New showdown: House plans vote on military gay ban

[Bass v 2.0]

New showdown: House plans vote on military gay ban - Yahoo! News

"This discriminatory and harmful policy has weakened America's security by depriving us of the work of tens of thousands of gay and lesbian troops who have served their country honorably," Hoyer said in a statement. "And it has severely compromised our Armed Forces' core value of integrity."


There is absolutely no evidence for those two bogus claims by that idiot Democrat Hoyer, is he saying a lack of open homosexuality in the military weakens our national security and compromises the military because these people willfully defy the military's rule? His claims are just as retarded as a Republitard saying tax cuts for the rich creates jobs.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If it is such a necessary and drastically needed thing, why didn't we address this in, I dunno, 1902?

 

[shintao]

If it is such a necessary and drastically needed thing, why didn't we address this in, I dunno, 1902?

Well, I do hope they ban gays, for their own sake. They should be a protected class. Let the heterosexuals die off in these wars, if someone must die. Why can't they just be happy that they aren't wanted for the slaughter, go make money and go on vacations.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

If it is such a necessary and drastically needed thing, why didn't we address this in, I dunno, 1902?

Americans were morons in 1902 and afraid of everything .. gays, blacks, women ...

It was a land of white male domination.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Senate already rejected banning Don't ask Don't tell doesn't matter what the House does.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If it is such a necessary and drastically needed thing, why didn't we address this in, I dunno, 1902?

Americans were morons in 1902 and afraid of everything .. gays, blacks, women ...

It was a land of white male domination.

Hope that answers your question.

Yes it does; you are indeed an idiot. Thanks for clearing it up though!

 

[Avatar4321]

If it is such a necessary and drastically needed thing, why didn't we address this in, I dunno, 1902?

Americans were morons in 1902 and afraid of everything .. gays, blacks, women ...

It was a land of white male domination.

Hope that answers your question.

Actually in 1902, American society was quite integrated. It wasnt until progressives during the Wilson administration resegregated the military that many of the problems that we seem to think have always been around were actually started

 

[midcan5]

Actually in 1902, American society was quite integrated. It wasnt until progressives during the Wilson administration resegregated the military that many of the problems that we seem to think have always been around were actually started

You can't even be a little serious? That statement is one of the stupidest I have ever read,, even from you crackpots on the right! Do you know any history? Any?

American Cultural History 1900 - 1909

'Policeman arrests woman for smoking in public
$46,000,000+ in the U.S. treasury
8,000 cars - 10 miles of paved roads
1900 - Auto deaths 96; lynchings 115
San Francisco Earthquake took 700 lives and cost over $4,000,000 in damage.
Average worker made $12.98/week for 59 hours
Life expectancy: 47.3 female, 46.3 male - 33.0 blacks '

American Cultural History - Decade 1900-1909

'Child labor and workers issues'
'Segregation worsened. 1904 - U.S. Supreme Court - African Americans denied the vote'

And for those not brain dead check out: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reform-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394700953/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Age of Reform (9780394700953): Richard Hofstadter: Books[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

I was actually focusing more on the segregation in the military. But you are entirely correct with those stats. Rereading what I wrote, I clearly wrote what i meant incorrectly giving a much broader brush to what I was focusing on and I apologize.