Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Party Rooster, Aug 15, 2012.
And it's a lesbo!
More like fag rank or sumptin... tsss tssss
Probably went with the lesbian because they're hesitant to have a General that sucks dick.
Let's all watch as the LGBT community completely turns on this woman for being a "warmonger" or some such shit.
Of course they will. Hatred of the military is more important to liberals than gay pride.
Just look at GLAAD and Code Pink - they support the Palestinian Authority, where homosexuality is ILLEGAL, and claim that Israel's pro gay rights are irrelevant due to "the occupation."
It's just sad that gay people who just want a public voice are being shoehorned into generic radical liberalism that is irrelevant to the issues of the LGBT community, and often CONTRADICTS its interests.
Since it seems to be in vogue to do these days, let's read the comments over at The Blaze to see where all the hate seems to be emanating from:
Compare and contrast that with the comments on HuffPo if you will...
Here's the difference - the Blaze comments are made by people who openly oppose homosexuals in the military. My point was that homosexuality often comes second for HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS (read my comments regarding GLAAD and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
Plus, a good chunk of those comments are obvious jokes, and several others make the point that it was a political move (bashing Obama as opposed to homosexuality).
No more Operation Get Behind the Dykes.
Woman? What woman? The woman behind those two dudes with her back turned to the camera?
Also, and this is pretty inside, a rigger General. How about that.
I wonder what happened to all the people that said ending DADT would throw the entire military into complete disarray? You never hear people admit when they were completely wrong...
What's this world coming to? A woman general?!
Next we'll be letting them vote.
In their worldview, this is complete disarray. Make no mistake, the "unit cohesion" argument is just a secular cover argument. The real problem that religious fundamentalists have with having openly gay and bisexual men and women in the military is that, in their eyes, having such people in our military (and our society) earns us God's disfavor. More than anyone else, Christian fundamentalists view America and the United States military as God's army on Earth and having practicing homosexuals and bisexuals in this military stands in opposition to this image.
This view of America is deeply ingrained in the neoconservative foreign policy model. If you listen to the rhetoric of neoconservatives, they support Israel not for it's strategic value (which is why I favor supporting Israel to a degree), but for it's religious significance. America's divine purpose is ultimately to control and eliminate threats to Judeo-Christian people and values. Part of that mission is preventing Muslims from taking control of Jerusalem.
But we'll always have Operation Get Behind the Darkies.
Of course. What are we? Heathens?
That is EXACTLY it! But very few conservatives will admit it for fear of, rightly so, looking batshit. That is the core reason the right wants to maintain military presence in the middle east. I've only met one that's even been smart and open enough to recognize and admit that shit.
Totally untrue. They talk about shared values in terms of human and civil rights, democracy, etc. as well as the strategic importance in the big picture sense (Israel is part of the Western bloc). You are confusing neocons with evangelical Christians (and, to some extent, Mormons).
The head of the Marines admitted that he had no problems when earlier testimony said it would cause major problems for the Marine corp. If I remember right McCain was a bit annoyed at that, since it wrecked the point he was trying to make.
Saying GLAAD/etc represent gays is like saying Al Sharpton represents blacks.
I was talking strictly about the Christian Right's worldview, not the worldview of conservatives that happen to be Christians. Believe me, I know my shit when it comes to anything involving the Christian Right. My family aren't extremists or anything, but I was raised in the culture of Christian conservatism and I know it well.
By the way, neocons and evangelicals overlap to a great degree down here.
The people who were against gays in the military have moved on. No use fighting something the military itself wanted.
In fairness, many of the big names in neoconservatism are Jewish. In any case, I think that arguing for Israel based on its religious significance is doing Israel a great disservice (aside from the argument that Muslims would not respect holy sites for other religions, which is a valid claim). I think that Israel has a 100% political case to make in its favor. You don't need to lean on empty religious slogans. Some of my (more religious) friends tend to disagree because the American public is, by and large, religious to some degree. But still, this is a political (and military) issue, not a religious one. Defending Israel on the basis of religious importance almost comes across like covering for something bad. "Sure, they eat Palestinian babies, but THE BIBLE SAID WE NEED TO LOVE THEM!" Fuck that. I argue the facts from the past 100 years or so and that's it (aside from establishing ancient Jewish presence in Israel based on endless archaeological evidence to counter the Muslim claim that Jews have no history in Jerusalem or Israel). That's is more than I'll ever need to mop the floor with any anti-Israel douchebag.
No they haven't. It's just that no one is listening to them, including most of the Western Christian world. They're concentrating more on the gay marriage fight -- the one they haven't lost yet.