[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless, your nightmare of equal rights for Gays inched closer to becoming
reality today. A congressman is disobeying his pseudo-morality instruction
set by calling for an end to DADT. You can read about it in that bastion of
far-left political agitation, CNN.

begin quote

Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, kicked off a push Wednesday to
persuade Americans that the president should repeal "don't ask, don't tell,"
the policy that prevents openly gay troops from serving in the U.S.
military.

"We can not afford to wait any longer" for the policy's repeal, Murphy said
at the National Press Club in Washington. "Now is the time to change this,
when our military is stretched so thin" with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/08/murphy.gay.military/index.html

end quote


Of course, we already knew Murphy was a "traitor" because he is, after all,
a Democrat. But now he's a double traitor. What's the recommended
persecution for double treason, anyway?



--

"Less Thinking and More Yapping -- Vote Republican!"
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel's vision
for a better Amerika

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Witless, your nightmare of equal rights for Gays inched closer to becoming
reality today. A congressman is disobeying his pseudo-morality instruction
set by calling for an end to DADT. You can read about it in that bastion of
far-left political agitation, CNN.

begin quote

Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, kicked off a push Wednesday to
persuade Americans that the president should repeal "don't ask, don't tell,"
the policy that prevents openly gay troops from serving in the U.S.
military.

"We can not afford to wait any longer" for the policy's repeal, Murphy said
at the National Press Club in Washington. "Now is the time to change this,
when our military is stretched so thin" with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/08/murphy.gay.military/index.html

end quote


Of course, we already knew Murphy was a "traitor" because he is, after all,
a Democrat. But now he's a double traitor. What's the recommended
persecution for double treason, anyway?

Here's how San Diego county celebrated Stonewall:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6...os-at-Democrat
ic-Campaign-Event-

Stephen

[Edward Morris]

In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!". How is it just, to make a certain group of
people sit in the back of the bus or stay in the closet? What if you
couldn't share anything about yourself or your family to your military
comrades? The military has gays and it needs gays, but just as long as they
sit at the back of the bus? You know it's not about YOU, it's about
equality and if you're uncomfortable, get over it.

Eddie

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...



Witless, your nightmare of equal rights for Gays inched closer to becoming
reality today. A congressman is disobeying his pseudo-morality instruction
set by calling for an end to DADT. You can read about it in that bastion
of
far-left political agitation, CNN.

begin quote

Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, kicked off a push Wednesday to
persuade Americans that the president should repeal "don't ask, don't
tell,"
the policy that prevents openly gay troops from serving in the U.S.
military.

"We can not afford to wait any longer" for the policy's repeal, Murphy
said
at the National Press Club in Washington. "Now is the time to change this,
when our military is stretched so thin" with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/08/murphy.gay.military/index.html

end quote


Of course, we already knew Murphy was a "traitor" because he is, after
all,
a Democrat. But now he's a double traitor. What's the recommended
persecution for double treason, anyway?



--

"Less Thinking and More Yapping -- Vote Republican!"
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel's vision
for a better Amerika

[William Sommerwerck]

I have three words for Mr. Middius -- "Baron von Steuben".

He is generally given credit for whipping the Revolutionary army into shape.
And he was queer.

Too bad. Get used to it.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jul 9, 11:04 am, "Edward Morris" wrote:
In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!"

No kidding. Whenever right-wing nut-jobs like Sean Hannity thump their
chest about how America is great because of our freedom, all I can
think of is the THOUSANDS of harmless pot smokers sitting in jail, who
paid thousands for lawyers and lost their homes and families.

Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the rest - idiots and
hypocrites, every one of them. Yeah, America is great for its freedom,
as long as you think and act (and pray) like them.

--Ethan

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have three words for Mr. Middius -- "Baron von Steuben".

He is generally given credit for whipping the Revolutionary army into shape.
And he was queer.

Too bad. Get used to it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have three words for Mr. Middius -- "Baron von Steuben".
He is generally given credit for whipping the Revolutionary
army into shape.
And he was queer.
Too bad. Get used to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw

I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand, but R. Lee Ermey's
ad lib from the same film -- about what it means to be an unselfish buddy --
is obscenely hilarious. Kubrick left it in.

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have three words for Mr. Middius -- "Baron von Steuben".
He is generally given credit for whipping the Revolutionary
army into shape.
And he was queer.
Too bad. Get used to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw

I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand, but R. Lee Ermey's
ad lib from the same film -- about what it means to be an unselfish buddy --
is obscenely hilarious. Kubrick left it in.



I know the scene to which you refer. You're absolutely right.

Just a li'l bit of levity to balance all of the PCflamwa rage in the
machine around here. Ya' get tired of it every now and then...

---Jeff

[Bret L]

On Jul 9, 10:04*am, "Edward Morris" wrote:
In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!". *How is it just, to make a certain group of
people sit in the back of the bus or stay in the closet? *What if you
couldn't share anything about yourself or your family to your military
comrades? *The military has gays and it needs gays, but just as long as they
sit at the back of the bus? *You know it's not about YOU, it's about
equality and if you're uncomfortable, get over it.

Homosexuals are a small minority and they are NOT essential to
military service (although quietly tolerating discreet lesbians is
very useful to administrative commands because they are professional,
efficient, and unlike ordinary females virtually impregnable). We
exclude people with medical conditions through no fault of their own,
and we used to exclude others for reasons they also had no control
over because they would necessarily have been awkward to accommodate
and still do. (An example I know of is a man with six toes on each
foot, who needed 5-E footwear, It kept him out of Vietnam, as it had
kept an uncle out of WWII and a great uncle out of WWI).

Military service is NOT a RIGHT. During WWII known or suspected
Communists were drafted like everyone else, but in Korea they were
mostly quietly let off with a permanent deferment for their own safety
as well as morale. Some relatives of high level mobsters were passed
over, although others were not-they tended to volunteer in fact and
while several served honorably it was felt others were security risks.
There are numerous examples one can find of this nature.

Given their small numbers and the types of problems they can and have
caused-even when not committing overt acts in a military setting-
simply excluding known homosexuals is a sensible and reasonable policy
in light of the purpose of the military. It is not a particularly
grievous affront to them, any more than it is to diabetics and
amputees.

[Edward Morris]

Bret L,
What a load of crap. I know numerous military male friends who don't
like women in the military. So does that mean that women should be banned
from the military because some don't like it? Women arouse men, those that
aren't gay, and could possibly distract military men and because of being
distracted, it could be a matter of life or death. And as a whole, women
aren't as physically strong as men, as a whole. Isn't that a danger to the
military straight male? I didn't know that being homosexual was the same as
having 6 toes or having diabetes or having ties with mobsters.

What do you mean by "Military service is not a RIGHT?" Would it be a right
if the draft was in place? It's not that homosexuals can't do their job in
the military, if they have all their fingers and toes. It's that people
might be uncomfortable being around homosexuals because they might be
sexually interested in heterosexual men. You straight people have very
inflated opinions about yourselves.

And don't give me morality. Military guys cheat on their wives, they have
sex outside of marriage, they get drunk, talk dirty, etc., etc. Terrible,
terrible!!!

Eddie

"Bret L" wrote in message
...
On Jul 9, 10:04 am, "Edward Morris" wrote:
In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!". How is it just, to make a certain group of
people sit in the back of the bus or stay in the closet? What if you
couldn't share anything about yourself or your family to your military
comrades? The military has gays and it needs gays, but just as long as
they
sit at the back of the bus? You know it's not about YOU, it's about
equality and if you're uncomfortable, get over it.

Homosexuals are a small minority and they are NOT essential to
military service (although quietly tolerating discreet lesbians is
very useful to administrative commands because they are professional,
efficient, and unlike ordinary females virtually impregnable). We
exclude people with medical conditions through no fault of their own,
and we used to exclude others for reasons they also had no control
over because they would necessarily have been awkward to accommodate
and still do. (An example I know of is a man with six toes on each
foot, who needed 5-E footwear, It kept him out of Vietnam, as it had
kept an uncle out of WWII and a great uncle out of WWI).

Military service is NOT a RIGHT. During WWII known or suspected
Communists were drafted like everyone else, but in Korea they were
mostly quietly let off with a permanent deferment for their own safety
as well as morale. Some relatives of high level mobsters were passed
over, although others were not-they tended to volunteer in fact and
while several served honorably it was felt others were security risks.
There are numerous examples one can find of this nature.

Given their small numbers and the types of problems they can and have
caused-even when not committing overt acts in a military setting-
simply excluding known homosexuals is a sensible and reasonable policy
in light of the purpose of the military. It is not a particularly
grievous affront to them, any more than it is to diabetics and
amputees.

[Bret L]

On Jul 9, 2:14*pm, "Edward Morris" wrote:
Bret L,
* * What a load of crap. *I know numerous military male friends who don't
like women in the military. *So does that mean that women should be banned
from the military because some don't like it? *Women arouse men, those that
aren't gay, and could possibly distract military men and because of being
distracted, it could be a matter of life or death. *And as a whole, women
aren't as physically strong as men, as a whole. *Isn't that a danger to the
military straight male? *I didn't know that being homosexual was the same as
having 6 toes or having diabetes or having ties with mobsters.

Well, there are similarities. I concede that homosexuals by and large
don't ask to be homosexuals. But it certainly is a deviation
statistically. Homosexuals are a small group whose behavior arouses
considerable problems for, if not the homosexuals themselves, many of
the individuals around them. From a military standpoint, simply
excluding known homosexuals from service is cost and time effective,
increases combat readiness and prevents a host of possible problems.

What do you mean by "Military service is not a RIGHT?" *Would it be a right
if the draft was in place? *It's not that homosexuals can't do their job in
the military, if they have all their fingers and toes. *It's that people
might be uncomfortable being around homosexuals because they might be
sexually interested in heterosexual men. *You straight people have very
inflated opinions about yourselves.

And don't give me morality. *Military guys cheat on their wives, they have
sex outside of marriage, they get drunk, talk dirty, etc., etc. *Terrible,
terrible!!!


You are right about morality, it is NOT about morality. Homosexuals
should NOT be excluded because of morality.

MORALE is a different matter.

When l'affaire Kelly Flinn broke out, those two things were highly
confused. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ _under certain
conditions_ , and the Flinn case flagrantly met those. Homosexuals in
the military are a time bomb to MORALE. Fights, deadly fights, will
break out. Favoritism will be alleged. Soldiers will be reluctant to
do the things soldiers do, like get in the shower with a bunch of
other soldiers for fear one of them might be checking him out.

Females in combat (as opposed to support roles clearly defined) is
another morale killing affair. In addition to the fact they are not
effective in physical combat, the pregnancies, the sexual tension,
the debilitation to military marriages...

Life isn't fair. It isn't fair men are physically much faster and
stronger than women, if both are in a state of normal physical
fitness, as measured on a bell curve. It isn't fair that most
heterosexual males have a biological revulsion to flagrant homosexual
activity even if it doesn't directly involve them. it isn't fair that
some diseases or physical developments make people dependent on
medications or nonstandard uniform items or whatnot. The job of the
military is not to be absolutely fair to all possible applicants. The
job of the military is to win wars, and it must be fair insofar as
fairness makes life for its personnel bearable.

Women being restricted to noncombat roles is unfair to women in terms
of their career potential in the military. But it is also the only
sane course of action in terms of warfighting ability any service can
take.

There is a medical condition in which the body is a mirror image of
the normal one. The appendix is on the left, etc. It's called situs
inversus. It may have absolutely no ill effects whatever, but the
military does not accept individuals with it. There are minimum and
maximum height restrictions, which have more to do with keeping the
numbers of sizes of uniform within reason as well as ability to fit
the vehicles and airplanes. During WWII there was a height restriction
for pilot candidates that today would remove 30% of active duty
military flight crews. The aircraft were simply designed for lighter
and shorter people than is the case today.

Again, it is NOT because of morality, the Bible, or religion that
homosexuals should not be in the military. It's about getting the job
done given the facts of human nature.

Homosexuals must be made to understand that the world does not
revolve around them, and that no one HAS to like them, or has to
approve of them, or has to associate with them or anyone else. They
have rights like everyone else, and one right in a free society is to
decide who you want to associate with or even approve of.

The military has the right and obligation to selectively recruit and
retain those it considers suited for the task they are charged with.
That's why everything from bed wetting to (I know of a case!)
uncontrollable nose picking will get you sent home from boot camp.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Edward Morris said:

might be uncomfortable being around homosexuals because they might be
sexually interested in heterosexual men. You straight people have very
inflated opinions about yourselves.

Indeed. Quite so. Absolutely. Have you ever seen Bratzi's family photo
album? Here's a pic from his formative years:

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Teenage_Bratzi.jpg

One of those fine young specimens is our Bratzi, and the other is apparently
his playmate at the time.

BTW, it's common knowledge on RAO that Brattie is not the archetype of a
"heterosexual" male. He's actually the stereotype of a homophobic male who
suffers from arrested development. If "ingrown brain" were a medical
condition, the reference books would have a picture of Brattie.

--

"Arny is a man's man. If I were a woman, I would love to have his baby."

Bret "Bratzi" Ludwig, RAO, April 2, 2009

[vinyl anachronist]

On Jul 9, 9:14�am, Ethan Winer wrote:
On Jul 9, 11:04 am, "Edward Morris" wrote:

In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!"

No kidding. Whenever right-wing nut-jobs like Sean Hannity thump their
chest about how America is great because of our freedom, all I can
think of is the THOUSANDS of harmless pot smokers sitting in jail, who
paid thousands for lawyers and lost their homes and families.

Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the rest - idiots and
hypocrites, every one of them. Yeah, America is great for its freedom,
as long as you think and act (and pray) like them.

--Ethan

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

[William Sommerwerck]

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

How can you tell it's been cut?

[Edward Morris]

Bret,
I understand you don't have to like everybody. I certainly don't. But
dislike is no reason to push inequality. What if I'm gay and in the
military and I do my job and actually have a personality that many people
like and ONE person doesn't like me. Does that ONE person get to decide my
fate? There are many straight military guys that aren't bothered about
having to take showers with gay military guys. It's called professionalism.
The military is a job, for some a career. Didn't your parents tell you to
try to get along with people? So if somebody doesn't like someone for any
reason, they have a right to harass, abuse or kill that person?

If anyone doesn't meet the physical requirements the military had in the
50's when my dad was in Korea, they shouldn't be allowed in the military.
My dad tried to become a Highway Patrol but was a little too short. He went
on to something else and was successful at it. I agree that if there might
be reason for danger to other people in the military because of not being
able to do their job, then there should be rules for that. But if someone
is physically qualified to be in the military whether they are black,
Mexican, Muslim, gay, Christian, military people are trained to be
professional and by God if they can't or won't handle people they don't like
to be in the military, then they need to get their asses out.

Eddie
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...



Edward Morris said:

might be uncomfortable being around homosexuals because they might be
sexually interested in heterosexual men. You straight people have very
inflated opinions about yourselves.

Indeed. Quite so. Absolutely. Have you ever seen Bratzi's family photo
album? Here's a pic from his formative years:

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Teenage_Bratzi.jpg

One of those fine young specimens is our Bratzi, and the other is
apparently
his playmate at the time.

BTW, it's common knowledge on RAO that Brattie is not the archetype of a
"heterosexual" male. He's actually the stereotype of a homophobic male who
suffers from arrested development. If "ingrown brain" were a medical
condition, the reference books would have a picture of Brattie.

--

"Arny is a man's man. If I were a woman, I would love to have his baby."

Bret "Bratzi" Ludwig, RAO, April 2, 2009

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I like the cut of your jib, sir.

How can you tell it's been cut?



Well, it's a jib, isn't it?

---Jeff

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Arkansan Raider said:

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

How can you tell it's been cut?

Well, it's a jib, isn't it?

Please don't feed the trolls. Especially the ones that can't be
distinguished from morons.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 9, 11:47*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
I have three words for Mr. Middius -- "Baron von Steuben".

He is generally given credit for whipping the Revolutionary army into shape.
And he was queer.



that must have been fun!
http://americansfortruth.com/uploads..._whipping2.jpg

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 9, 12:14*pm, Ethan Winer wrote:
On Jul 9, 11:04 am, "Edward Morris" wrote:

In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!"

No kidding. Whenever right-wing nut-jobs like Sean Hannity thump their
chest about how America is great because of our freedom, all I can
think of is the THOUSANDS of harmless pot smokers sitting in jail, who
paid thousands for lawyers and lost their homes and families.


It must have been real important to them, to take that risk.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 9, 1:32*pm, Bret L wrote:


Given their small numbers and the types of problems they can and have
caused-even when not committing overt acts in a military setting-
simply excluding known homosexuals is a sensible and reasonable policy
in light of the purpose of the military. It is not a particularly
grievous affront to them, any more than it is to diabetics and
amputees.


Now that we have all these women serving, we should
also exclude all known heterosexuals..

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 9, 5:51*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
I like the cut of your jib, sir.

How can you tell it's been cut?

Careful there, Billy Boy
you need to be more circumsized in your postings

[William Sommerwerck]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
On Jul 9, 5:51 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

How can you tell it's been cut?

Careful there, Billy Boy.
You need to be more circumsized in your postings.

Actually, "circumscribed" would have been a better choice, as it would have
conveyed the idea, and have been a pun at the same time.

[Arkansan Raider]

George M. Middius wrote:

Arkansan Raider said:

I like the cut of your jib, sir.
How can you tell it's been cut?

Well, it's a jib, isn't it?

Please don't feed the trolls. Especially the ones that can't be
distinguished from morons.



g

But I dig the humor. ;^)

Wait. I forgot that they crossposted the heck outa' this thread.

Never mind...

---Jeff

[Clyde Slick]

On Jul 9, 9:21*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

...
On Jul 9, 5:51 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I like the cut of your jib, sir.
How can you tell it's been cut?
Careful there, Billy Boy.
You need to be more circumsized in your postings.

Actually, "circumscribed" would have been a better choice, as it would have
conveyed the idea, and have been a pun at the same time.

it would not have conveyed the idea I wished to convey.
you are looking at it upside down, the head is at the top.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 9, 2:14*pm, "Edward Morris" wrote:
Bret L,
* * What a load of crap. *

Bratzi is a nut and one who isn't very bright.