telegraph.co.uk — President-Elect Barack Obama will end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays in the military as part of moves to sweep away remnants of the Bush era. The move is expected to be among a series of symbolic changes he will push through quickly to stamp his mark on the presidency.
Jan 15, 2009 View in Crawl 4
beaverspriteJan 15, 2009
a) it's weird, because I was under the impression that civil rights IS one of those important things that took a beating these last 8 years.b) Is this really still so controversial?
elranzerJan 15, 2009
@Charlotte_Web:I hope you're not insinuating that only heterosexual men engage in "correct behavior" and that gay men need to be taught "correct behavior."Judging by your posting history, I'd say that was a thinly disguised homophobic remark.
brewbeauJan 16, 2009
Why? Why can't women fight? Because you think they'd be better off feeding those big, strong men who keep the womenfolk safe?
geoffgarciaJan 16, 2009
I would hope the President of the United States can multi-task...something like this shouldn't take much of his time.
roddlyJan 17, 2009
Not to spam, but I agree the episode is quite disturbing as is the whole Book. A lot of people are surprised that it is not a happy Disney-like fairy-tale they thought growing up. But that's also why it is good. It is a ferociously realistic and profound book, IMO.It also doesn't point out and give a commentary on every sin, particularly to people who weren't walking with God and God wasn't speaking to directly to. IIRC, it doesn't say much after Lot got with his daughters. It was pointing out where the people in that region and in that time started from(which I forgot). Did something similar for Esau too, IIRC.
opiniastrousJan 17, 2009
True. I think maybe I didn't clarify my point entirely. Colin Powell once said this of loyalty in the military:“When we are debating an issue, loyalty means giving me your honest opinion, whether you think I'll like it or not. Disagreement, at this stage, stimulates me. But once a decision has been made, the debate ends. From that point on, loyalty means executing the decision as if it were your own.”The military therefore, should be free to express their discontent to a point, and in private. After the point has been acknowledged though, the soldier should take ownership of the decision and execute it faithfully. After all, a military that goes against its orders is a danger to civilised societies. On the other hand, soldiers should be free to express political opinions out of uniform.
hotsaucepancakeJan 17, 2009
Um no. Women add a psychological aspect to the battlefield and are much more prone to spread fear as well as get men killed early... you know it and I do too.
centure7Jan 17, 2009
You could call it a strange co-incidence or you could call it successful propaganda.
bender240Jan 21, 2009
I did, and all the comments here... I was commenting on the blurb TheEngineer2008 posted under the article, and the subsequent kerfuffle in the comments regarding the insinuation that it was Bush, and not Clinton, who brought in the policy, and thought I'd refer to an outside source to clarify... what I DID do quite improperly was post my comment randomly at the bottom instead of replying to others, and for that you're all quite right to digg me down.P.S. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply... if I turn on "shouts" in my profile options will replies to my comments be displayed more prominently?Thanks,quasi-n00b (obviously)
yatataOct 11, 2009
i thought it was ancient samurai. To have sex with a woman was "gay" and was thought to drain their masculine energy, while having sex with a man was compounding masculine energy, so it was perceived as the ultimate macho thing to do.
mreguyOct 11, 2009
We're almost at nine months so far ...
active99Apr 20, 2010
This is not an ?intelligent, coherent, fair-minded? post. Note the following logical problems??jackass? Name calling is an ad-hominem argument, an informal logical fallacy. ?if you're an jackass toward anyone because their lifestyle is distasteful to you, you can't serve in the armed forces until you change your attitude and behavior.? I believe homosexuality is immoral. Is my lifestyle distasteful to you? Sure it is. Then you shouldn?t serve in the military as well, under your own criteria. You?re tolerant of anybody who agrees with you and intolerant of those who disagree with you. This is a self-refuting statement, another informal logical fallacy. Obviously you believe that homosexuality is moral. This is a rhetorical question as I won?t be back to this post. However, upon what basis do you believe homosexuality is moral? This is at the heart of the issue, and I have seen little to no attempt by the homosexuality advocates to prove it...it is just assumed. So fire away...prove it.