious anger managment issues (much like ITM... but I digress)!

When you factor that into the fact that she displays ALL the systems of a victim of spousal abuse - there is NO doubt in my mind that broken arm was in any way shape or form an accident!

she's got the brains in the family - thanks for speaking up!

I get the feeling Johnny boy will NOT be getting any hetero-love for a while . . . unless his stance is purely political, which I suspect is true.

this McCain spousal abuse is something new that I haven't heard about. Is there any facts to these comments. I have seen McCain's temper show itself on TV. Just curious what other people have heard.

We all know that McCain believes in repealing DADT, but can't say so publically because he'd be a goner during the next election with the way Republicans have pivoted towards the far, fringe right.

Hold on now, which party was it the Log Cabin Republicans belonged to that got it repealed and which party does the Obama administration stand behind that put the decision into appeals?

Your partisan "blame them for everything" ramblings just make the left look like a refuge for the self-inflicted uninformed in politics. Next time someone on the left tells you not to listen to conservative media so you can hear both sides of the story and make your own decisions, ask yourself why they would want to hide information.

Remember, DADT was a product of the Clinton administration.

I see hetero people kissing in public all the time. I consider it quite "normal". If it's o.k. for them to do it, it should be o.k. for LGBT folks, too. Being in the military, or not, should have nothing at all to do with it...unless the military also bans public displays of love between heterosexuals. Fat chance.

Personally, I think the DADT policy should be officially changed to "DABINOYDB" (don't ask, 'cuz it's none of your damn business). We don't concern ourselves about sexual orientation in the private sector, why should it be any different in the military? They're all adults, aren't they? What's the difference between young military people in barracks, and college dorms, in terms of cohabitation and sexual orientation? What, the military can't behave themselves, but we give them the keys to the tanks? Come on. All it takes is the setting of a policy, and then enforcing it. If you expect them to grow up and accept things they way they are in the real world, they will.

USN, CTT2, 1976-1980

.

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to defend this country? It's theirs as much as ours. No one asked to be born one way or the other, come on, let's get this country out of the dark ages. I encourage everyone who believe in what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for, to take a stand. WE THE PEOPLE means ALL of us, not just a certain population. I support Cindy, her daughter and any others with the courage to do what is right. Maybe if we stopped being bigots, our children and grandchildren would have a better chance in this world.

As a family man and a ChristanRepublican, I do not see the problem with gays in the military. I do not associate with gays or understand them, but if they want to protect my family from the Terrorism and Despot Regimes, give that guy a gun and send him on his way. I would rather have a gay guy protecting my family than nobody. Also note, the Spartans were know as the Greatest Soldier's of their time and almost all of them were gay. Imagine the fear of an enemy soldier would feel with the possibility of being capture by a homosexual army.

I am a very conservative independent, and personally I find the idea of treating people of different sexual orientation then I (being a heterosexual) stupid and backwards. We are supposed to be born with rights (according to our bill of rights) that allows us to be ourselves, free from legal discrimination or bias. It is time for this stupidity to stop. As for gay marriage, I do believe personally (please keep in mind this is a personal opinion) that marriage is a religious right, and if a church does not believe in gay marriage they should never be forced to perform such a ceremony, but why are gay couples denied the same rights that every other couple is. If this is out of line with some of my liberal friends, then so be it, but my son will be taught the same respect that I believe all people deserve.

Debbie -- spousal abuse by Johnny boy has never been confirmed. Having been a victim of it when I was younger and then later volunteering to work with other victims...

I can say that Cindy displays every symptom of a battered woman. Starting with her body language... then when she showed up on the campaign trail with the broken arm followed by some BS explanation it confirmed at least to me what I've always suspected.

McNasty's temper is legendary!

Aquatone,

You must shower with your coworkers. I don't really care whether or not they're allowed to serve but both of my sons who are Marines say that the Gays/Lesbians would be in danger themselves from the hetero males and females that they might choose to make a pass at or give a lingering look to. Most of the military that I've spoken to about this say they don't wan't to trust their "back" (pardon the pun) to Gays/Lesbians.

I'm with you, in your comments. WE, the parents are supposed to teach our children, how to behave.

And sometimes we should teach them, with the way we act with others. Thank you for your comment.

Really now the fact that Cindy and Johnny have differing positions on DADT is a headline story???

Give me a freaking break!

Stan:

If you don't like gays... blame the straight people... they're the ones who keep having gay babies... lol

Feisty,

You have to be kidding me. You, of all people have no right to talk about how the posters on this site behave. You are the first to call names, and insult people. I only hope that if you have children some other member of your family that is perhaps more civilized has taught those children how to respect others, and have a civilized conversation.

Ah, resorting to insults right off the bat. Good plan, J.

Your sons are either wrong, or a big part of the problem. A mandatory policy of minding your own business, with the appropriate discipline for violators, is all that is required and I'm going on my personal experiences in the military from 30 years ago. There was no DADT back then, these people couldn't serve, period. They were generally not welcomed by those who did serve. Wouldn't have made any difference at all, if it had come down from above that there will be no "intolerance tolerated". That's all it would take. Your sons would fall in line with it, just like everyone else. They just don't want to HAVE to do it, that's all. Probably got it from you.

Fiesty

Straight wont be having gay babies once they find during a test, is the baby is gay or not..Then people will have a abortion to get rid of the gay baby..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." What part of this do you not understand? Shall we talk about "sick behavior?" Try calling gays "deviants" (deviant from whose idea of normal? Yours?) Are people who are left handed deviants from the norm? What about blue eyes? Do gays' pursuit of happiness conflict with your denial of those rights? Nobody asks you to validate their rights to pursuit of happiness...nobody needs to: it's guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Not everybody looks, acts, or thinks like your concept of "normal."

Stan R that is a pile of crap. Gays and Lesbians are not sexual deviants. Recently there was a report about the little boy who dressed up as Daphne from Scooby Doo for Halloween. Are you going to say that that is deviant behavior. Maybe its a sign of his sexual orientation, maybe not. Either way its a born behavior not a learned one.

I agree that there should be a DADT policy in place for everyone because your sexual orientation is your own business. Nobody should be asking about it in order to refuse a person military service, employment, marriage, health insurance or any other benefits granted to hetero sexual individuals. DADT should be protecting an individual's right to privacy not discriminating against that individual.

By Dano

You are all victims of social politics. There has been more energy wasted on this issue, then it deserves. Don't ask, don't tell don't works unless you have a deep need to be an exhibitionist. I have seen many opposite sex couples that should be told to get a room.

I served 34 years as a soldier and in close contact with alot of individual's and i will say that a Gay person in an Infantry unit makes the rest feel abit uneasy. In conbat you need a certain spree de corp and reliance on each other as your life depends on each other. I am sorry that old fashioned values are not kept in todays world. God in heaven did not tolerate Homo-sexualaity and it should not be an issue in our military.

uneasy? What do you think he would do? check out your butt, instead of protecting you? I can say the same thing. Since you are straight, I wouldn't trust you to be in a country full of beautiful girls. Look what some of the soldiers are doing. Rape is not discussed, because our military is so perfect and the guys are so smart. Females in the military sucide is high and they aren't being raped by gay military men.

I'm gonna give John McCain the upper-hand on this one, I think he has the better knowledge based insight in regards to the military.

I have no problem if DADT is ended. It's a stupid idea concocted by an ever-slippery president hoping to appear all things to all people. I actually like Cindy AND John for their honesty about this, though John prefers to keep DADT. We should either openly allow homosexuals to serve in the military or we should not, but we should have no idiotic prohibition on "telling". I don't know if homosexuals serving helps improve the military and its ability to do its job, or not. But there is no right to serve in the military. Many people are denied that option--weight, height, educational level, competence, physical capacity are some reasons--and if we want to openly ban homosexuals from serving that is okay with me too.

Let's just base the decision on something other than emotion.

j.wesley...your post makes no sense to me. If homosexuals serving would cause some, or many, to leave the service, to the point we'd have to force those leaving to stay long enough to train new recruits to do their job, then how is homosexual military service a good thing? Are you saying the military is populated with anti-homosexuals NOW? Where is your evidence of this implied fact? And I'm pretty sure that people aren't now housed in the military according to sexual orientation, given that DADT is NOW the law, but that they are housed, rather, according to sex.

I almost forgot...Feisty Redhead regularly posts the most inane and moronic posts. Claiming that because she herself was abused and works with abused people is how she knows Cindy McCain is abused by John is simply despicable. So now I add to inane and moronic the additional "tribute" of vile. Well done Feisty! The RNC is hoping with your every post that you get hired by the DNC to act as spokesidiot for them.

Ah, come on, Aquatone, you know as well as I do that the civilians somehow thought servicemen, who'd been normal kids on the outside, would somehow embrace a life of celibacy while in the service. The military then publicly demanded the same, while turning a blind eye to the things we did while deployed to places like the Phillipines. Back about the time this controversy began, many of us still lived in open-bay barracks, with common showers. We were also much more conservative as a society. As society changed, women entered more career fields, and we began to move to dorm-style rooms with semi-private baths- except for deployed ground troops. The lack of privacy there kindled much of the present controversy.

The simple fact is that gender orientation is genetic; only how one deals with it is at all a matter of choice. One can deny one's needs and desires, though doing so is always difficult. To assume that gays choose to be so is to ignore the fact that most people would, given the chance, imitate the people around them, as many gays have in the past. That is also why so many have denied their orientation in order to be accepted in the services: they believe in the same ideals as we straight servicemembers do. DADT was an interim solution to a growing problem, but in the end, it will have to give way to simple acceptance. That will require some mental changes on the part of our servicemembers, but the majority can make the leap, and the rest had best get with the program. Demand the same behavior and efforts from, and render equal treatment to, all servicemembers.

Oh, and Feisty, if Sen. McCain were indulging himself in domestic violence, I imagine that someone, at least from the Democratic Party, would have found the dirty facts and publicized them long ago. That would be too good to keep quiet under the present political conditions. People see what they expect to see, often based on their own experiences or inclinations.

No one is a bigot or a racist for not wanting to "validate" really sick behavior in others.

Good point. It seems like all we hear from the leftists anymore are charges of bigotry and racism when people don't accept the leftist's idea of morality, and justice. The same people who claim they stand for fairness and justice are the FIRST ones to attack, call names, insult and vilify what THEY don't agree with.

This is all right from the Marxist play-book.

Their goal is to ruin every traditional aspect of our society in order to usher in a communistic system by convincing the people that in so doing they are being liberated from the "racist, bigoted" systems of the past. This is why they play blacks against whites, latinos against blacks AND whites, homosexuals against straights, etc. They give some people new freedoms, which looks like justice in a microcosm, but it causes the larger fabric of a society to break down and decay. Thus it is easy to destroy.

These same platitudes and agitation strategies can be found at the site of the American Communist Party. Check it out at CPUSA.org.

Salt Grass "You are all victims of social politics. There has been more energy wasted on this issue, then it deserves. Don't ask, don't tell don't works unless you have a deep need to be an exhibitionist. I have seen many opposite sex couples that should be told to get a room."

Are you kidding me? You are delusional if you think thats all DADT is about. Im sorry, but is kissing your spouse before you ship off to a foreign land being an "exhibitionist"? Or how about giving your partner a hug and kiss upon returning after a long duty - just like everyone else does? Or hell, lets just talk about the benefits denied gay people and their partners...or @!$%#, even simpler...the right to write down your partners name so they are the first to be notified if you die while fighting to protect america?

Yeah, all that simply boils down to exhibitionism...and DADT is working just fine.

For bigots like you, im sure it is. NOt for the rest of the logical thinking, compassionate world.

Redhead - I thought the topic was Cindy McCain talking about DADT? What does that have to do with bullying?

Nonetheless, I COULD CARE LESS WHAT CINDY MCCAIN HAS TO SAY ABOUT DADT. She is NOT a politician and neither is McCain's daughter Meghan.

Why msnbc wastes its time tracking their comments is beyond me. Why don't you find out what the Pope is doing? At least he is in a position of power.

Why do gays' have to broadcast their sexual preference?? Nothing they do or say will make it right. Biblically it is wrong, and it is not something to be proud of!

Who cares what Cindy thinks, says, or feels?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

You are alive aren't you? (you had to have been at the time you posted this post.)

You are free aren't you? (jails don't usually allow prisoners to use the internet)

Hopefully you are pursuing your own happiness which comes from within. The government can not make you happy. If you are not, try working out. As Elle Woods (Legally Blonde) said, endorphins (created in your body when you work out) make people happy. Happy people don't murder people.

You have the same rights as the rest of us peon American citizens.

So.... what's the problem?

TimeTraveler "Good point. It seems like all we hear from the leftists anymore are charges of bigotry and racism when people don't accept the leftist's idea of morality, and justice. The same people who claim they stand for fairness and justice are the FIRST ones to attack, call names, insult and vilify what THEY don't agree with."

Its one thing to have opinions and stand by them, its quite another to legislate your morality on other people. I would say we have seperation of church and state, and as such...anyone attempting to legislate against gay people from the position of "I am morally opposed to them because I love GOD" FAILS, period. Go ahead, hate gay people all you want...just like i'll hate republicans all I want, but ya know, im not trying to outlaw republicans from having equal rights...the same cant be said about your side of the conversation.

"This is all right from the Marxist play-book."

When in doubt and unable to articulate, invoke Marxist language! Score one for you!

"Their goal is to ruin every traditional aspect of our society in order to usher in a communistic system by convincing the people that in so doing they are being liberated from the "racist, bigoted" systems of the past."

How is anyone ruining anything? You still get to hate gay people all you want right? No one is saying you cant hate who you want...I simply dont want our govt to enforce your ideas of who should be hated and why.

"This is why they play blacks against whites, latinos against blacks AND whites, homosexuals against straights, etc."

You do realize that it was republicans who pushed the "southern strategy" after the civil rights era right? Maybe you arent that up on your history and therefore dont actually know who started playing who against whom. Maybe this will help you better understand:

Kevin Phillips (nixons strategist) "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

"They give some people new freedoms"

OR they help people, such as black people during the civil rights - secure the freedoms our constition afforded them. But yeah, I guess when you got your foot on peoples necks and then let it off, that can be seen as giving them "NEW" freedoms...cuz, the freedom of having my neck under you foot is an ok sort of freedom compared to say...china.

"which looks like justice in a microcosm, but it causes the larger fabric of a society to break down and decay. Thus it is easy to destroy."

This is awesome...i mean really really awesome. When we (as a nation) helped secure black peoples freedom and liberty, society crumbled (er, the white racists dreamland was destroyed)...when we (as a nation) helped secure womens freedom and liberty, society crumbled (er, the angry sexist mens dreamland was destroyed)...and when we finally help secure gay & lesbians freedom and liberty, society will crumble yet again (er, the angry faux christians dreamland will be destroyed).

"These same platitudes and agitation strategies can be found at the site of the American Communist Party. Check it out at CPUSA.org."

Or, the Republican party...as I pointed out above. If the shoe fits, wear it buddy. You facist!

Cindy McCain is just more and more intriguing. I am not precisely enthralled with the family in general, but these apparent public incosistencies with other elements of the clan's political posture certainly make them more complex and human than is often the image cast during campaigns.

Her new ad is also quite timely. It gives a boost to President Obama's effort to get DADT repealed during the lame duck session.

With many Senators and Representatives now freed of re-election pressures, this lame duck session could bring several surprises - repeal of DADT is certainly one that's possible now.

Hey Allen ...... you're a master at distorting the facts to suit your politics. Log Cabin Republicans were NOT responsible for repeal of DADT even though they do support repeal (and lost in the Supreme Court). And, former President Clinton supported gays serving their country but was forced by political pressure (Republicans and a few conservative and powerful Democrats, eg. Nunn) to compromise and accept this dishonorable travesty of equality called DADT. What party is currently almost universally opposed not only to lifting DADT but also opposed to virtually any positive move to treat gay people as human beings and equal citizens? That's right, damn bigots called "Republicans"!!!!!

Sgt. U.S.Army

I served 34 years as a soldier and in close contact with alot of individual's and i will say that a Gay person in an Infantry unit makes the rest feel abit uneasy. In conbat you need a certain spree de corp and reliance on each other as your life depends on each other. I am sorry that old fashioned values are not kept in todays world. God in heaven did not tolerate Homo-sexualaity and it should not be an issue in our military.

First it is impossible to spend 34 years in the Army at the rank of Sgt. Second an Army veteran would know how to spell Esprit de Corps correctly. Finally, I don't know what unit you were in but MY unit didn't care what someone's Race, Religion, Gender, or Sexual Preference was as long as they did their job when we were in the field.

Big Sky Montana, you set such a wonderful Christian example ... wishing death on those you disapprove of.

Enjoy your brief moment on the blog here - that kind of post usually gets the writer banned.

This ad is very good and I hope will have an impact upon many. Of course, if postings go the way of most postings, the ad won't even be addressed but rather everyone spewing one form of vocal dictatorship or another displaying a lack of tolerance toward any who disagree or going off on some irrelevant rant just to hear themselves talk. Right on Cindy! Keep up on the good work.

It is so sad that so many people in this country support perversion. Perversion is not OK and certainly should not be encouraged in our armed forces.

Just look at history. Sexual perversion has been a huge contributing factor to the fall of most of the world's major empires.

This country was started as a Christian nation. It seems that you supporters of perversion have forgotten and/or rejected your Christian roots. The Bible tells us about what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the like, because of their homosexuality and other perversions. Do you understand that this is where the word sodomy comes from?

Who cares more about the pervert? The person who tells them that what they are doing is OK, is leading them on the path to spiritual death and possibly to guilt ridden suicide. If you remind people that perversion is sin then at least they have a chance to repent and change their ways.

You who are not caught in perversion yet support perversion are even more accountable and more of a problem than the people who are performing perversion. You believe that you are doing good while you are promoting evil.

Thank you, John McCain for your service to our country-you were a war hero and a hero as a POW. But now, it's time to step up to the plate again. Now you are needed to serve your country, once more. You need to do the right thing and, even though it's not your "lifestyle", you need to acknowledge that there is a huge rainbow of people in this nation of ours, and there's room for all. You need to support LGBT rights and DADT-becaust IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!! Please, John McCain-be a hero once more!

Allen-968499: That's a typical ignorant retort from an extreme - particularly the right. You feed yourself bull and then spew it out in a perpetual cycle of misinformation. Ignoring crap like Faux News is not missing information - it's missing misinformation. MSNBC may have a horrible bias on their talk shows, but their actual news presentations are pretty neutral (they're no CNN, but you get my point). Faux News, on the other hand, is a giant, hypocritical BS machine that is as bias as it gets. Their blatant disingenuous attitude about it makes it all that much worse.

Finally, like many of the people in the extremes (left or right), you need to get your information straight. DADT was a product of the Clinton Administration because he had to compromise with the religious zealout Republicans in Congress. It wasn't what the Administration wanted. Of course, you'd know that if you didn't believe the crap you hear from places like Faux News.

Ok, first, will someone please acknowledge the original purpose behind DADT and remember it was extremely progressive when introduced. It was intended to once again remind the military there is only one orientation and that is soldier, just as they were once reminded there is only 1 color, GREEN! While it is being picked to pieces in the political arena, the facts still remain. The idea was it was nobody's business. Personally, I don't want to see ANY coworkers necking at the water cooler and I believe the same should be true of the military. No PDAs, period. I still stand behind DADT and the original purpose it served. It once again made all SOLDIERS equal and eliminated the threat of removal from service for something that is nobody's business.

Nonetheless, I COULD CARE LESS WHAT CINDY MCCAIN HAS TO SAY ABOUT DADT.

@ Karen in LA -- Then can I ask why you felt compelled to write a comment?

She’s appearing in a new video geared toward eradicating the bullying of gay youth

As for you question about bullying... unless you've been living under a rock for the last couple of years, there has been a significant increase in bullying resulting in suicides of our youth both straight and gay!

I love how some people, think it is so easy to just change things to suit them, ecspecially when they have no clue how the military even operates. The military is made up of an extremely high percentage of straight men and women. Getting rid of DADT, would not be a simple thing to change...you would have to change sleeping quarters, shower rooms, bathrooms, deployments, etc...because there are straight people...believe it or not...that don't want to have to feel like there getting checked out in the bathroom, shower room, sleeping quarters, etc. Which is why male and females are seperated and not allowed to share barracks! Because it CAUSES PROBLEMS! The military is based on strict rules and guidelines that must be followed to complete missions and day-to-day routines etc. They are not saying gays can't serve, they can...just not openly, which in turn makes everything fair.

Also, once they allow gays to serve openly, there will be so many sob stories and lawsuits, that it's going to be ridiculous. Gays are going to go court over being put on the front lines, being yelled at in front of co-workers, having to be the first to go check on bomb sites...the same things straight military do all the time, BUT because it 's a gay person, it's going to be deemed "profiling"!!! So, all the straight military will be on the front lines and on deployments, dying for there country, while the gays stay behind and get pampered because of who they are! BS!!!

It is your choice to be gay, so deal with the fricken consequences, like no marital health benefits, not being able to serve openly, blah, blah, blah...just because your not the "norm" doesn't mean everyone has to conform so you are. Whats next polygamy, and the husband wanting health benefits for all his wifes and there 50 babies...because it might as well be if we're going to open that door! I am so fed up with the whining, the media, and celebrities trying to push my beliefs to the side. Now is the time for the quite to get a voice and quit getting walked over by the extremists!

And, PS: Please don't grammer check me...I'm voicing my opinion, not in a grammer class

There are several things that need to be considered here:

First off, what would the impact be of allowing gays/lesbians etc. to openly serve in the military? Considering the fact that many of the younger generations that are now or will soon be serving in the military are more openminded and tolerant in regards to gays/lesbians than the older generations are, I think that there would much less "unease and distrust" than many people think.

Secondly, lets take the emotion and religious beliefs out of the picture for a moment. Is there any legal reason that you can come up with for not allowing gays/lesbians into the military? I honestly cannot come up with one. While you are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe, laws cannot be based on that. The law is supposed to be impartial and based on something legitimate, not just a "belief".

Sorry Don, but most of the world's empires did not fall because of "sexual perversion". I have studied history for over 25 years and there is NO evidence for what you claim. Empires fell because they became lazy, their governments became corrupt or they simply got their clocks cleaned by a stronger, more ruthless opponent. Usually all of the above.

I served in the military for a number of years and I don't see any logical reason for not allowing gays/lesbians to serve. If they make unwanted advances or "passes" at someone, then they can be punished under the same sexual harrassment regulations that are already on the book. They will still be held accountable under the rules of the UCMJ so they aren't going to be "going into battle dressed up like flamers". Now there's a ludicrous concept if I ever heard one.

If they wish to serve and help protect my country, more power to them and they will have my respect and my thanks for doing so.

I love how everyone on that video is talking about giving glbt people more rights but at the same time they're telling everyone else how and what to say and do.

I have known the McCains for over 20 years and helped Senator McCain on his first campaign. I find these "rumors" to be just that! Why is it that people who don't agree with the Senator or his policies feel the need to spread these false rumors and Malign him and Cindy?

Its fine if you don't agree with him, but don't agree with his policies, not with a good, hard working American hero who served our country. Cindy is a strong independent person with a great deal of wealth behind her, if the abuse RUMORS were true, she would have no problem leaving Senator McCain.

Once again, please don't create drama where it does not exist! Do not slander this family. They don't deserve it.

dodgemantoo;

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't believe a shift manager at Starbucks is palling around with the McCains these days!

I highly doubt you're in a position to tell us what goes on in that household...

As a shift manager at Starbucks, I can say that customers sometimes spend too long at the drive thru menu board and don't know what to order

#9

- dodgemantoo

- 5:37 pm CDT on Fri Sep 17, 2010

God in heaven did not tolerate Homo-sexualaity and it should not be an issue in our military.

And how do you know this? By what some phrophet whacked out on the dope of the day wrote?

Please provide Jesus' quote about homosexuality. How dare you associate God with the military! Was Jesus in the army or navy?

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

So while you're on a roll, how about abolishing DIVORCE? After all, you took a vow "until death do you part". When you get divorced, you go to a lawyer not a clergyman.

Is sadomasochism natural? Are people born to be sexually aroused by being beaten or cut? Are people born sexually attracted to children? Obviously we can develop sexual appetites that we weren't born with. There are many people who say they used to be gay but now are not. If we're using anecdotal evidence, why not listen to these people? Their understanding is as valid as anyone's. And if we consider the natural purposes of our body parts, it's clear the function of the rectum isn't sexual penetration. The penis and vagina are obviously complementary organs. So in my opinion the evidence goes against homosexuality being natural or normal. For that reason it should not be encouraged in any way by the government, including by repealing DADT.

good point allamericangirl79. Nobody attacked your comments because they are too reasonable to dispute.

It's not that it's reasonable, allamerican making up the excuses. They sound like the same ones used when they tried to have women and African Americans serve.

good point allamericangirl79. Nobody attacked your comments because they are too reasonable to dispute.

That's not true Dan... nobody attacked her comments because you can't reason with bat sh!t crazy!

BTW: WE are ALL adults here and more than aware of human anatomy... so unless you find some thrill in typing penis & vagina you would be better served sparing us all the grammar school biology lesson...

Spike,

You are a good person.

feisty isn't the right word

feisty isn't the right word

I'll take that as a compliment! Thanks Dan! ;0)

but thanks anyway for your helpful insights

Thank you Fletch2-1565982. So are you! <G>

I just saw the videoclip of Cindy McCain on the evening news. I like her new haircut. She looks a lot younger.

I like her new haircut. She looks a lot younger.

I'll bet she got a gay hairdresser this time. Yes, she does look years younger!

Cindy's haircut copies my FORMER haircut. FYI - My stylist is NOT gay and the salon is in chic Beverly Hills.

If that hairstyle made Cindy look younger, and it was your former hairstyle, why would you change? Just curious.

Jessica-1170252--This is awesome...i mean really really awesome. When we (as a nation) helped secure black peoples freedom and liberty, society crumbled (er, the white racists dreamland was destroyed)...

What is really really awesome is how our formerly "white racist" society has benefited from the wonders of diversity and integration. The following statistics from the report The Color of Crime lists stats from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. These are reasons that society crumbles.

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.

...and when we finally help secure gay & lesbians freedom and liberty, society will crumble yet again (er, the angry faux christians dreamland will be destroyed).

Gays and lesbians aren't free and have no liberty because of DADT? People who like to have sex with sheep i.e. the Mesa, AZ fire dept. captain a few years ago don't either because he was arrested for it. The military would not let anyone join who openly admitted they have sex with sheep. I think you should start advocating for their rights and freedoms too.

Imagine how much better society would be. You fool.

If that hairstyle made Cindy look younger, and it was your former hairstyle, why would you change? Just curious.

Because wearing the same hairstyle for any length of time is BORING. I change it all the time. My new hairstyle is super chic and on the edge too. I've looked 20 years younger than my age since my 40s. I could say Cindy's style is so 2000 late but that is just catty. I just have a different style now.

My stylist works for major players in the entertainment business, among other people. In fact, I just emailed her a picture of one of her clients.... the picture was in an entertainment trade journal and her client's hair looked super great which was the reason I sent the picture.

AND MY STYLIST IS NOT GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's be clear that gay people do not have the patent on hair styling.

Check out Cindy McCain's Twitter page. She recanted.

Timetraveller,

Did you ever check this out, this is just one project. The percentage of 'minorities' who were imprisoned or sent to die because all the prosecutors were 'majority'. Also they were unable to pay for their defense and were railroaded. Minorities gets a stiffer sentence for the same crime committed by a 'majority'. You should also check out how many 'minorities' were convicted because of lying cops. Your statistic , whatever the source, is flawed.

Now you have another group to go after. Everyone is looking for a scapegoat.

Below are a list of 30 States that have already exonerated innocent people, as well as how many people were exonerated in each state.

Connecticut, Washington DC, Utah, Idaho, Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee and South Carolina are states that have exonerated one innocent person in each of these States. Arizona, Mississippi, Kansas and Alabama have each released two innocent people. Maryland, Montana, Wisconsin and Michigan 3 each. 5 were released in New Jersey. 6 in West Virginia and North Carolina. Georgia, Ohio and Missouri each released 7 innocent people each. 9 were released from Massachusetts, California, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Florida. 10 in Virginia and Louisiana. The States with the most innocent people that have been realised are New York with 23, Illinois with 29 and the highest State is Texas with 35 people being set free. This is a total of 217 people that have set behind bars for many years for a crime they never committed. How many more are still there waiting to be proven innocent?

Read more: http://socyberty.com/law/innocent-people-released-thanks-to-dna-testing/#ixzz15H2yMlUQ

Right on Beverly! @j.wesley.....I'll tell you about MY military service if you want to know about it...now, what about YOUR service??

Just because someone didn't serve in the military does not mean they don't have a right to an opinion and to be part of the conversation. Last I checked the military serves and answers to civilians. Did I go to sleep and wake up in Myanmar (Burma) or something?

Log Cabin Republicans tried, but the Obama administration appealed it. Who are the obstructionists on this issue?

j. wesley, I support Beverly's statement and like Jeffery, I'm ready to tell you about MY military service, provided you tell me about yours.

US Navy, 1979-84.

i'm not in the military but my little bro is does that qualify me to have an opinion?

i think if anyone is brave enough (or dumb enough as the case may be) to serve our country then they should be allowed to. how is one's sexuality going to affect how they do their job? what about all the young hetero soldiers raping young women? what about those killing civilians for sport and then placing weapons next to the bodies to make it look like they were armed (not sure if they were straight or not but my gaydar tells me the majority were straight). perhaps we should ban straight males so we don't have to worry about the embarrassment of them raping innocent women and young girls? or perhaps we should only allow females because the chances of them taking human life for sport are much less than men?

i think the real issue is all the homophobes are worried they might get showed up by a queer, or perhaps they think they'll get hit on. trust me gays don't go around hitting on close minded conservative a-holes- unless we do it just to piss them off that is lol!

***michael- i'm a day late but thank you for your service

same to all our brave vets, even the gay ones hehehe!

Charles Arlington Heights, IL

We do indeed answer to civilians in a round about way. But we don't answer to the masses, we answer to the President, Congress, and Governors (National Guard) all of whom are most likely civilians. That doesn't mean that they have never served though. I personally believe that if you have never served, then you have no right to dictate how we go about our business. If one doesn't like that approach, too bad. If you haven't served then you have already shown you either can't or are unwilling to defend yourself in the first place. Any argument to the contrary is merely falling on deaf ears.

To the topic at hand, I have served for the past 13 years and hopefully will for quite a few more. With that being said, I fully support Gays serving in the military without fear of reprisal. One thing to keep in mind though, regardless of who you are you must respect the uniform. When you put it on, you are a Soldier/Marine/Airmen/Seamen first and only, don't forget that fact just because a rule changes.....

Beverly,

380

412

The first number is the number of American service members we have lost so far JUST THIS YEAR due to hostile action in Afghanistan. The second number is the number lost in EIGHT YEARS under Bush.

We lost 266 last year, (double the yearly record under Bush), as Obama changed the ROE to be more politically correct and "dithered" until December to come up with a politically correct plan for the war. Obama decided to double down on the effort (to prove he wasn't a gutless liberal windbag on national security), but added a pull out/down/whatever date (to appease the gutless liberal windbags).

In doing so, Obama told the Taliban and the world - we have the will, but not the will for very long. The Taliban and everyone in Afghanistan, from Karzai to the most remote goat herder, from the village elder to the village idiot, knew the Taliban had won. Asinine.

380 so far. For what - a doomed politically correct plan?

I don't recall where I once read it, or exactly how it was worded, but it was a Soldier's Creed/Prayer and the salient point to me was - "Use our lives if you must, but do not waste them".

Our service members have the courage to risk, and sadly too often, give their lives. They deserve a Commander in Chief that has at least the political courage to make non-politically correct decisions.

And they deserve an American public that has a clue what is going on at this time, what is important at this time and doesn't have its head up its butt with politically correct crap/DADT at his time.

bob, your rant has nothing to say about the issue at hand. It is simply a typical anti-Obama tirade based upon selected data to try to prove some innane point. While you are highlighting some data regarding losses in Afghanistan under Bush and Obama, be honest. How many lives were lost in Iraq; a totally useless war that shoould have never happened. Even Bush is now saying that his insistance that weapons of mass destruction existed was false; and THAT was his excuse for invading Iraq. Talk about wasted lives????? One life lost for ego or lust for power is too many.

Speaking from expierience and 4 tours in both Iraq and Afganastan as a Inf.Soldier. We all believe that Libral speaking politics than swoon twards the correctness of what they think is right and wrong should for one thing pick up arms and join us in the front lines. Know what the heck they are al so ready to put down as law for the rest. I would rather fight knowing i can count on the harmony and comradery of my soldiers than having discord with them. Know this,we have enough problems over there than having to deal with this in our lives.

Jessica-1170252

When I kiss my love one good bye I am usually in my own house. If you had ever served in the military, you would know why the policy works. My stance is not based on morales, but in a pratical workable policy. They can not ask and you can not tell. Sounds fair to me. People can have opinions that have nothing to do with a moral stance.

TW,

What Bob is saying is that the ROE changed 180 in the last two years that puts the military is a very unsafe position. You don't following the ROE, you go to jail, if you don't get killed first.

That statement below from you is a false statement. He never said that, if he did post the interview on where he said that. You're a freaking pig for saying "wasted lives", you are a first class fool!! If you don't like or agree about the war, say so, but never say our men and women lives were wasted. I've lost quite a few buddie, friends and former team members in the last 9 years.

"Even Bush is now saying that his insistance that weapons of mass destruction existed was false"

Sgt. boo hoo. If you served four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan (you should know how to spell it) you know that you served with gay people. The only issue is that they were not able to admit they were gay. I honor all who serve the country (Vietnam here) but I also (as an officer) was taught that "truth and honor" were key virtues. Yet, DADT requires a gay person to be dishonest and dishonorable while putting his/her life at risk in service to the country that refuses to treat him/her with the same respect given to a non-gay person. And, your statement that "We all believe ...." just "ain't" so. Many servicemen and women currently in the military know service members who are gay and respect them and simply do not care if they are gay.

I agree that this policy should be ban. I served my country for 14yrs and some of the men and women I served with I would not follow them through a fire with gasoline panties on.

Equal rights should mean just that, Equal... With many years in the military, I see no problem with everyone that wants to serve our country - The ability to do so...

TW

The point of the comment was to maybe suggest that the focus of these comments was misplaced. If you feel politically correct social agendas are more of a concern than national security and the lives of American service members, you qualify as a liberal minority moron who happen to be about the percentage of Americans who believe we have been visited by travelers from outer space. That actually was a Gallup finding BTW. (In all fairness, their beliefs probably make more sense than the liberal agenda.)

About the "select data", yea. They're called pertinent, relevant facts that liberal morons ignore when it doesn't fit their agenda. Tell the parents and loved ones of those 380 they are inane, POS Jackass.

Gays cant give blood..Tell that to a dying Marine who needed it...No Body in there right mind want Gay blood...

EagleM009 said, " I personally believe that if you have never served, then you have no right to dictate how we go about our business."

When the military becomes SELF FUNDED then they can be as bigoted as they want.

Smead, I am, as the man says ROFL. Servicemembers are (or were when I was in) tested for HIV, and inoculated against the various HEPs, and loads of other things. If I caught a bullet or some shrapnel, I'll guarantee you that I would not demand to know the source of the blood they were giving me.

Terry is correct and all the blood work is done before deployment. I can't give blood, I couldn't since 98 and I retired in 08. I came up positive for TB, I get a X-ray every year. I was exposed in Bosnia.

SGT-If you were in Afghanistan, I think you know how to spell it. I hope you don't write Soldier's NCOERS, because as a Soldier and a leader you're hurting their progression by you're evals t them. In the military we write in bullet form, but damn man, you need to hit BSEP. The Army pays for your education for free, use it and don't let you're Soldiers know you can't write. Consider this NCOPD.

Paul,

Soldiers profile amazingly enough was created this month with no information. Given the grammar and structure of his post, you put two and two together and see if you don't come up with the same conclusion I did. FRAUD.

The truth is, everyone is afforded their opinion in this country. What people are not normally guaranteed, is to use their opinion to stop American Citizens from their freedoms. It used to be those who didn't own land, then it was only white men, then it was only white (including women), then it was only blacks, then it was only interracial couples, and now, it's just the gays. This too shall pass and we will look back and ask ourselves, "Why did we make such a fuss?"

@Jeffery....jwesly claims on other threads to have been in the 3rd Force Recon Marines in Vietnam when Kennedy was shot and before any ground troops arrived. The first ground troops arrived in the early part of '65 and were the 3rd Marines. The 3rd FORECON were not activated in Vietnam until Sept '65 and arrived at Da Nang AB in Oct '65. I arrived in Da Nang AB in Nov '65 and was part of the 3rd Marines. He must have been on a really secret mission to be in Vietnam at least one year before his unit arrived or was even activated in country........NOT

Itssobering

I don't think it should still exists. It should have never been created in the first place. Those who are openly gay, or lesbian are still people and should have the right to serve in the military. you can be gay and still an excellent solider/sailor/marine etc.

If the other service members have a problem with it, they need to come to grips with their homophobia and learn to accept it or leave the forces.

As much as I don't care for the McCain's I have more respect for Cindy McCain now.

@itssobering

Then why are you here?

I have a nephew- in- law that just loves to troll and taunt those who disagree with him. Of course, he doesn't work so I'm sure it gives him something to do while my niece goes to work to support him.

Is it you?

Also, are you or have you been in service? No? Then STFU. Yes? Then you know better.

itssobering - doubtful anyone would be prancing around the barracks in tutus - except maybe you. Gays have served in the military for years; they have fought; been injured; died. They should be able to serve without prejudice.

What a sad, pathetic, homophobic bigot you are.

itssobering

Wow. You're a complete tool, and that last comment proves it.

Sounds like you do have a problem with gays serving in the military. And you should be careful, because your ignorance is showing here. "..infuse their 'gayness' into the military lifestyle"? What does that even mean? Do you actually know any gay people? (I bet you do, and don't know realize it.)

@itssobering Are you part of a family of in-breds?

Just what does that have to do with anything I said? My niece tells us what he does because it hurts her. How does that make me in-bred?

And no, I personally have not served, but both of my sons are currently serving and I have asked them their opinions and their experiences before I spout off about something and they have both told me that the only ones complaining are the homophobic a$$e$. They both told me there are plenty of good people serving that live in fear of being found out and the above mentioned people are the ones who they are afraid of. I would assume from your post then you must be one of them.

I get so tired of bullies just being ugly-which you were in your first post and you were in your second post. If you have a reasonable difference of opinion (see post 5.3) then speak your mind, but you do not have to insult the rest of us. Apparently you didn't notice the "STFU" comment was in case you didn't serve and were just being a jerk. The yes response was that you should know better that people don't dance around in pink tutus in the barracks.

Jees, what a jerk!

WOW itssobering That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on any of these posts. are you afraid you will become gay if you are around a gay person. Reads as to insecurity in your own sexuality. You are either born gay or not. How would they infuse their "gayness" into the military lifestyle other than by wanting to be treated equally. Did you infuse your homophobic belief into the military?

My problem is when they want to infuse their "gayness" into the military lifestyle.

They don't want to "infuse their gayness." They want to be able, like straight people, to talk freely about their lives.

Let's put up a, albeit, hypothetical, but perfectly plausible, scenario: Three guys get week-end passes. One's got a long-term girlfriend - he's going to propose one day. One's single - he's out to get some any chance he can. And the third is like the first one - in a committed relationship - but he's gay. Following Monday, they're talking about their weekend. The second guy, can get completely graphic about the hoochie he picked up at the strip club, but the third guy can't talk about the museum exhibit that he and his boyfriend went to see. Do you see the problems there?

And that is the reason for repeal. There is absolutely no reason to treat these soldiers any differently just because they are gay. And that's what DADT does - treats them as second-class citizens. And they are fighting and dying exactly the same as straight soldiers.

If your suggesting that it is even possible that gays can 'infuse their gayness" than your naivety has negated any credibility you may have had. Gays serving in the military now are not likely to be interested in "prancing around in tutus" as not all gay men are flamboyant or feminine. Just as not all men in the military are macho-type @!$%#s. Every one of your comments screams insecurity and ignorance, something i thought the military would help an individual overcome. Clearly in your case it has only perpetuated your stereo-type of the LGBT community.

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by belief" - Gerry Spence

Thomas,

Actually DADT allows the GL community to serve albeit, not without prejudice. Prior to the inception, recruiters asked openly if you were gay, denied applicants if they felt they were "Not Right". I served from 81 to 91 and knew many gays, but not being a homophobe, I could care less. And the GL community knows who they can trust. No one ever hit on me in 10 years, I lived, slept, and worked along side these people. Personally i'd prefer if my nephew, one of my cousins, and alot of my friends, co-workers and acquaintances could serve openly. But till that day comes, DADT is the only resource they have at hand.

That man is a HERO! Do your homework!!

Obama inspires anger, and it showed at the recent election. Sometimes it is essential that people get mad.

Betty, since you've attacked at least two people who posted on here with insults and told one to STFU, I strongly think that YOU are the TROLL. So, take your own advice and shut the f**k up!

@tw

Who was the second person I supposedly attacked? Did you see the original comment I responded to? Did you see the post responding to me? How is it that I am "attacking" people when I just said if he hadn't served then...because his post was offensive if he had not served? I also commented that the STFU comment was if he was speaking without knowing what he was talking about. Do ya'll read? Why is it that he called me "in bred" but I attacked him? See, my post to the young conservative was right-it's ok for ya'll to talk smack about our family or beliefs or opinions but we can't respond in kind.

@itssobering

Come on man, you can't really believe that you can spout hate-filled BS and that we are WRONG for responding to it. Well, maybe you can because that seems to be just what many of you do. You come to a progressive website and say ridiculous crap and then attack my opinion and my family because I disagree with you. BTW, I never attacked your family or background or intelligence-I responded because you were over the top in your comment. What you just said confirms my post.

See post to the young reasonable conservative at 5.3-no attack, actually a compliment.

Hypocrits!

This whole topic is comical....

The McCains split on DADT... John McCain switches his position....

I used to be one of the biggest fans of Senator McCain. I lost faith in the man when he switched ALL his positions to gain favor with the GOP and earn the GOP nomitation for President on 2008.

Liberal, Conservative, Gay or Straight... we need to come as one to get this great country back on track.

@tw-again

I had a chance to actually read through some of your other posts and I am a little confused. First of all, most of itssoberings comments have been collapsed because he was out of line so maybe you didn't realize what I was responding to. Secondly, if my comments seem rash, it is because one on my pet peeves is the way so much of this country pays lip service to the men and women in uniform and I have watched the same families dealing with multiple deployments as well as the fact that my sons are both serving and yet the rest of the country has gone shopping. When I saw his comment in his first post, I responded viscerally to it. His comment about prancing around the barracks in a pink tutu was offensive, and I called him on it. I wanted to know if he had even served. He, it turn, responded by calling me inbred-how nice! I also responded to that, and I probably was not the most tactful. Not that I see most the other people on here being extremely tactful either-but...that being said, I don't understand what you misunderstood. You were called the standard liberal epithets on here too, why is it ok for him to attack me but I can't respond? -and why me?

Just wondering......

First off, Betty L, thank you for the service of your sons and the obvious support you have for them and what they do. It is greatly appreciated.

I served in the military in the 90s and, like them, knew people who had to keep their sexual orientation hidden. I thought it was unfair and unjust then and then it was mainly because several of them were my friends. I think it is even more unfair and unjust now because I understand the irrationality of it more now than I did then.

We claim to be a society that believes in fairness and justice and yet we allow these kinds of practices to continue. What does that say about us? While people are allowed to believe what they choose to believe, that does not allow a nation of separate beliefs to pass laws based solely on one particular belief. There must be more legitimate and logical reasons for a law.

As for all the hostile comments, insults and deragatory statements out there, leave them out of the discussion. They serve no purpose but to vent your own anger and to create anger in others.

Yes, both Cindy and Meghan represent the best of conservative women; they are not flame throwers. They represent the old-school republicans who were tolerant, compassionate and respectful of others views. We could use more of them these days to help bring left and right together. It is not us versus them, it is not about power, it is about doing what is best for the people and the country--that requires compromise and meeting in the middle, a willingness to listen and to cooperate not yell and head to our corners for battle.

AGreed, when the draft is reinstituted, we can reqiuire one year service for young men and women, they will be a big asset.

Compulsory service sounds a little like fascism to me. Freedom means citizens have the right NOT to join the armed forces as well.

>Yes, both Cindy and Meghan represent the best of conservative women; they are not flame throwers.

You couldn't tell that from Cindy's hateful convention speech. No problem on this issue, though.

Compulsary service seems to work well in Israel and Sweden.

They represent the old-school republicans who were tolerant, compassionate and respectful of others views. We could use more of them these days to help bring left and right together.

We could use some tolerance and respect from the left even more. Every day it's nothing but name calling from that side in the forums.

You'd be hard pressed to find just 1 liberal commenter on newsvine that is respectful of the viewpoint of Palin, Christians, Tea Party members who want the gov't to abide by the constitutional laws, or even anyone who disagrees with Obama policies. Aside from respect, it just shows complete intollerance and bigotry.

Allen, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I rarely see any comment made by a conservative extremist that shos any tolerance. Most simply want to force the rest of the country to bow down and say "Amen" to their radical agenda that they hide behind their religion or some warped view of the Constitution. Remember, your interpretation is not the only one that exists and everyone has the right to differ with you.

I have read a number of comments in this section of the vine advocating compulsary military service. As one who served voluntarily during the last period where that was the policy, I am asking- no begging- you not to wish this upon our services. What we got during that time was a large influx of young men who did not want to be there, had no ethos to serve well, and in many cases, few or no skills. Warm bodies may be useful when you need little more than manual laborers, but our military today is one of the best equipped and trained in the world. I don't want us to be forced to pay someone relegated to sweeping floors and hauling trash the same as a person I'd trust to maintain a combat aircraft or operate an Abrams tank. And I most assuredly wouldn't want to be facing approaching enemy forces, wondering if the kid covering my precious posterior might decide to bug out, because he hadn't been dumb enough to volunteer as I had. If you're going to give them something to do, please find non-combat work!

he's a nut case, a sore and self-serving loser

Every time I have the unpleasant opportunity to listening the McGeezer - I can't help but think of the crazy old man who yells at pigeons on the park bench! lol

Every time I have the unpleasant opportunity to listening the McGeezer - I can't help but think of the crazy old man who yells at pigeons on the park bench! lol

Agreed. It's a shame, too. At one point, he was one of the few voices of sanity and reason in the GOP. That last run at the presidency really screwed him up...

I have to wonder why you consider it "brave" for her to speak her opinion but apparently don't believe it's okay for him to speak his. I'm conservative. I think you're probably liberal. Liberals speak about being "open minded" but only seem to feel that way if you don't oppose their views. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Perhaps John McCain doesn't personally believe in this policy - but must go along with the majority of his constituency. Let's not forget - that's who politicians are supposed to represent. The PEOPLE. Not their own points of views or agendas, but that of those that elected him. Unfortunately - many people are against gay rights. That doesn't make them loons. That's just their opinion for whatever reason they have. Calling names & screeching isn't going to change their minds. Open communications at an adult level go a lot farther in furthering a cause then anything I've seen being done so far. I'm a young conservative who believes all people should be treated equal. I also believe that no special treatment should be given to any group of people over another. We should all treat each other with the respect we expect from others. I think anyone who wants to serve our country should be allowed to do so. I think anyone of legal age to marry should be able to marry whom ever they want to marry. That's just my opinion – but I can discuss it with people with different beliefs without resorting to name calling or thinking them to be racists or bigots. I think more people would take me seriously then they would take you.

Well said, Teenab, very well said.

One grammatical suggestion, though, please learn the difference between 'then' and 'than', you consistently used 'then' when you should have used 'than'. You are not the only one who does this but you sound like a very reasonable person who can learn from constructive criticism.

At one point, he was one of the few voices of sanity and reason in the GOP

Couldn't agree more... the McCain of today is nothing but a shell of what McCain was in 2000!

He's sold what soul he has to the Devil and now the Devil wants his dividends...

Your right about one thing. A lot of people aren't for gay rights. There are also still people that are against integration - they are called bigots, racists and Nazis.

Your right, they are entitled to their opinions and the people or lifestyles they dislike also have a right to be protected under law whether they like it or not.

The law ensures minorities have just as much right, as you, to be free and without oppression from the majority who might oppose their lifestyle because of any number of reasons. No matter how one wants to phrase, word, color, paint it, it is still discrimination plain and simple.

@teenab

Intelligent post! You seem to be a quite reasonable young person and I hope you are just the beginning of a new generation. Feisty thinks it is brave because in case you hadn't noticed, not many conservatives are willing to speak outside the party line anymore, and that is why posters are down on McCain. Yes, there is screeching and name-calling going on; maybe it is only perception, but the far right seem to have a handle on the worst of the name-calling and unfortunately it is human nature to respond in kind. If you take the time to follow the political forums, you will notice that liberals are never allowed to have an idea that isn't called socialist, fascist, Nazi's, insert your favorite ugliness. We are always given short shrift and dismissed as out of touch, not real patriots or Americans, loonytoons, etc. I admire you for speaking out on a "biased" forum and your thought process is good. Maybe if the right actually allowed input from the slightly left of center, progressives wouldn't be so touchy.

I do have one suggestion for you, though. PLEASE, lose the liberal-as-a-bad-word concept. I am so tired of that word being spat out like it tastes bad. Liberal (from the Latin liberalis of freedom)1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs 2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties 5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression 6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant 8 open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts 10. given freely or abundantly; generous 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts 13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman (from dictionary.com)

I respect your right to be a conservative and to have your own thoughts, please respect mine to be a proud liberal.

they are called bigots, racists and Nazis.

If the Obama election taught me anything, it's that those things don't really exist. They're names you use if you're a liberal and losing a debate. New translation: "One who didn't agree with a liberal".

This new translation was needed to keep the atheists from being called bigots when being intollerant of people who don't believe in their spiritual beliefs as well.

Betty...well said!!!! I've been reading posts here for quite some time now and I'm always amazed at how those who oppose liberals refer to the term in such terrible ways. Thank you for verbalizing what I'm sure many have been thinking; including me!

It's "brave" of Cindy McCain, because she's going against overwhelming opposition in her own party. (And to the other poster, the "log cabin R's" are not made up of Senators and Congressmen-- It's a lobbying group trying to change the R's stand on that issue.) John McCain, pathetically, can only hold office now if he joins the foaming at the mouth contigent of his party--and so he has. (I doubt either spouse holds it against the other--since their daughter is gay.

I have to agree on this issue Cindy is to be applauded. She is absolutely right. Pity about some of the other views she has espoused but then that might be because now she is (unlike the guy currently her husband) maturing as a politician. I wish her publicity people had provided a photo that looked a little less like a bewitched plastic mask because it makes her look completely unimpassioned - that obviously is not who she is. She may be conservative - whatever that means - I guess it just means that at the moment she is a Republican? - but that does not preclude her holding sensible humanitarian principles, does it?

Sorry Betty L., but I have to disagree with you.

The name calling and hateful speech is just as bad on the Left as it is on the Right. Both sides are just as guilty of it and neither side can claim any kind of "moral superiority" over the other. I have been called a "homo-lover" by idiots on the Right because I believe that gays/lesbians should be treated just like everyone else, and I have been called a racist and a Nazi by equally stupid people on the Left because I am against illegal immigration (and that means I don't care what your skin color is. You can be whiter than I am and if you're here illegally then you need to go home).

For every person on the Right who calls liberals Socialists, Marxists or whatever, there is one on the Left calling conservatives bigots, racists, Nazis or whatever. Basically all I see coming from either political/idealogical side these days is a lot of hateful, childish behavior. Which is why I don't belong to either party or idealogy.

Both sides have good ideas, but both sides seem to have a severe listening impediment. Just reading the various posts on this forum prove that time and time again.

As for Cindy McCain, I'm glad she publically stated she wants an end to DADT. It is an unfair and unjust policy and it needs to go.

@Idaho Dragon

I am sure you are right, it is all perception. We remember most what affects us most. I appreciate your input. Right now, we really should take it down a notch and try to come up with some real, legitimate ideas for the serious problems we face. The populace is actually closer to each other than it would seem on most issues if we could just listen to each other-and that means me too.

Feisty,

Seems you were right........she recanted...I wonder why?

Interesting isn't it Fletch?

The smug smirk on McNasty's face this morning told me that he had a talk with the little woman!

My bet is Cindy won't be going off script nor will we be seeing her in public for a while...

So this justifies being a bigot and a liar!

or maybe he just realized he needs to vote the way the people who elected him expect him to. He's not placating the extreme right anymore then you expect someone to placate the extreme left. in case you've missed the polls - most people don't want DADT repealled. Doesn't make it right, but those in office are there to REPRESENT the majority, not the minority.

Teenab,

Actually, sometimes it is the job of a representative to vote against what the majority of the people who elected them want. It is really the job of a representative to vote for what is best for the majority of his constituency, which isn't always what the majority thinks is the way he/she should vote. This often occurs when the majority are advocating something that abrogates the rights of the minority or when the representative possesses information that tells them the what the majority wants or thinks is incorrect. It may not garner a lot of votes but it does build respect and could swing the all important independent voter to your side.

teenab - actually, in the best polls, most people DO want DADT repealed. It is only in very conservative polls that the results go against it. The majority of people know that you should have the right to live your life without the extremists sticking their noses in your business. And, you should be able to serve your country without having to hide who you are. Intelligent people know sex isn't going to happen in barracks - if so it would be happening all over the place now - with both gays and non gays.

Actually you might want to take a look at the polls before you say that. Make sure you look at the poll of just military folks, even they agree. Just goggle it.

It's true that elected officials represent the interests of their constituents, but that doesn't mean they should have no principles or ideas of their own. Ideally, the candidate should have some ideas on how he thinks the interests of the people should be served, whether liberal, conservative, libertarian, free-market, whatever. Then he runs for office along those lines, and if the voters like his approach they vote for him. I don't trust the candidate whose only goal is to get into office, and will shift his "beliefs" to whatever will get him elected this time around.

John M was worried about losing his seat on the government gravy train and did say and do many things to placate the extreme right

Is this the new liberal definition of representation of constituents? No wonder the Democrat politicians got sent home in droves.

78% of people asked in recent polls want DADT repealed. The majority of people polled in AZ agree. Representing the voice of their constituency? McCain has changed his mind on this issue 180 degrees from before he was challenged by J. D. Hayworth This is a great example of the rights tendency of claiming the "will of the people" unless they disagree. End it now.

Allen, it would serve you well to see the previous posts exchange between the young conservative and the "older" liberal above. I would welcome more positive exchanges like that, hee -- Now for good or bad, that quote about what wa said about John McCaon here is true. he was in fear of losing his senate seat in a primary to someone who was "right' of him -So, he moved more to the right to retain his seat. That is not a "liberal" attack -- that is simple fact. He did the same to assure the GOP nomiation in 2008 (including selection Mrs. Palin) Attacks from the right acusing those of on the left of acting in ways that he right have been acting is unproductive. Again please lookup the dictionary definatons of Liberal and conservative .. you might be ienlighted.

Rob,

Sorry, but the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative often have little do with what liberals and conservatives profess to believe.

Also, when taken out of the political/idealogical context, both have merit:

Merriam-Webster definition of conservative: tending or disposed towards maintaining existing views, traditions or conditions. marked by moderation or caution. marked by traditional norms of taste, style, elegance or manners.

Merriam-Webster definition of liberal: marked by generosity. given or provided in a generous way. not literal or strict. broad-minded.

Now, personally I would prefer people had qualities of both. I like a person who is broad-minded, but is also moderate and believes in the value of caution. I like a person who is generous, but who also believes in "traditional" values like common courtesy and manners...both of which seem to be in short supply on either side of the political/idealogical fence these days.

So, looking up the definition of the words liberal and conservative do not exactly accurately depict Liberals and Conservatives.

That might fly if everyone were elegible to join.

Excuse me! Our volunteer army is funded with tax payer dollars, there for the rights of every citizen applies to the armed forces as well!

Volenteers........Its not the Red Cross moron. Its a job. They get a paycheck.

Our military is a VOLUNTEER organization, if you don't like the rules; don't join.

Our military is funded by every American. When then military becomes self funded, then you can dictate bigotry.

If you don't like American society, leave.

the fat ones can't join. If you cannot do pushups, situps or run the 2 mile event in the minimum time you will be flagged and kicked out of the Army.

You all better watch what out for you demand. Go review the UCMJ. When DADT is removed the gays are screwed.

Question for you here...how many of you joined? How many of you were able to say "You're welcome" to the people who thanked a veteran?

Until you know what it's like to put on a uniform and serve, STFU. I personally didn't give a rats a$$ if the guy working with me liked boys or girls. I wanted to get the job done in a safe manner.

The "rules were changed" when the G/L community was deemed ineligible for military service. Repeal of DADT will simply re-institute the original rule (any US citizen of a certain age).

What in the world does being a POW have to do with this issue?

Uh really. You need to read your own post. For the most part, no one is changing the rules for gays. They are just trying to get the same thing as you and I, protection from BS harassment whether it be from government or the private sector. If you belieeve they should be "afforded every right that every hererosexual citizen has", then they should be allowed to marry, get benefits, serve in the military, etc. I am pretty sure that is still my right, so by reading your message it would also be the rights of the gay community, right? A long time ago a black person had to drink out of a different water fountain then a white person. It was wrong then, and it wrong now, right? So, society needs to change it's perception and "rules" otherwise we never progress.

Having served in our Military for over 21 years, DADT being repealled will be a problem ONLY because the Military does not have the infrastructure in place to deal with openly gay servicemembers. That is why the Military wants to wait to repeal it. Trust me folks, the same thing happened when the Military opened up combatant ships and other units to females. It isn't an issue with most Military members on who sleeps with who, but it IS an issue with how will be house and handle these servicemembers.

Don't get fired up and call me a bigot, I am not. But I understand what some of the issues will be. Example: Gay servicemember living in open bay barracks or in a ship berthing. Is it right that a gay man lives with 180 men, some of which he may be sexually attracted to? The military wouldn't put a heterosexual man into a female berthing because of the same problem. I know, I know, this doesn't seem like a huge problem, but I assure you, it is. There are unique issues dealing with the repeal of DADT. We can ignore them but they won't go away. Again, I am for repealing DADT when the infrastructure is in place. (I think that is what the Pentagon was working toward before the Federal Judge said it was Unconstitutional.)

And by the way, joining the Military is not a right. There are many ways that will disqualify you for Military service. Call it discrimination if you want to, but the military isn't like working at McDonald's. I don't think being gay should stop you from serving. But unless the Military ELIMINATES all differences according to gender and sexual preference, there will be issues that will cause huge problems. That is the way it is. I don't like it any more than you, but denying it is foolish.

Why on earth should they *not* want to change a rule that deliberately and specifically targets them? And why is it unreasonable for us to want to change such an unjust rule?

Although I haven't served in the military, I've worked alongside military personnel as a contractor. I respect both what they symbolize (service to our country) and them as individuals; they're disciplined, dedicated, and hard-working as a group. That doesn't mean that their organization is entitled to arbitrarily exclude equally disciplined, dedicated, and hard-working citizens who want to serve as well.

gman,

Completely agree. The adjectives should go away and we should all be seen as citizens, and afforded the rights equally.

What rules? You mean the rules that will make us more accepted? Then yes. Were are asking you to change the rules because they are unfair.

How can you in one breath, say you have nothing against the homosexual lifestyle and then say you mind them asking to change the rules? If the rules aren't changed then we are not afforded the opportunity to be treated as equals.

Replying to the forgetful minded, um....... The military has not always been a "voluntary" organization. Vietnam came to young men as a war without options and choices for those who didn't want to go. So while they were drafting straights and gays, they didn't ask and most of the gay enlisted didn't tell. But just like the straight soldiers, the gay soldiers fought and lost their lives too, in great sacrifice to our country.

The bigots and haters in this great land are exposing themselves like never before because of the heightened awareness by society for the controversial social problems and issues surfacing heavily for the first time. That's great..... at least we know who you are now.

Only people who are uncomfortable with themselves, their religion, spirituality, sexuality and of course, education, find the time and anger to berate and abuse others. You folks are being weeded out and you don't even know that you are. Thank God that the upcoming generations of people in this country will be better educated, more informed, and socially empathetic to the diversification in individual cultures, beliefs, morays and morals that make the U.S. the greatest country in the world.

@Bev

Another nice distortion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/17/vietnam-veterans-against-john-mccain/no-evidence-mccain-was-a-traitor/

Maybe I should start posting all the internet nonsense regarding President Obama but then I would come down to your level of personal attacks.

The problem with this "rule" is that it applies only to a small segement of the military population ...... Gays. And the military is just one groups of many that is bigoted against them.

DADT should not even be necessary. A gay soldier is still just a soldier ..... whether he/she is plain old GI Joe or Jane, or an officer.

Does McStupid actually think being gay is a chosen lifestyle? ...... Apparently so, which makes him one of the many conservative bigots that populate our government.

Wise up, McStupid!. Gays are just like the rest of us. They want to live happy, productive lives with the person that means the most to them. Many are well educated, and and earn good livings, and contribute positively to society. They are usually not the ones on welfare, living off the taxpayers. Some volunteer to serve their country in the military in dangerous places like the Middle East. Who are you to deny them that opportunity? They love this country just as much as the rest of us do, and are willing to give their lives for our freedom.

Chet: The issue of sharing sleeping areas and showers with gay personnel is strange, in that it is already happening in the military. The only difference is that now a person might SUSPECT his shipmate is gay, whereas if DADT is repealed, he would KNOW it, if that person chose to publicize his sexual orientation. In any case, the rules against sexual harassment would still stand, so the only change would be that gay servicemen would be free to go to the gay club instead of tagging along to the stripper club to keep their secret.

j.wesley

Tell us about your military service, Beverly.

What does mine have to with Mcain's? I don't have any. Will my husband, my father, my brother, and 2 sons suffice?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan, NJ

@Bev

Another nice distortion.

Okay, I made a mistake. But it's not erroneous to say McKesser is a liar and a hypocrite.

Maybe I should start posting all the internet nonsense regarding President Obama but then I would come down to your level of personal attacks.

The last I checked a personal attack is addressing the person posting not the politician. Just so know, you really don't have to there are enough right wing nuts migrating to this liberal blog to do just that.

The last I checked a personal attack is addressing the person posting not the politician. Just so know, you really don't have to there are enough right wing nuts migrating to this liberal blog to do just that.

AMEN Girlfriend... I see where there the usual collapse cops are playing games again! Too FUNNY!

there are enough right wing nuts migrating to this liberal blog to do just that.

AMEN Girlfriend... I see where there the usual collapse cops are playing games again! Too FUNNY!

I could swear I've seen both of you claim there is no such thing as liberal media bias.

The difference is, one side is reading both sides of the story to educate themselves. The other is demonizing anyone who reads something other than "liberal blogs".

kamudi,

I agree with you that it is already happening. I never said it wasn't. But it isn't strange. Living in close quarters is a fact. Again, I never had an issue with this, but I know as a leader, living conditions were a huge issue I had to deal with. I also agree with you that the Military ALREADY has enough rules to deal with sexual misconduct/harassment. Again, I don't think these issues are the problem. The issues will be that there will be servicemembers who have an issue living with someone else who finds them sexually attractive. Like I said....they don't allow hetero men to live with females. They don't allow females and men to live in the same close quarters. Again, this issue doesn't bother me. But it is a problem. Unless the military says that men, women, gay, straight all share the same quarters, restrooms, standards of conduct.................there will be issues.

If the military had a no gender/sexual orientation type of thing. Men and women share quarters, showers, bathrooms and everything would people have an issue with that? I'm sure that many folks would. Many women would not agree to that situation. These are the issues that I'm concerned about. I spent most of my time as a leader in the Military dealing with young servicemembers personal lives. Again, I WANT the DADT policy repealed. I belive in my heart that everyone should be allowed to serve regardless of sexual orientation. I just want to make sure that the infrastructure is in place. I also understand that regardless of how we want to paint this, there will be issues and sometimes those issues will be serious. I am a realist. I don't ignore problems just because it might be politically correct to do so. I think that just repealing DADT without infrastructure in place WILL make these issue more serious and, due to some very narrow minded people, might just be dangerous. I know that comment will cause an uproar. But it is no more contreversial than saying it is ok for men and women to live in the same close quarters. That could be dangerous too, right?

Apparently my spell check didn't take in my last post, so forgive the spelling errors. The hazards for trusting technology! :-)

I could swear I've seen both of you claim there is no such thing as liberal media bias.

Didn't you hear Allen? MSNBC's new slogan is Lean Forward...

While Fox Noise continues on Bending you Over...

Im pretty sure this country was founded on changing the rules. Rules that fit a current society better than the former.

Feisty

Didn't you hear Allen? MSNBC's new slogan is Lean Forward...

While Fox Noise continues on Bending you Over...

LOL... as they are so busy looking for a balanced budget, more tax cuts for the rich, more socialist, communist, ACORN, Muslim terrorist, Black Panthers, God words, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independent, the Founding Fathers, undocumented workers, from Glenn Beck's . Oh, me so silly, Glenn Beck's a$$ is a multimillion talking mouth!!!

Not fair or balanced.

Glenn Beck's a$$ is a multimillion talking mouth!!!

That is not a fair balancing act.

Why not? The military changed its rules for Blacks and for women. The sky didn't fall. In fact, the military can proudly say it LED the country in integration.

Beverly Chicago - "He was a Privileged 'War Hero', Liar, Collaborator, and Traitor."

_______________________________________________________________________

I wonder if reading the article you posted you saw that the person who stated the above about McCain, posted the following about John Kerry.

"Kerry is a liar. He put himself in for a Silver Star which the actions were not true. He put himself in three times for the Purple Heart, when he was not qualified, because a Purple Heart has to be treated by a doctor. And the wound has to be caused by the enemy.

In Kerry's case, and he omitted this, his Purple Heart was caused were by, some of them, by rushing scratches."

_____________________________________________________________________________

So the person who believes that McCain is a liar and traitor said that Kerry was a liar and a traitor. For me the credibility for this guy just went down.

However, that is beside the point, can we agree to dislike John McCain's policies without having to question his patriotism or what he endured in capativity. You can't dismiss that he had multiple injuries and beatings and at one point dropped to a mere 100 pounds?

From McCain's biography - By the way he did admit that he broke and told the enemy things. However, how dare me or YOU or anyone know what he endured? It is time to put down the hate and demonizing of everyone on the other side.

http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html?PageNr=8

"I held out for four days. Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5½ years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope.

I said, O.K., I'll write for them.

They took me up into one of the interrogation rooms, and for the next 12 hours we wrote and rewrote. The North Vietnamese interrogator, who was pretty stupid, wrote the final confession, and I signed it. It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities. It was unacceptable to them. But I felt just terrible about it. I kept saying to myself, "Oh, God, I really didn't have any choice." I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."

_________________________________________________________________________________

I accept that both John Kerry and John McCain both served this country and are both heroes. Regarding the article I think McCain needs to support the ending of DADT.

AP;

I agree totally with you. That being said, I think the military needs to use the lessons learned from the racial and gender integrating when repealling DADT. Ensure things are in place before it is done. This needs to be done ASAP.

True American: Once upon a time the military had to change the rules to accommodate another group of Americans -- African Americans (BTW, they and gays are true Americans, too). Most white people opposed integrating the military, but Harry Truman realized it shouldn't be decided by popular vote. It's an equal rights issue. And so it is. You say you believe gays should be treated equally, but then you negate that belief by saying they shouldn't expect the military to change the rules for them. The fact is, the rules are in violation of their rights and SHOULD be changed.

Oh, and I'm a true American, too.

Chet, thanks for the first-hand-experience explanation of the problem. Your comment describes the issue clearly for me. I have never served in the military but I know I would be uncomfortable sleeping in the same quarters as a homosexual man who has professed being sexually attracted to the same sex. I don't consider myself a homophobe since I have friends and acquaintances who have different sexual persuasions, it's just that I don't subscribe to that orientation.

but I know I would be uncomfortable sleeping in the same quarters as a homosexual man who has professed being sexually attracted to the same sex.

Why you think that every gay man would be attracted to you?

Can I ask you Julian if your gay friends or acquaintances have ever come on to you?

I'm not sure what the latest rape statistics are by gay men... but something tells me they're minuscule...

We must think alike or maybe not I too am "The true American", why on Earth would a gay person want to be noticed at war? Isn'tit enough that they have that right? Why would he/she want to be noticed in a military uniform? If they serve they serve our Country for a purpose and not for the right to be known as a gay male/female, why would they want anyone to know they are gay, are they there just to attract the same sex or are they there to serve for the right purpose? Why is it that these (gays or fags, it all has the same meaning and it is not deragatory okay) want to be recognized when they should be alert ready for combat and come home, where they have that right to be gay in there own home and not in front of my kids, or anyone else that doesn't want to see the images? My ancestors left them that right, and Cindy McCain doesnt compare to My "Hero" is she crazy? She shouldn't be putting these people in "HARMS WAY" not every Country has all the rights My ancestors left you.......Be Safe and Smart don't go public while you serve our Country...

The True American,

They don't want to be noticed, they want to live like everyone else and be honest. They don't want to be turned in and then kicked out because someone choose to be vindictive.

I had always respected John McCain for his service to this nation over his life time i would have voted for him for Presient back in 2000 if he had gotten the nod, instead of GWBush (the world might even be a better place today if he had been President over the last decade). However, it is just unfortunate that political pressure has made him lose a great deal of his ingritiy over the last few years. On the other hand, while he may be taking a public stand againist chnaging DADT, i think he may be really suppporting his wife and daughter. After all, he has just been re-elected and now he is safe for 6 more years.

"Those people" are already in your shower.

No need to fret. They're gay; not blind. You're not all that.

When the military becomes self-funded then you can dictate bigotry.

When civilians lose control of the military, then we model the Iranian, North Korean, and Chinese regimes.

Brian - trust me - no one and I do mean no one wants to be in your shower with you!

SuperBrain (not) -- Do you really think that the worst thing that can poosibe happen while iserving our nation in the arm forces is some one might see your little tiny "ding-a-ling" in the shower? Well, let's all take a second to let you get over yourself. ...If you were in Iraq right now the last thing you need to worry about is someone looking @ your ass... you should be more concerned it don't get shot off. If gay American men & women want to offer up themselves to service this country in uniform -- especially with what is happening around th world...I say thank you, good luck and God bless. None of my business who you want to love (if and when) your get back home -- (as long as they are "legally consenting adults" -- it is fine with me. By the way, I am sure any so-called "wrong sexual behavior'while in the service would be dealt with like it would be no matter the sexually orienation.

You call yourself "SuperBrain"? Sounds more like "SuperInsecure" to me!

Zogby Poll found that only 8% of men use communal showers regularly and that the vast majority of men take private showers regularly. So, what you are saying is that 8%, a very small majority and oddly enough the argument used by anti gays in the military talk, get to decide the rights of a fellow soldier?

And I have to concur, this idea that gay men want every man that walks around is just stupid. It's called personal control. Just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you act on it. Married men and women find other people attractive but somehow can keep their fidelity. I hate that gay men are characterized as the complete hormone driven, non functioning people who have no self control. GEEZ!

C'mon.. they are there already..... silly.

OK, so formal churches are power and can enginate a lot of money. What does that prove about DADT? And have you noticed that many "popullist" church leaders have also turned out to be gay or going after children (both geners)... You point is?

Spike --

This proves that there are bigots in every religion. I'm not putting down the religion -- just the bigots.

Charles, get with it. Women now serve side by side with men in the armed forces. They (women) are the ones that sometimes save the men who squeal like stuck pigs.

And those "women", as you call them (I'm assuming you mean gay men, here), are ALREADY in the kinds of situations that "men" (I'm assuming you mean straight men) face every day. They're already THERE. They're just not allowed to tell anyone that they're gay. And ACTUAL women, both straight and gay, are ALSO in those situations and doing our country proud. Grow up.

Charles - what an ignorant post. Gays and women have served in the military for years and none of them squeal like you would if you stubbed you toe. What a totally moronic post. Clearly you are one of those men who is frightened of gays and women.

Charles probably cried when the 19th amendment passed. And when they let those women folk outta the kitchens in WWII.

dclady

These "women" would be squealing like stuck pigs if they were ever in the kinds of situations that men face every day in combat...Ingrates...

Just like ungrateful Dick Cheney who shot his friend duck hunting.

Because of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Harry Whittington lives with 30 pieces of bird-shot inside his body speaks with a “warble” because one of those lead pellets is still lodged in his larynx.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/cheney-shooting-victim-carries-30-pieces-shot/

But, Cheney can still quake up.

How did you somehow miss the fact women ARE serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? And they're not there serving meals or nursing. Talk about ignorance!!

Von Steuben was reported to be a homosexual.

While that may be true, Von Steuben probably wasn't openly advertising his sexuality. This has nothing to do with SERVING in America's Military. It's about being able to openly say you're gay. I have no problem with homosexuals (or anyone else fighting for the right). Forgive me if the word 'homosexual' is offensive-it's not meant to be. I don't believe being able to 'openly' serve makes you any better a soldier than keeping your sexuality to yourself. Just like a 5 hour commute to work doesn't make me any more productive than working at home. Or putting on a shirt and tie doesn't make my work any more professional.

gays always come up with some irrelevant, ancient "fact" of gays in history... i.e.- All the spartan armies were gay/napoleon/all the revolutionary soldiers.... most pro boxers were gay. most of our population today is gay, etc. etc. etc.

Who can prove that?

Forcing people to constantly lie and hide things in order to serve is in no one's interest.

I don't believe being able to 'openly' serve makes you any better a soldier than keeping your sexuality to yourself.

This is what so many people don't seem to get,it's not about gays advertising their sexual orientation but removing the ability of others to out them..which does and will happen as long as DADT remains.

If gay people want to honorably serve their country then we need to make sure that they can do so without having to fear blackmailing or hazing.

When a soldier is serving, often times it's the thought of "back home" that keep them going. When care packages come in, they share the photos of their spouses, kids, families, and friends and all the news of home. It is not about "sex." It's about having a connection back home and having something back home to return to. What you are telling gay and lesbian soldiers is that they cannot do the same thing. They cannot share pictures, stories, care packages, etc. They often have to write in code for fear of their mail being intercepted. So while everyone else gets to be part of their military family by sharing what's important to them, you are creating a social outcast who can't participate. This creates a sense of insecurity in the ranks as their is this "loner" who never talks about home. It amazes me that this issue gets boiled down to showers and bunks and no one is talking about the mental and well being of the soldiers who put their lives on the line to defend our country while being treated like they should just be honored enough to die.

That is a load of crap and not true. If you need to tell yourself all that to justify your homophobia and bigotry go ahead, but if you expect to be taken seriously make legitimate points and leave the kids, bestiality, and mutilations out of it too. Seriously, try some reality instead of whatever you have been told.

While I don't agree with making homosexuality illegal, I do have an extreme hard time with everyone trying to make it "Normal"- It is NOT normal behavior, and goes against the bible as well. I also have a hard time with these people forcing their way of life on everyone. I shold not have to explain to my 8 yr old why two grown men are kissing and holding hands, caring purses. I don't mind if you have that orientation, just keep it to yourself and quit trying to force society to call it normal. And- BTW, many gays who "serve" in the miltary are also commiting sex crimes against those who are not gay, while in combat situations. Then this poor straight kid kills himself because he was raped- but no one feels that story is news worthy, or it is reported that the "war" is causing suicides rather than rape by a gay man- that story would be counter productive to the gay movement so it not reported except for a few blog sites that have the courage to speak up. Wake up America!!

Time will tell.... BTW you have no idea of my struggles in this arena, since the third grade and I am now nearly fifty, your accusations of phobia and bigotry are unfounded and far from truth....

Hey, JA, do you believe in mythical superbeings? Do they 'speak to you'? Do you witness 'miracles'? Did you graduate high school?

Methinks the man doth protest too much. It's always the ones hiding in the closet that fight against their own.

In most instances, its heterosexuals who molest children, rape both humans and beasts and are deviants. Using marriage is a joke since most male/female marriages don't really work. If they did divorce lawyers would be begging on the streets, but they are some of the highest earners in their field.

The only people who are against gays in the military, are the ones who support the rape of women. When women come forward in cases of rape and mistreatment, the good old boys protect each other at the expense of these women. I am sure the ones who are pushing the gays out, are busy recruiting women. I wonder why?

Users and bullies.

Time will tell.... BTW you have no idea of my struggles in this arena, since the third grade and I am now nearly fifty, your accusations of phobia and bigotry are unfounded and far from truth....

Wow man. You should really try to stop hating yourself so much. Life is too short.

Ozzy-2651302

It is NOT normal behavior, and goes against the bible as well.

So is eating shrimp and planting two different crops next to eat other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM

Not the "slippery slope" argument again! JA, there is no comparison between gay relationships between 2 consenting people, and pedophilia or bestiality. The last 2 involve non-consensual sexual activities - children are legally unable to give consent, and it is impossible for an animal to give consent.

JA GILLISS - Your ignorance is overwhelming. Your being 50 is no excuse for your serious problems with anyone who is different than you.

I am 50 as well and had many struggles in my life. We all have, and I am sorry you have struggled just as I am sorry when anyone is hurt. That doesn't have any relation to DADT though, and it doesn't make being gay any more normal or abnormal. It doesn't make being gay a slippery slope and although I wish you peace from your struggles, it doesn't mean a whole group of qualified and worthy soldiers should be excluded. Women are assaulted in the military as are men (as are non-military people of various sexual orientations), and what it shows is that humans sometimes do horrible things to each other. I have been raped by straight males...so does that mean all males are bad or unable to behave civilly in close quarters? No it doesn't.

Ozzy, I would like to see your statistics and proof on how many MORE crimes are perpetrated by gays then straight people in the military? Yes, humans do vile things and gay people aren't exempt from that, but I seriously doubt more gays are committing sex crimes than straight people anywhere. Many women are sexually assaulted in the military and it is by men, so perhaps no men should serve either?

If a person does not follow the code of civil and military behavior s/he does not need to serve of course, but that goes for everyone.

By the way, Ozzy, you definitely have the right to believe that because a book says that being homosexual isn't normal that is a fact, but not everyone else feels that way or even believe the bible to be anything but an interesting book. In this country we are not all required to believe or not believe that everything in any religious book is fact, so that doesn't relate to whether gays should serve openly or not. If you don't believe it is normal or okay then don't have gay sex. They will not be chasing you down for it either, so it all works out. I agree there is no need for slobbering on each other in public whether you are straight or gay, so that is a valid point. As for the purse...the guy wants to carry it so it is just a bag the guy happens to like. My husband carries mine often when we have things to carry and the kids are in tow, so does that mean he is making your son's education complicated? I agree on the kissing for anyone, but the purse is a purse and doesn't necessarily define sexuality.

I hope that you find answers to your struggles, JA, but the path you are heading down lumping all those things together and generalizing doesn't seem to be one that is helping you find any peace.

Fletch,

where do you get your information? Is it just off the top of your head? How in the world do you get that those against gays in the military are for the rape of women? Are you suggesting that having gays in the military will satisfy the sexual urges of all the men in uniform? Ridiculous!!! And heterosexuals are the child molesters and deviants? Also a stupid remark. Deviants and child molesters have nothing to do with being homo or heterosexual. And you have no documentation to prove that heterosexual marriages last less that gay marriages. Gay marriages have not been legal long enough to get an accurate estimate of how gay marriages fare to heterosexual ones.

Recently two men who were married in Mass. moved to Texas and decided they wanted to dissolve their union. They filed for divorce in Texas but were refused. In Texas gay marriages are not recognised, therefore, they cannot be dissolved. They appealed, but were refused again. I think it was a ploy to get the courts to recognise if a gay marriage can be dissolved in Texas, they must agree for it to first exist. That would open the door for gay marriage in Texas. If not the two men could just walk away from their union. No harm, no foul.

Also, while I believe in repealing DADT, my post is really not about that, but the organization NOH8. I am dismayed that too many people do not support an issue unless it is racial, or sexual "preference " based. What about all the children who are bullied just because they are not "cool" or they are poor, or they are too pretty and the bullies are jealous? There are a million different reasons bullies find to bully another child. There are at least as many of these children as there are sexually confused children being bullied to death. Shouldn't these causes consider the safety of all children and not just the "Trendy" causes?

Dancnman,

From your other comments on that you post, most would have to wonder if you even passed kindergarten; or perhaps you are still there.

Texana,

Do you need me to say who I am responding to in each of my posts?

Are you supporting the statement that all homosexuals are deviants, since that is what I responded to? And yes, you need to reread . I realize that comprehension is not one of your strengths, but you should really try. Having said that I will explain hoping you will get it.

Are you suggesting that having gays in the military will satisfy the sexual urges of all the men in uniform? Ridiculous!!!

No, that is not what I said or suggested. They would rather have women rather than gays because they use women to satisfy their urges. This is why women in the military are raped and used and never get the support they need and deserve from the Brass.

And heterosexuals are the child molesters and deviants? Also a stupid remark. Deviants and child molesters have nothing to do with being homo or heterosexual.

Read what I was responding to. Yes most child molesters and deviants claims to be hetero. Look it up.

And you have no documentation to prove that heterosexual marriages last less that gay marriages. Gay marriages have not been legal long enough to get an accurate estimate of how gay marriages fare to heterosexual ones.

Never said or implied it. This is what I said: .......... "Using marriage is a joke since most male/female marriages don't really work".

Please take some English Comprehension classes before trying to respond. Getting your knickers in a bunch over what someone did not say is really sad. Also stop watching Hannity, I am sure that is where you learn to twist statements to justify lying.

If you are so concerned about bullying, get involved with schools, spend time on campus walking and talking to kids and teachers. Join the PTA, volunteer for field trips. Be there for kids. (I did) You do not have to wait until it becomes trendy to become a child advocate or get involved.( I didn't). Stop talking and start walking.........

"Methinks the man doth protest too much. It's always the ones hiding in the closet that fight against their own."

Case in point:

1. The Rev Ted Haggard
2. Larry "I've got a wide stance" Craig (R-ID)

And don't forget Bishop Eddie Long.

I seem to have sparked some debate, unfortunatly there are those who cannot keep from launching personal attacks, because I have an opinion. I'm called homophobic, a bigot, unintelligent and more. I did not personally attack any individual with my comments I simply listed historical fact!What is categorized as ddeviant sexual behavior by man has always been set by society. In history homosexuality has been considered deviant and then normal just as were the other sexual behaviors I listed. It has been the prevalent opinion of society at large that allows it or that does not allow it. When we began to change our attitude towards homosexuality just 20-25 years ago we did take steps down a slippery slope. Just yesterday the hot story was Amazon selling a pedophiles guide, if you saw the interview with the author you saw a man who wrote this for those whose reality is that this is normal sexual behavior. it starts with a step and to discount the possibilityof history repeating is foolish, especially today when we live in a society that does not embrace any absolutes.....

Why are military straight men worry about having a gay men in the same quarters as them? I am going to tell you: its instill into males while growing up to hate someone is different, just like people that hate Afro-Americans, Hispanic and Jews. Can they serve in the military? YEP!

You're exactly correct Lynda.

Thank you Cindy McCain!

Do either of you realize what circumstance brought John into the politcal arena?

Yes, you are so right. Less government interference is preached, but instead they insist on more. What I do in my bedroom is my business unless someone is being hurt or children/those not able to consent are involved. It can't go both ways...smaller government can't equal harassing consenting adults and forbidding them from serving our country. It is illogical, but logic has nothing to do with this. It doesn't make sense and is costly and intrusive, but that doesn't stop the knee jerk reactions based on religion and misinformation.

Ram- you hit it on the head; what you do in your bedroom. NOT in public, not where my kids have to watch, and NOT being forced on everyone else as "Normal". Quit making this a public issue, I don't and never will call homosexuality 'Normal". Keep it to yourself and your bedroom, and out of mainstream politics.

Ozzy - no one is ""Forcing" anything on you. You and your kind - bigots - are making this an issue. Those of us who are well adjusted and realize that homosexuality is not contageous are not worried. I am no less offended by a same sex couple holding hands in public than I am a heterosexual couple. I am just as disgusted when a heterosexual couple get carried away with their affection in public as I am a same sex couple. Keep your ignorance to yourself and out of everyone else's life.

Ozzy, sooner or later your side will lose on this issue. You can fight it and even forestall the inevitable, but one day equal rights for gays will become reality. As a secure heterosexual, I welcome that day.

Homosexuality occures outside of the human race. Bottlenosed Dolphins have been seen to have gay lifepartners and don't get me started on the great apes.

We used to arrest homosexuals for being perverts. We may nor arrest them anymore, but they are still perverts.

Bruce - no they aren't. They are just different than a number of us. They are entitled to live their lifestyles. Women used to be arrested if they smoked in public; blacks if they dared to try to sit in specific areas, etc. Being arrested doesn't mean the law is right.

Bruce is right. They are perverts. . . not in God's plan that man should sleep with man.

Homosexuals are the cause of many new diseases in this world. . . uncureable.

Bruce: I've seen and heard of more perverted(and criminal) acts coming from so called "straight" people, than from homosexuals.

A man having anal sex with his female wife(or girlfriend) may be normal for them. I have always found the thought of anal sex disgusting(and my wife thinks the same), so we don't do it.

In short, what you think of as "normal"(your way of living), may not be normal for someone else.

Batman85,

Great analogy, you are comparing humans to animals and dolphins.

Batman is showing how animals that were created by "God"(if you believe the bible), are sometimes homosexual(or do you think they are just making a perverted choice?).

If God(or mother nature) made humans and animals homosexual, then there must be a reason for it. Or are you questioning the work of God?

GWB...

Your god is a myth. All gods are myths. All gods are created by men out of fear and ignorance.

BB...

Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 1000 animal species in addition to humans. The point of comparison is why would an (imaginary) god create creatures that behave that way if it was contrary to his mysterious plan??

Ignorance is cureable, but it has killed more people than AIDS ever will.

@Bruce91711, "We used to arrest homosexuals for being perverts."

Says a guy named....Bruce?????

We used to arrest Blacks for being runaway slaves, and for trying to marry White people, too. The fact that we do not do so now does not mean that they are no longer Black, but it does mean that our society and our laws have evolved to recognize that all of our citizens are entitled to equal protection and to equal treatment under our laws. Your comment merely implies that evolution may have somehow passed you by.