published Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

Dustbin of History

Follow Clay Bennett on Facebook

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

God loves good stories, or the Bible--and history--would be a lot shorter. Has wikileaker Manning earned the right to dump on Captain McCain, USN? We'll find out when Jesus comes back and the dark sides of history go into the dustbin. Or when the new Congress convenes?

The military, not being specifically Christian, may not need to read Romans 1, but God does now order all men (people) everywhere to change from wrong to right--Acts 17--so individuals and Christian outfits had better agree with God whatever Congress says, and on issues closer to us than this one.

December 21, 2010 at 12:28 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

I'm not sure what this says about the Republican Party, but I read that GOP lawmakers told President Obama back in September that they would vote for ending DADT but only after the November election.

Not much leadership there.

Not much leadership from Obama, either. While he supported ending DADT, he made sure he had public approval and yet still waited for the Pentagon's blessing.

Quite a contrast from President Harry Truman who signed executive orders 9980 and 9981 on July 26, 1948 to racially integrate the U.S. Military.

The public did not approve - about 82 percent hated the idea - and the Military Brass didn't like it either. General Omar Bradley said the Army was no place for social experiments.

On top of that, Truman signed the order just 100 days from from the 1948 election. The uproar from southern Democrats sparked the Dixicrat revolution led by Strom Thurmond.

One historian called integrating the armed forces revolutionary and politically reckless, but Truman believed Thomas Jefferson's quote, "Equal rights for all, special privileges for none." He didn't weigh the political risk. He did what he thought was right for the Country.

Truman's diary entry read, "How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?"

Maybe I dwell too much in the past, but it's hard to take anyone today in Washington seriously. I criticize Republicans more frequently, but they're all alike. The buck doesn't stop anywhere.

I guess it's good that DADT was repealed. Being an all volunteer Army they couldn't continue to reject qualified Americans willing to put on the uniform and serve their Country.

It should have been repealed years ago.

But political deals had to get struck, legislative backs had to get scratched, and a law that both the public and the Pentagon supported was still delayed until after the election because it was bound to ruffle someone's feathers.

Truman also said that a President cannot always be popular but to lead others you must be willing to go forward alone.

Then I think about the clowns we've sent to serve us in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Good grief. I could carve better men out of bananas.

December 21, 2010 at 1:31 a.m.
hambone said...

Simply stated: leadership and getting re-elected are not compatible!

December 21, 2010 at 4:33 a.m.
dougmusn said...

I am ready to adopt something from the Mexican political model: a six year presidency with no ability for a second term.

Consider how much better things might be with absolutely no concern about presidential re-election! We might have presidents do what is right and no what is expedient or politically in their interest. As it stands now, up to two years of a (first) term is blown seeking a second...

December 21, 2010 at 5:50 a.m.
alprova said...

No disrespect to the man for his former service to this country, nor to his right to hold the opinion of his choice, but John McCain's behavior on the day that DADT was repealed demonstrates why he is fast proving why his relevance as a politician is waning.

In 2006, stated publicly that he would support the repeal of DADT if and when military leaders recommended it. They did. And instead of honoring his word in 2010, he refused to support it, voted against it, and decided to throw a temper tantrum on the Senate floor minutes after the vote to repeal it was recorded.

The man was betting that the Pentagon would never in a million years recommend a repeal of the policy and further, he bet that the American people would never come to the opinion that it needed to be changed as well.

Capital Hill is filled with people who come from generations of intolerance and hate. In time, these older people who are completely set in their ways will begin to die off, hopefully to be replaced with people of generations known to be far more tolerant and willing to roll up their sleeves and to get serious about the issues that matter and that the people in this nation want to have addressed by those who are elected to do so.

McCain is not a Maverick. The man is a Pinto.

December 21, 2010 at 6:01 a.m.
woody said...

Change, for change sake, is not change at all, merely capitulation. Like many a bottle of wine thought to be of the best vintage only to turn out to be vinegar.

Change for the good of all, or at the very least the majority of those involved, will stand the test of time. That doesn't mean it will be readily or easily accepted, only that it is what is best for the masses.

I honestly believe "the jury is still out on this one."

Happy 1st day of Winter, Woody

December 21, 2010 at 6:39 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Don't worry Andrew... you will still be able to hate the gays in the privacy of your home, your church or at your rallies.

Next thing they need to do is update the UCMJ.

December 21, 2010 at 7:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

Congress should have term limits and age limits. McCain and a few others are becoming senile. The power and prestige of the office over time seems to have them thinking they are royalty. DADT is one of the most hypocritical policies ever developed by congress but not surprising when it was implemented they preferred to not address the issue. Taking a stand would risk losing votes. Doing the right thing is not in many cases the primary motivation of those we elect.

Comedians and late night talk shows will have some new and possibly offensive material. He was always there when things got really hard, he was always there to cover your back side, she was as good as any man may not have the same meaning in the future. .

December 21, 2010 at 7:28 a.m.
casey9490 said...

I stopped respecting John McCain a long time ago.

December 21, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
GMills said...

This is the second time Alprova has made me shoot coffee out of my nose. He IS a Pinto. Touche!

December 21, 2010 at 9:06 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

I'm not sure if it's the first day of Winter, total eclipse and full moon all in one but blackwater and alpo are absolutly correct. McCain is our Shallow Hal in D.C. Dumping his first wife because she was no longer the beauty queen she once was after a terrible auto accident was the beginning of the end. The people of his home state love him as the people of Mass. loved Ted. To some things there are no answers.

December 21, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.
Francis said...

the only opinion that matters on the subject is that of the men and women in the military. the policy as is was working fine. it's none of anybody's business. harry reid or anyone else can spout off all they want, but if the military says it will cause problems, then they're opinion should be considered above all others. homosexuals have served t his country from the one will deny that, but this policy is purely political and geared toward appeasing the radical "gay' community who uses ***hole politicians like harry reid as puppets.

to "serve openly" means what? what exactly is supposed to happen? it will only lead to tension and problems. you want two guys dancing cheek to cheek at a military function be accepted and viewed the same as a guy and a girl? it ain't going to happen..and it never will.

if you want your sexuality to define who you are, then you have to deal with the consequences.

this is not the same as the racism and disrespect black americans went through. to equate is foolish.

the marines to a man/woman have overwhelmingly rejected repealing this.

December 21, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.
acerigger said...

I think "serving openly" means they(gays) don't have to worry about being kicked out of the military just for being gay. I don't think it means "letting their freak-flag fly". The military still has codes of conduct. BTW, aint you glad that ol' maverick and the quitter are not sittin' in the Oval Office? (SCARY!)

December 21, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.
pmcauley said...

Again I agree with Francis on the fact that sexuality should not ever be a focus of the military or ones existence. It should not have restricted a person from serving; DADT should not have been instituted. And a person’s sexuality should never be an issue, unless of course I'm very personally involved, in that case I might have something to say.

December 21, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

John McCain is either blind or a hypocrite - he speaks of democracy as he discriminates. Our Nation does not benefit from his kind of leadership - if he can't do the job, he needs to move on.

December 21, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
Francis said...

no, ace..i'm glad al gore never made it to the oval office..i'm glad john kerry never made it to the oval office...and it seems that most people now..both democrats, republicans who voted for obama and independents are sorry obama is in the oval office.....

mccain was a crappy candidate and he's a two-faced politician.....but he still looks better than harry reid and nancy pelosi.........most people in this country like sarah palin...the way you libs keep bringing her up makes it obvious you're scared of her.

mountain laurel...obama needs to move golf and vacations.....he does a 100% about face on his political stances just to become popular again... to get his numbers up.....

December 21, 2010 at 1:01 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Francis opines, "'I'm glad al gore never made it to the oval office..i'm glad john kerry never made it to the oval office."

REALLY?! You conservatives thrilled with what George W. Bush did to America?

The list of stumbles, bumbles, blunders, errors, mistakes, goofs, misstatements, lies, and out right poor decisions is too long to itemize, not the least of which involved invading the wrong country and putting the cost on a credit card.

Which our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will have to pay for.

Kudos to Republican leadership and kudos to Francis for reminding us of the nightmare we'd all like to forget.

December 21, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater 48 said: “I criticize Republicans more frequently”

Considering the Republican Party's lengthy “hate” list, this is certainly understandable, Blackwater48. That "hate" list seems to just grows longer and longer.

I noted in the news today that one of the Republican Tea Party groups has just added the Methodists to their "hate" list – next week they'll probably add the Catholics.

December 21, 2010 at 1:37 p.m.
Clara said...


I've wanted a limited 6 year term for years.

How do we get another amendment?

Who, in politics, from the president down might go for it.

December 21, 2010 at 1:44 p.m.
Clara said...

As for the rest...who except the bigots really give a hoot!

As was stated by others and myself in other blogs, it's been present in all of creation for millions of years.

It's the pedophiles, rapists, sadists, liars and a few other catagories that get me to rant.

December 21, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.
Francis said...

obama is a nightmare...and his man in the fcc..julius, whatever is name is.. is giving the government the power to control web traffic......if that would've been done under bush you libs would've stormed the white house..'re full of it......the attemept to label tea party people and republicans as haters has perpetuate the democrat party good and republican party bad mantra...and it's ridiculous.....nov. 2nd's electon proved that people of all stripes are displeased with obama..... they're all haters..haters of the job obama, reid and pelosi are doing..

you libs label anyone a hater and label their arguments as hate speech as part of your politics of personal destruction....when you can't debate you just call them names and accuse them of things...

you can be against the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" and not be a hater.

December 21, 2010 at 2:22 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...


I certainly understand your concern about this "term limit" issue, but I believe we should be more concerned about the source of the money backing the politician in office.

In the last election, it's become clear that the big money for most of the Republican “tea party” candidates came from millionaires and corporations, which is cause for concern.

Either they believe they have loyal friends among the Tea Partiers or they think the Tea Partiers are just too naïve to figure out who is really running their show and why they're being supported.

December 21, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.
acerigger said...

How obtuse are you allowed to be,and yet, be valid fran? "maverick" and "quitter" in no way indicates either Gore or Kerry. and yes,Sarah and her follower's glorification of Ignorance does scare me!

December 21, 2010 at 2:52 p.m.
Hoppergrasser said...

More about John McCain.

Have a smiley day y'all.

December 21, 2010 at 2:58 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Yes, the only thing that scares me about that white trash version of Michael Vick is that people would vote for her because of her looks -- now that's about as ignorant as you can get. I know now that francis s. is always looking in the mirror when he starts his line of bs.

December 21, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.
alprova said...

acerigger wrote: "I think "serving openly" means they(gays) don't have to worry about being kicked out of the military just for being gay. I don't think it means "letting their freak-flag fly". The military still has codes of conduct."

Haters are going to hate, bigots just look for anything at all to be bigoted about, and the ignorant will perpetually remain ignorant.

Why is it so hard for the people described above to understand that people who make a decision to enter the military, and who happen to be homosexual, do not enter the military to increase their chances of get laid or to catch a glimpse of your junk in the shower?

How many people have delved into the cases of men and women who were discharged under DADT, to get an idea as to why most of them were discharged? Very few of those discharges were not due to any actions of misconduct. Very few. Most were outed by people they considered to be friends.

The kind of man or woman who enters the military in order to serve our nation, and who also happens to be homosexual, do so to further their careers or to start their lifelong pursuit of careers with a military background.

Most all of these people are not seeking to be trained in how to fire a weapon, to kill, and to learn how to blow things up.

No, most of these people advance in rank and responsibility and become stellar examples of what our military should stand for. Most work their way into positions within our intelligence community. Many became pilots with exemplar records. Several people discharged were rather high in rank.

To put it about as plain as I can, the fact of the matter is that unlike most of their straight counterparts, the kind of gay person who enters the military, keeps his or her mind focused on the reason why they are there, and understands all too well that there is a time and a place for everything.

And you know what is going to irk the hater, the bigots, and the ignorant even more?

Ten years from now, they are not going to be able to point to any examples that will begin to prove that gays "openly" serving in the military will have been a problem at all.

December 21, 2010 at 3:38 p.m.
alprova said...

GMMills wrote: "This is the second time Alprova has made me shoot coffee out of my nose. He IS a Pinto. Touche!"

I am sorry. I hope the coffee wasn't too hot.

December 21, 2010 at 3:44 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “Not much leadership from Obama, either. While he supported ending DADT, he made sure he had public approval and yet still waited for the Pentagon's blessing.”

I’ve often wondered if Obama’s approach to his Presidency reflects the fact that he followed Bush/Cheney who repeatedly abused “executive privilege” and strongly pushed “presidential powers” at the expense of congressional powers. Clearly, Bush/Cheney both seem to reject how our Framers laid out our system of government and were inching toward monarchy.

With Cheney, especially, there is a long history that goes back to the Richard Nixon Administration. As John Dean says. “Cheney thinks presidents should not only execute the laws, but write them as they wish they had been. Never mind that Congress has passed a law the president has not vetoed, or as to which his veto was overrided. It is still up to him whether to abide by that law.”

Of course, the other interesting thing to note about all this is the shift in attitude in Congress. When Bush/Cheney were in office we heard very few squawks and protests from Congress about the abuses of “Executive Privilige” and “Executive Powers. Congress seemed perfectly willing to give up their powers and allow Bush/Cheney to rearrange our government. But with Obama they seem to squawk at almost everything he does – even it’s just a friendly, “hello, nice day, isn't it."

December 21, 2010 at 4:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: alprova | On: December 21, 2010 at 3:38 p.m. "The kind of man or woman who enters the military in order to serve our nation, and who also happens to be homosexual... Most all of these people are not seeking to be trained in how to fire a weapon, to kill, and to learn how to blow things up."

Oh great, just what we need in the military, a bunch of soldiers that don't want to be soldiers. I guess they are just there for the education and the paycheck?

One more government assistant program?

Great logic alprova!

December 21, 2010 at 5:24 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

BRP, the armed forces advertise for recruits using exactly these points. Join up, serve your country, learn skills that will make you more valuable on the job market, get funding for college, become a leader in all aspects of your life. I have yet to see a recruitment video saying "join the armed forces, learn to shoot and kill and blow stuff up".

December 21, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Francis said: "you libs label anyone a hater and label their arguments as hate speech as part of your politics of personal destruction."

If it's not hate, what is it, Francis? Why has the Republican Party stirred up so much anger, hostility and animosity toward gays who want to serve their country through military service?

December 21, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Since the DADT repeal passed, Washington Monthly notes that Yale is courting ROTC again:

With the repeal of the military’s controversial Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on sexual orientation expected for early this week, Yale announces that it’s considering bringing a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program back to campus.

According to an article by Mary O’Leary in the New Haven Register:

Yale President Richard C. Levin, in a statement Monday night, said the university was “eager to open discussions about expanding opportunities for students interested in military service, and we will be discussing this matter with the faculty of Yale College in the spring semester.”

In the meantime, he has directed General Counsel Dorothy Robinson, Secretary Linda Lorimer and Yale College Dean Mary Miller to talk with military officials about their interest in establishing an ROTC unit on the Ivy League campus.

December 21, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.
GlacierClipper said...

Even without the Don't Ask Don't Tell; there will still be a few that get the boot in the azz for this issue.

December 21, 2010 at 6:40 p.m.
Clara said...

mountainlaurel, I agree with what you say about the funding but every little bit helps. I guess you were thinking that the manipulaters would already be grooming their next choice in spite of the possibility of only one term, or a loss.

How do we get rid of the politicians right to not divulge the source of their funding. THAT was a big no-no.

I'll now go back to your URL on Huffington, as well as Hoppergrasses post, and anything else I missed.

December 21, 2010 at 7:29 p.m.
Francis said...

well, isn't that wonderful...yale wants rotc again...what a wonderful thing.

how about have a transgender brigade??? why not..?

yale and harvard and most colleges are liberal breeding grounds in which debate is not welcome and students who are not liberals are looked down upon..

mountainlaurel.."gays" ...or....using the correct terminology.....homosexuals.. have always served this country...and bravely i might add...heroically even..

so why change???

this has nothing to do with what's best for the's simply a political stunt led by a radical and ignorant man in the white house......and a slimey character in the senate who is using them for politcal gain..

homosexuals are a minority. their leaders..or those who decide to be their leaders/spokespeople...have decided that their sexuality or practices WILL define them and be accepted by everyone...period..... it is not the NORM... and that matters......that does not mean that they should be persecuted. as long as they are defined by their's a problem

those who oppose gays serving openly are doing it for g ood reasons... it's nothing but a hornets nest...and after obama signs will just make things worse.......the democrats are not doing it because they're more sen- sative and compassionate..if you believe that you're crazy.....

the military is no place for radicals to force their agenda...

the current crop of dems led by obama.....are a new breed....the shove it down your throat/ shut up and take it/we'll force you to believe what we believe and tell you what to do gang....

by introducing this now at time when our military is already under a great deal of the height of irresponsibility by obama and reid who don't give a damn about what is best for the country.

December 21, 2010 at 7:56 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"those who oppose gays serving openly are doing it for g ood reasons.." Just because they are bigots and you agree with them does not make them right.

December 21, 2010 at 8:03 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Clara said: "I guess you were thinking that the manipulaters would already be grooming their next choice in spite of the possibility of only one term, or a loss."

Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking, Clara. With the recent Supreme Court decision, it's going to be one "corporate candidate" after another. We urgently need to do something about the amount of money Wall Street and corporations are pouring into our elections.

December 21, 2010 at 8:24 p.m.
miraweb said...

It's kind of cute that Francis can repeat word-for-word this week's talking point email from the GOP.

Here are the headlines the Grand Old Marketing Machine has been sending out this week:

Mailing list: "Socialism Alerts" Subject: "Obama Minions Taking Control of Internet"

Mailing list: "GOPUSA" Subject: "Obama Set to Take Over the Internet"

Mailing list: "Gun Alerts" Subject: "Barack Obama Takes Over the Internet"

Of course we get a break from the "Center for Individual Freedom" Their talking point this week is: "The Perpetual Media Bias Against Sarah Palin"

If you say it three times it must be so! "Rumplestiltskin! Rumplestilskin! Rumplestilskin!"

December 22, 2010 at 1:24 p.m.
fairmon said...

To opine is fine but only those serving a full term in the regular military and receiving an honorable discharge should be able to enter a line. The elected elite of both parties think it is noble of them to put men and women in harms way but they showed little interest in hearing what they had to say. I don't know what the prevailing opinion may have been, either way but why not let them have a say?

December 23, 2010 at 11:02 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: December 21, 2010 at 5:38 p.m. "BRP, the armed forces advertise for recruits using exactly these points. Join up, serve your country, learn skills that will make you more valuable on the job market, get funding for college, become a leader in all aspects of your life. I have yet to see a recruitment video saying "join the armed forces, learn to shoot and kill and blow stuff up"."

Yeah lkeithlu, I bet many of the recruits do not understand as soldier a big part of your job description is to maim and kill. Am I the only one hear with my eyes rolling into the back of my head at this moment?

alprova is touching on a PROBLEM that exists in the military today. There are too many recruits that go in expecting not to have to actually take up a weapon and defend our interests. She seems to look at the problem as a benefit, or some benign reality.

December 25, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

BRP, you called the armed forces "just another government assistance program", which is rather insulting. Our men and women in uniform assume that they must be ready to fight and yes, to kill, but I imagine that most also know that in return they benefit from the training and educational opportunities. It's a rare and rather disturbing individual whose primary objective is to kill.

I stand by my comment, your rolling eyes notwithstanding.

December 25, 2010 at 5:26 p.m.
rolando said...

BigRidgePatriot said, "I guess [the homosexual soldiers] are just there for the education and the paycheck?"

Except for the US Marines, that's about it for the majority of them, BigRidge.

Used to be when it came time to pay the piper and maim, kill, and destroy, the homosexuals would come crying out of the woodwork, "I'm gay! I'm gay!", gain their honorable discharge, and chuckle all the way to U of Liberal on their unearned dime.

That avenue is NOW closed to them. Bet they never thought of THAT one. Maybe they can claim they are pregnant -- that one still gets the slackers out of the military.

Next on the agenda? Same-sex marriage. The homosexuals will be able to marry one another -- no federal law prohibiting it. By an ordained [or whatever] chaplain, no less. Slick little trick, that.

December 25, 2010 at 5:41 p.m.
rolando said...

Why not let those who serve and have served have their say, harp3339? Because they vote Republican almost as a body. That terrifies Liberals.

Besides, theirs is but to do and die, right? Those who blunder do not want to hear a reply...

December 25, 2010 at 5:49 p.m.
anniebelle said...

Yes, rolando, now maybe they can take the Dick Cheney appproach and just say 'I have other priorities' or like Limpball and show them your pimple on your behind or be like the bushbot and just avoid any service that requires leaving Alabama. Or maybe they can go in and play dimwitted like you. You are an insult to those that actually wear the uniform and choose to fight for morons like you.

December 26, 2010 at 5:13 a.m.
wallyworld said...

Seems rolando needs to get with the program -- WE HAVE AN ALL VOLUNTEER force, so why would anybody have to lie about avoiding service? They can just sit at their keyboards and degrade those that do serve.

December 26, 2010 at 5:47 a.m.
rolando said...

FYI, and for what it is worth, wallyworld, I have over 24 years of active enlisted military service under my belt. I am well aware of the advantages/disadvantages of our all-volunteer force.

Lying about one's sexual preference just to get discharged was seldom done in bygone days...heterosexual manhood was a badge of honor.

In today's metro-sexual world, lying about it is no big thing -- the main thing would be to avoid dangerous service they knew might be required.

That goes for all gender-preferences, not just homosexuals. It actually falls under a much more common modern-day failing; refusing to honor one's volutarily-imposed commitments and responsibilities as a man and not a child.

December 26, 2010 at 7:49 a.m.
rolando said...

anniebelle, you evidently failed to recognize the irony of my post when you read it -- as well as perhaps exposing a lack of knowledge of classic literature.

Wikipedia says of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" that "...[it] is an 1854 narrative poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson about the Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War. He was the poet laureate of the United Kingdom at the time of the writing of the poem and the work reflects his compromised ability to express anti-war, populist sentiments while still reflecting his patriotism and remaining in the Crown's favour."

A pertinent excerpt from follows:


'Forward, the Light Brigade!' Was there a man dismay'd ? Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.


December 26, 2010 at 8:03 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, DADT requires that gays lie about their sexuality TO serve, not to get out of serving. Your point is meaningless.

December 26, 2010 at 8:04 a.m.
rolando said...

The proper tense of your word is "required", lkeith. DADT is dead, in case you are not aware...that avenue of escape from responsibility TO serve is now closed. Which says nothing about WHY and WHO they were "serving".

And it certainly WAS used as a quick shortcut to an honorable discharge from their contractual duties. Your point is without merit.

December 26, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your point was that gays use sexual orientation to AVOID service. The military has used sexual orientation (even in WWII) to deny enlistment. Make up your mind, if you can, as to which it is.

December 26, 2010 at 9:15 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that from your argument you should be glad that DADT has ended, as from your perspective it was used by gays to get out of service. Yet, it was gay servicemen and women who volunteered for service that asked for it to end so that they no longer feared being "outed" and forced to drop out. Your obvious disgust over gays in service and your claim that they use sexual orientation to "avoid" service contradict each other. I am trying to figure out where you stand.

December 26, 2010 at 9:41 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

I'm guessing that rolando probably supported birther Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin who refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he questioned the presidents credentials of being a natural born decision. How did that work out?

This question of gays openly serving in the military is the same rant by conservatives who claimed that allowing blacks and women in the military would ruin our armed forces. It once again simply exposes their narrow minded bias against anyone not male and white.

December 26, 2010 at 10:17 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.