Savage calls Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr a "gay, phony general"
On the December 3 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr (CSMR) a "gay, phony general." Kerr, who is a member of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) Military Advisory Council, a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Americans for Hillary Clinton steering committee, and a co-chairman of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary Committee, had a video question about the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy selected for airing during the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate and was in the audience for an opportunity to ask a follow-up question.
According to his biography on the SLDN website, Kerr "retired from the U. S. Army Reserve in 1986 with the rank of Colonel and was commissioned in the California State Military Reserve (California National Guard) on 15 March 1986, where his assignments were Inspector General and later, Chief of Staff. He was appointed Commanding General, Northern Area Command, CSMR, with headquarters at Alameda Naval Supply Depot, Alameda, CA and promoted to Brigadier General on 21 February 1991. He held this position until reassigned to State Headquarters on 31 July 1995. General Kerr retired on 1 June 1996 after 43 years of service to the United States and the State of California."
Previously, on the November 29 edition of his radio show, Savage called Kerr an "old queen." After playing an audio clip from the debate featuring Kerr's comments after the Republican candidates addressed his question, Savage responded by saying, "I don't care about this old queen, frankly. He disgusts me to make -- my flesh crawls from the old queen." Savage then asked, "That was a general?" and went on to say: "Now you wonder why we're still in Iraq five years later. General Keith Kerr. He wasn't just racking up cue balls at the pool table."
Earlier in the November 29 segment, while discussing the debate, which was moderated by CNN host Anderson Cooper, Savage asserted, "Hillary Clinton planted a deep throat into last night's debates," and went on to claim that "this was planned by Hillary Clinton. This man works for her. It was planned in my opinion by CNN and Anderson Blooper. This was a complete setup." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, both Kerr and the Clinton campaign have stated that Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign in asking the question at the debate.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the December 3 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Mike, welcome to The Savage Nation.
CALLER: Yes, Dr. Savage, I like your show for so many reasons. It's unique and provocative. A quick question though. I'm wondering why you didn't go to the CNN [GOP] debate. It seems like you're always howling for, you know, mass media exposure. I mean, what happened there?
SAVAGE: Well, its one thing to go to a debate where the deck is not loaded, and top loaded. Uh, but it's another thing to go to a show on CNN. Larry King was off tonight, and there's somebody with the name of Joyce [sic: Joy Behar] filling in for him. I don't know who she is. So first they invited me on. Then they told me that the other guests would be a panel. Then they disclosed the panel would be Al Sharpton, Whoopi Goldberg, and somebody else. They were setting me up for a fall, Mike.
CALLER: Is seems like when you fight the good fight though, you have to take it where it goes. I mean why isn't, you know why not take --
SAVAGE: Because you don't understand that you only fight a battle that you have a reasonable chance of winning. Only a fool would put himself in a position that he can't win in. How could I win with a stacked panel like that, where the moderator could cut me off? If I were to say to Al Sharpton, "Before you raise your big mouth about me, why don't you tell the people about the Freddie's Fashion Mart fire, and the people who died because you went there with a bullhorn." You think they'd let that get out on the air?
CALLER: I'm a babe in the woods, Mr. Savage. I don't --
SAVAGE: Oh, well. Or if I said to Whoopi Goldberg, that failed talk show host. Everything they've given her she's failed at recently in radio. OK, and if I said to her, "You disgust me," because when Nancy Pelosi was on The View, with her husband Paul, you said, '"I'd like to do her," and "I'd like to do him." You nauseate me. Why would I want to be on the same, on the same screen with those people, Mike?
CALLER: You know, I don't know.
SAVAGE: Well now you know. You think I'm making it up? So I wouldn't go to CNN tonight. It's coming up. On Larry King, who's away down there. I don't know what he's doing, but somebody, Joy is on. No, I'll go on. If Larry wants to interview me one-on-one on this issue, I'd be glad to do so. Maybe. I might be glad to do so. I may not do it anyway.
CNN is a bear trap. CNN is a bear trap for anybody conservative. Look what they did the other night, last week rather, with the YouTube/CNN debate, when they put a planted, gay, phony general in the audience to throw out a question, and then Anderson Cooper followed up with intelligible, "Did you get the question answered adequately?" That's your idea of a fair debate? It's like a Stalinist show trial.
No, you don't have to go in to the -- Daniel in the lion's den is for mythology, not for reality. Only a fool puts himself in a place where he can't win. If it's a fair-minded debate, one-on-one, I'll do it. But they'll never give me that.
From the November 29 edition of The Savage Radio:
SAVAGE: All right I'm going to shift gears for a minute, I'll go back to the lawsuit momentarily. But last night, Hillary Clinton planted a deep throat into last night's debates -- at the YouTube debates.
She planted this deep throat. And I believe Anderson Blooper was in on the conspiracy. Because he could have cut the guy off. Instead, later on, Anderson Blooper continues by asking the retired general, Keith Kerr, about the homosexual issue.
So Anderson Blooper, who has had no credibility whatsoever for a long time now, has zero credibility. Listen to this.
KERR [audio clip]: Today, don't ask don't tell is destructive to our military policy. Every day the Department of Defense discharges two people. Not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion, but simply --
SAVAGE: Let's pause right here. Now a real moderator would have cut this man off. Because he was not asking a question, he was making an editorial statement.
So, this was planned by Hillary Clinton. This man works for her. It was planned in my opinion by CNN and Anderson Blooper. This was a complete setup. But the shame here, really, is that the Republicrats didn't boo the guy out.
Say, you know what, I'm not answering that question, it has no place here. You're obviously working for the opposition, goodbye. They didn't do that. Instead they went along like the sheeple they are. I have no faith in this. Yeah, continue with the deep throat.
KERR [audio clip]: --simply because they happen to be gay. Ad we're talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up.
SAVAGE: Well go on. Keep going.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA) [audio clip]: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said, when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.
SAVAGE: Let's pause right there, because Anderson Cooper then shows that he was in on this in my opinion. In clip 33, by instead of brushing it off Anderson Cooper goes along with his script. Listen to 33.
COOPER [audio clip]: Governor [Mitt] Romney [R-MA], you said in 1994 that you look forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve in a quote, "openly" --
SAVAGE: All right, let's stop right here. Why don't you enlist, Anderson? I'm not saying you're gay. But you certainly could enlist if you're so interested in "do ask do tell." Listen to clip 34, again, old Anderson Cooper shows that he was part of this conspiracy. Listen to 34.
[begin audio clip]
COOPER: General Kerr, as I said, is here. Please stand up, General. Thank you very much for being with us. Did you feel you got an answer to your question?
KERR: With all due respect, I did not get an answer --
[end audio clip]
SAVAGE: All right, let's turn -- I don't care about this old queen, frankly. He disgusts me to make -- my flesh crawls from the old queen. That was a general? Now you wonder why we're still in Iraq five years later. General -- with General Keith Kerr, you know why we're still in Iraq five years later. That's all. He wasn't just racking up cue balls at the pool table. I'm sick of it! I'm sick of the whole country, it's like Rome! It's melting down like Rome!
But, there it is. You go along with it. I don't. So now you know why people don't like me. They don't like reality. People don't like reality. They want soft talk, nice talk, fake talk.
And meanwhile our enemies are circling us. They're circling us like vultures. So, that's what happens. When you have a weakness at the top and corruption at the top.
What you wind up with is an enemy that encircles-other nations have come and gone. We're on the way out, not on the way in. That's all. So I'll continue with my lawsuit, since you know what I think about the phony Republicans who gobble debate.
They could have said 'I'm not answering the question'. If they had any brains they would have said, "You didn't ask a question, you sound like you're making an editorial statement. I don't like the smell of it." If they're not smart enough to smell a rat in a debate, how are they going to smell a rat on a battlefield. These people are professional politicians. You want me to go on? I'll read it. I'll go to part 30 of the lawsuit.
I dont know about all this "planned by Hillary" stuff - I dont believe it, and I dont even like her. But regardless your view on the question itself, which I find completely relevant for anyone to ask, CNN just did a crappy job researching the people who they allowed to ask the questions. I personally just think that the General himself did more harm to Hillary's campaign by going and asking the question himself while being on her campaign, rather then just sending out a non-campaign person to do it.
I disagree, I think it did more harm to the republican campaign because it exposed them as isolated and out of touch with mainstream america. Even if we are to assume that homosexuality is a party platform, the fact is republicans have to discuss it one way or the other. That they prefer to avoid the issue altogether is very telling.
I guess I am a bit mixed on your response. Its no secret which side of the political spectrum is more "homosexual" friendly, agreed? However, the actual "dont ask, dont tell" policy was put in place by whom? So I guess my question is - what is really the point of this question - is it to say that republicans do not want the "dont ask, dont tell" policy at all? Or are they asking why they wont abolish it all together, when in fact the policy was a compromise put together by the Clinton administration not long ago, in 1993?
'Don't ask, don't tell' is not a great policy, but it was a heck of a lot more friendly than the Republican policy of 'no gays in the military under any circumstances'
So, DADT was a very small step in the right direction (that of tolerance), hopefully we can improve on it from there.
I agree, it is a great policy. We need good men & women in our military, regardless of sexual preference. Our society has come quite a long ways since 1993 - but I do not think society as a whole, as well as our current military are ready yet for a "tell whatever you want" policy.
Staying on topic though, I dont see this as a question that hurt the repulican campaign at all. Sure, to some people, this is a bigger issue. But in terms of major political issues for the election & campaign, this really is somewhere towards the bottom - in no way does it compare at all to the current Iraq War, Terrorism, Immigration, Taxes, Energy, etc. Also, by the Republicans choosing not to want to get involved with this question - is it really telling you anything that you didnt already know? That republicans are not the most "homosexual" friendly, and would rather not focus on that issue.
It is relevant to the first two issues you mentioned - the Iraq war and terrorism. We need as many people to serve in the armed forces as possible. I don't suppose you're familiary with the firings of several Arabic translators?
No I havent followed any firings of translaters, but feel free to fill me in.
However, from a political standpoint in current times, Im going to disagree with your statement that the policy affects the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism - especially from the Democratic stance being taken by the congressional leaders. By taking the public stance that the war is not working at all, and we need to get them back home - i dont see how your statement of allowing more people into the military is going to affect the iraq war or war on terrorism when the democrats do not want them to be there in the first place. Just citing some opposing viewpoints in your argument.
My opposing viewpoints? I think you are projecting some of your logical issues.
First you say that Kerr's question was irrelevant from a Republican viewpoint, because there are many more important issues such as Iraq and terror.
I argued that it is related to Iraq and terror, as well as national security.
Then you said that since the general public wants us out of Iraq, military enrollment is not an issue for most Americans.
You want to frame the issue, first from a Republican standpoint, and then from a 'general public' (i.e. non-Republican) standpoint. You can't have it both ways. It's an issue, no matter how you look at it.
And here is your background link, hope this works:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Military-Gays.php
Whoa, whoa....now you're putting words in my mouth that I didnt say.
I never said his question was irrelevant, in fact I stated the exact oppiste in my first one on this thread. What I stated was that the topic of the question itself was not a big deal for republican voters in comparison to the other issues on the list, and that this would hardly deter there choice on who to vote for.
You didn't say it was relevant to National Security - because if you did, I would have agreed. National Security is a very broad topic - as where the War In Iraq is very specific. I am not disagreeing that more people in the military would be beneficial, especially in Iraq - because I personally would agree with you. However, what I am saying is that viewpoint - if coming from the democratic congress, would not fly due to their already outspoken anti-war movement. The two sides of wanting more people for Iraq, then arguing that the surge isnt working just do not go together. Thats all Im saying.
I also did NOT say that the GENERAL PUBLIC wants us out of Iraq. I said that the democrats in congress are voicing their viewpoint that they want us out of iraq. The democratic congress is hardly the General Public.
I am framing the issue from MY viewpoint, not from a republican or democratic viewpoint - because I have never said that one or the other is correct/wrong. I am only saying what makes sense.
There are so many contradictory statements and baffling logical fallacies in that comment, I wouldn't even know where to begin a response.
Therefore, let me just state my position.
DADT is a better policy than banning gays from the military, but it is not enough. This is a volunteer army, and we need as many active service members as possible, REGARDLESS of whether there is a war in Iraq or a Global War on Terror, or merely for intelligence purposes for security reasons. I apologize if you didn't immediately make the connection between 'Iraq and terror' and 'national security' but they are inseperable at this point in our nation's history. Regardless of whether or not you, the general public, the Democratic congress, or the Republican candidates think this is a relevant issue is not important. The issue is relevant, and the question was an important one.
Ok, thats a fair assessment on your behalf. But my beef with your previous post what that you were putting words into my mouth that I never stated at all.
I already agreed that we need more great men & women in the military, regardless of sexual orientation. However, I dont oppose the current policy as it stands because its better than nothing.
You just need to be a bit more accurate when throwing around words - especially when citing what someone said. Remember, this is a website that states "misinformation", and much of what you stated in your paragraph was indeed misinformation of what I actually said.
A possible reason that the war isn't and hasn't been working is the firing of the Arabic translators who were gay.
Fewer qualified people to do one of the most important jobs in the intelligence community.
How could anyone not be aware of this fact, four and a half years after the initial invasion?
First, i was well aware of being being discharged out of the military because of their open sexual orientation. I just wasn't aware of their specific duty.
Either way, the policy is the policy. Its a great reach to be able to blame the war not working because some translaters were let go. So lets not be so crazy here.
No one has to agree with the policy, but the policy was put forth 11 years ago, and needs to be followed until the congress gains the approval votes to change it.
Or the President could just change the rules himself, just like he did with the rules on torture and wire-tapping. Look how much that helped us win the war.
Or you could stay on course, because your argument shows no relevance of the topic.
Those did not have anything to do with the current state of the war in Iraq either.
Actually the topic was a lot more like why is the Weinerdog such an insane jerk? Kerr may be gay but he is CERTAINLY a REAL general. So he is a LIAR too
whoops, meant to say 14 years ago, pressed the wrong number key.
Do you actually think that there are thousands of homosexuals just waiting to join the military? Well I think you have a misconception on just how many homosexuals there are in the United States, it is unlikely that very many homosexuals will even join given the opportunity. I would not sacrifice the unit cohesion and troop moral we have now just so a hundred Homosexuals can join.
Finarfin, go ahead and correct those misconceptions.
How many homosexuals are in the U.S.?
Can we see your research regarding unit cohesion and troop moral (sic) ?
Or are you just repeating things you heard other people say?
No response yet? HBL, I think you caused Fin to short out a few brain synapses!
Snoopy, do not be so quick to assume that others beside you spend their entire lives behind a computer. I was busy and could not respond until now.
And it sure was worth the wait.
reading your posts always cheer me up HBL :)
Although I do not exactly share his viewpoint - the "troop moral" is actually something he is correct on, but the wording is way off. I would choose to refer to it as "military acceptance" & "public acceptance".
There are numerous polls out that that show up to 60% and 70% of Americans would not oppose openly gay men and women to be in the military. However, upon the military personnel polled, the numbers of people who would accept it dropped down to 32%.
Not trying to be controversial, just stating the information out there. You can side with the public or the military in this case, and neither would technically be wrong for their wants & opinions. I for one, am for letting the military do their job and decide these types of things for themselves.
I would agree except that the gay community gets berated a lot as being unpatriotic or unamerican. How do you prove yourself to those savage types when you can't serve your country?
I think the gay community gets alot of negative undeserved press, but I rarely see them as being labeled unamerican or unpatriotic.
Tommy, what do you think Savage was doing? He basically said gay soldiers are responsible for the mess in Iraq, doesn't that sound like a leadup to the unamerican label?
Savage hates gays, he is an league by himself. You can hardly use him as an example other than extreme.
Oh how I wish this were true.
First off snoopy, this is supposed to be a site to counter misinformation, not create it.
Im not a savage fan by any means, but thats not what he said, and not what he was "basically" saying either. Hes referring to one gay general in response to the CNN fiasco. He doesnt say that gays in the military are responsible for anything.
No, I don't believe I'm creating misinformation. Take this line from Savage:
That was a general? Now you wonder why we're still in Iraq five years later. General -- with General Keith Kerr, you know why we're still in Iraq five years later. That's all. He wasn't just racking up cue balls at the pool table. I'm sick of it! I'm sick of the whole country, it's like Rome! It's melting down like Rome!
Everyone here is aware that the Rome comparison the right makes is all about claiming homosexuality was responsible for the demise of Rome. What I said wasn't misinformation, Savage used that statement as a deliberate attempt to imply homosexuality will ruin the US just like it ruined Rome (though we know there were far greater factors involved with the end of the roman empire!)
Well you may have something there, as I didnt interpret it the same way you did. But lets also look at this from the other side of the spectrum ok? Michael Savage's viewpoints do not necessarily reflect that of all the republicans - especially mine. In fact, the only time I ever hear about him - is on MMFA.
There are always going to be extremist on each side of the political spectrum - Michael Savage may think that gays are ruining the world and should all die....on the other side, we have some crazy environmental extremist who think people should die to save the earth, and that children are considered pollution. So pick your evil, but they are everywhere.
That's fair enough. And I would like to note that when I make these comparisons I am speaking about the right wing of the republican party. I would love to see the true conservatives reclaim the party so I could vote for a few. (surprised?)
Surprised? Not so much. To be honest, i find it quite funny that everytime a republican is on this site, someone feels the need to drop a GWB bomb on that person. Do the lefties on here realize that many conservatives do not agree with Bush at all? I personally do not feel he acts like a conservative - the spending was absolutely out of control. Its not what i refer to as being fiscally conservative. And though I am not for bringing our troops home right now because we have a job to finish, I do not necessarily agree with the justification that we used to go to war - and neither do alot of conservatives. I just think too many blanket statements on this website, and people really do not understand the entire picture, but only focus on their own agenda.
I would like to get back to the days of true conservatives, because the ones today are not what I consider conservative.
But i am glad that we had a civil discusssion. Its possible to agree about things on be on different sides of the spectrum. Perhaps, thats something that our congress should focus on? lol.
Then maybe conservatives shouldn't have voted for him, cause it certainly wasn't us liberals who put him into office.
Did you vote for him, and how many times?
FREETHINKER: "...on the other side, we have some crazy environmental extremist who think people should die to save the earth, and that children are considered pollution."
Care to name one example of an extremist that advocates these positions?
Better yet, name one that has the platform to spew nonsense like savage does.
Sure, how about Toni Vernelli: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Interesting. Did you see this comment " I really think it's great - less nuts about to breed and spread their lunacy to children."
However, none of the people mentioned in the article called children pollution or thought people needed to die to save the environment. Keep searching.
Uh, are you insane? Did you even read some of her quotes? How about these...
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
When Toni, 35 gets a radio show then you will have a point.
Not even then, Jimmy, for none of her "rant" was either untrue, or irrelevant, or even offensive to the common good.
You're right, Conley. The logic of her position is sound. It is an incontestable fact that every human being on the planet pollutes, and the more affluent the human, the more he or she pollutes. Just take a good look as you take out the garbage tonight.
I find it interesting that she's in the news, though. (By the way, she's news because she's unique, which blows Freethinker's point out of the water.) She would attract little, if any, notice or disapproval if she had chosen to forgo motherhood for "selfish" reasons such as career or life style. But to do so out of a sense of personal responsibility, well that's just blasphemous.
I also find it interesting that this topic (a strange one for this thread) should come up today, given yesterday's reports of the effect of divorce (two households instead of one for one family) on the environment.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/282251
Well - as far as the second portion - I could say Al Gore. But I'll hold back because I dont even like Savage - so you have no point.
So, your claim is that Al Gore has referred to childen as "pollutiong". When was that?
Except that Al Gore doesn't fit the first definition, so he's not such a good example.
...unless you can come up with a quote from Gore that says people should die or not have children for the environment?
His position isn't so extreme.
Thanks for not saying Al Gore.
Well, thats a good question. And I don't have an answer for you.
I dont think people are unpatriotic just because they are gay. I think people are unpatriotic based upon the actions that they decide to do, that (to me) negatively portray the United States in an economical or political fashion in comparison to what I think the original writers of the constitution & delcaration of independce would think about it. Just how I see things.
Yeah well that would mean more to me except the same argument, that is morale and unit cohesion was used to stop integrating the military. They may have even been right then Truman integrated the military and the military got over it. In THIS country the military is under the rule of civilians and WE decide the rules those who dont like it can get out. Its time for the military to get over the gay thing.
Does personal experience count for your needed supporting evidence? Because from personal experience I can tell you that unit cohesion is one of the most important things for a combat troop. I can tell you that obtaning the trust of your fellow soldiers is vital in supporting each other. Without that trust, mistakes are made and when mistakes are made people die. I can tell you from my experience that the consensus of the young men I served with was that having an openly gay man in your unit would be a disruption. Disruptions are dangerous. I am not saying that a homosexual can't be a great soldier and the reality is that in the heat of battle you don't see skin color or sexual orientation in the guy next to you covering your arse. But the reality remains that due to perception, misconceptions, bigotry, ignorance, etc, that forcing something out of the mainstream onto a entity like the military which is so regimented and prone to tradition will cause major disruptions in unit cohesion. 19 year old boys trained to kill, unfortunately are not the most open minded of persons. It's unfortunate that everyone and everything isn't so accepting of others who are different. That is reality though. In my experience of course. That was around forty years ago so things may have changed, but things in the military rarely do.
Chris,
You make excellent points, well said. I tentatively support DADT as well, because I think it's the best we've got, for now. This needs to be in the hands of the military, the people in the ranks and on the ground, it should be their decision - and not basis for some social experiment. It's a tough call, but military cohesion and preparedness is priority #1.
Social Experiment......that says it all. Attitudes have to change first across all lines of society. The government forcing military recurits to become accepting open minded persons is not what the role of the military is. They train you to kill people in the military. they don't pick flowers and learn how to see all people as equal, they learn how to assemble their weapon in a certain amount of time, they learn how to assualt fixed positions, etc. No time for classroom lessons on why so and so has two daddy's or two mommy's. The military is just not the place for that stuff.
It would help if men did not use being gay as an insult. You don't see women insulting each other by calling each other lesibians, or complaining "that's so dyke !".
Atheist, so true! Some men seem to view homosexuality as a threat to their own sexuality. Why is it that some men assume that a gay man simply wants any man. Like gay men don't have standards? FYI, gay men find some men repulsive and wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole. So if you're repulsive, you're safe from gay men, probably women too.
Pearlene,
I do love your posts! As a gay man, I can tell you that we DO have standards. Homophobic men really shouldn't flatter themselves to think that all gay men want to get down and dirty with them.
Your argument would make a lot more sense if it weren't for the fact that desegregation in this country first occurred in the military. That was definitely a 'social experiment' of necessity. If the recruitment numbers continue to fall you can bet that it won't be long before there is a 'rainbow beret' platoon!
Big difference in the two. The easiest way to explain this is to look at how sexual tension in general causes disruptions btween the opposite sex in the military. Why do you suppose men and women are segregated in the military? If not for that, you would have a point.
Actually NOT such a big difference. Those SAME arguments were used against integrating the military. Then it WAS integrated and I am not saying the arguments didnt have merit but the military learned to live with the reality. I see no reason why this issue would be any different.
the difference is that young men on a whole do not feel comfortable around gay men. It is rampant in the military, that is why you incessantly hear guys calling ech other derogatory names used to describe homosexuals as insults. Read the Pentagon study and you will see the difference between this and integration.
And in the late 40s early 50's young white men didnt feel that comfortable around Blacks. It is pretty much the same thing. Truman forced integration over these SAME ARGUMENTS and the military got over it since they had no choice. I am not saying there werent problems caused by it but they DID get over it and I see no reason why this should be any different.
"That was around forty years ago so things may have changed, but things in the military rarely do."
I have read, relatively recently, that there is at least one study out there indicating that things have changed in the military. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,78627,00.html It seems that young soldiers reflect their generation in being more accepting of their gay compatriots.
As for as "unit morale," I think that a gay soldier who provides real-time intelligence by translating from the Arabic (warning of an ambush, perhaps?) might just not be a drag on the morale of his unit.
Are you in the military? Im not. And unless you are, I would not even begin to start speaking for the military on what "unit morale" is.
If that was to me, no, I am not (though I have been) in the military. And would you please tell me how you read a sentence which is couched in the subjunctive and begins with "I think" as "speaking for the military?"
Also, did you click on the link? Your comments would indicate not. I suggest you do so. Again, speaking only for myself.
Of course any individual observations and opinions about gays in the military has to be considered anecdotal. I do not have any experience whatsoever in the US armed forces but did serve twelve years in the Canadian Airborne Regiment from 1970-1982. From 1974-1976 I was deployed to Cyprus as part of a UN Peacekeeping operation and later was part of counter terrorism operations during the 1976 Montreal Olympics. After 1982 I served for six years in the Canadian Coast Guard which is under the Department of Fisheries. I spent much of that time on Heavy Gulf Icebreakers in Hudson Bay. There was never much discussion or even gossip about sexual orientation among the men--I think we were too stressed out, too busy, and too sleep deprived to even think of such things. In my experience (which I will admit is anecdotal) abstract discussion about group cohesion etc. is, for the most part, meaningless talk. We spent far more time complaining about the crappy food and the idiocy of our politicians. A study completed a few years ago found no decline in performance of the military after Canada's 1992 decision to allow homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. Here is a link to a press release summarizing the study. Here is a link to the study itself.
I submit this not with the intent of telling anyone how to think but simply for further consideration.
Sorry Conchobar I did not realize you had already linked to the study I cite below. I think I was working on my post when you made yours. Interesting how some claim this study is "agenda driven" which translated usually means "I don't like the conclusions". If you want to see an agenda in action try reading this paper by Aaron Belkin where he exposes the behavior of Sam Nunn while conducting the 1993 hearings on gays in the military.
You trod on my cite? Inconcievable! My lawyers will be in touch.
INCONCEIVABLE! I hate it when I muck up a punch line.
Your lawyer will have to get in line behind JustyTruth BillyBob's lawyer. God it is getting really stressful to post on this site.
So because Conchobar might not be affiliated with the military, he cannot have an opinion as to unit morale and cohesion?
If that's the case, you don't have a right to an opinion to the illegal occupation of Iraq, since it's being done by the military - unless, of course, you're in the military (which you've already said you're not). Use your head, not your rectal database.
Fair enough, but I on the other hand will stick to the study done by the Pentagon and congress in which showed quite the opposite. Anyway, a study done by a group with a clear agenda tends to open up too many opportunities for disagreement. I stand by my belief that it does in fact destroy unit cohesion and creates too many possibilities for mistakes in training, preparedness. etc.
I went back and looked, but if you linked to those studies by the Pentagon and Congress, I missed it. And did you read my link? Are you saying Military.com has an "agenda," or are you suspicious of universities? It would seem to me that the way the study is described indicates they weren't "agenda"-driven. Personally, I'd expect the Pentagon to have at least one foot in the past, and so I'd be suspicious of their agenda. I would, however, be interested in seeing their study. Can you link to it?
There were two studies conducted in 1993 that came to opposite conclusions. Read about both of them and draw your own conclusions.
I'll take the one that was based on OUR armed forces and not the one using foreign armies and American police and fire departments. How would you conclude that the deep antipathy found in the Pentagon study was not found in the Rand study? Perhaps because the Rand study did not acutally include a study of the United States Armed Forces but rather attempted to draw parallels from foreign armies and police and fire departments? I don't find them to be competing but rather two different studies. You pick.
Eh...not talking to you. These remarks were addressed to Conchobar. But here is a link to the full Rand study so those interested can make up their own minds about what it said. And no you do not have to pay 95 dollars. Click the links below to read it in PdF format.
Sorry, these threads get confusing when they becme this long. I do think that the Rand study is less relevant just because it did not include the military. Anyway, I apologize if I came across as obtuse, that was not my intention. I'm trying to do better with the "tone" of my posts.
And of course one may draw very different conclusions from the Rand report which is why I included a link it. Unfortunately you did not provide a link to the Pentagon report for compartive purposes. I understand that you don't know how to link however since you stated that you were able to 'google' it perhaps you could share with us the terms you entered into the search field that turned it up for you. I have been unable to locate it online. Failing that perhaps you could share the exact title of the report so that we might be able to turn it up that way.
I'm sorry, perhaps I should have been more pointed in my response. IN any event, the study you point to indicates only that people who are not already in the military would not change their mind about joining if openly gay individuals were allowed to serve. That leaves open many variables since we don't know if the folks they surveyed are actually positive about joining the military anyway. It does in no way address the most important aspect which is how PEOPLE already in the military or folks who are positive about joining feel about serving with openly gay persons. Furthermore, the study was done by "The center for the study of minorities in the military" I would encourage you to research this group and the Michael D Palm Center website and form your own opinions on whether they are agenda driven.
As for you other point, believe it or not and I am serious about this, I have no clue how to post a link. I googled it and found the Pentagon study for myself. It was done in 1993 and was an exhaustive study with Democratic congressional oversight done by the Pentagon and Congress and it concluded the opposite of you viewpoints here. Take it for what it's worth. It just seems that people on the opposite side of this argument think there is a constitutional right for gays to serve in the military. That's not the case. The military continues to discriminate on age, disabilities, etc to this day. There is a reason for that other than not being able to physically handle the job. Part of it is that it would be detrimental to unit cohesion.
I can also point out that most people don't first come across gays in combat. The personal trust and unit cohesion is built during boot camp, not on the battlefield. From personal experience I can tell you that soldiers that trained together will vouch for each other when a newcomer comes in and starts questioning anything. Maybe I'm an old school Marine, but my mates usually stood up for someone who was outed if they trained and served with the guy and thought he was a good soldier. I'm reluctant to think today's soldiers are somehow less tolerant than the previous generation of soldiers.
Don't know about you but in my platoon in Vietnam I went to bootcamp with none of them. The unit cohesion and trust I talk about was formed in the field.
Sounds just like the kind of argument they made about black soldiers half a century ago.
You're right Marv.
I'm reminded of the 1950's Washington Redskins, who were owned by an old racist named George Preston Marshall. The old fort wouldn't have a blackskin on his team. Naturally, since they ignored more than half of the talent pool, they were the dregs of the league. A successful season was holding Jim Brown to less than 100 yards in each of the two games they played against Cleveland. In their first season the expansion Dallas Cowboys only won one game. Guess who they beat?
To get rid of, or refuse to induct, a person with critical skills because of his/her sexual orientation seems just as counterproductive to me.
HBL,
He can't respond. He doesn't have facts he just rambles on with gross stereotypes. Did you ever see what he wrote on the Buchannan thread? He writes based on gross stereotypes probably based on eugenics and preconceived notions. His statements on the last thread showed his true colors.
Actually in the post I tried to get some descent statistics and compare the percentage of the US population in the military with the population of homosexuals in the US to extrapolate the amount of homosexuals that would be in the military if allowed, But I could not find a descent statistic. Does anyone know a descent site for general statistics? That would be really useful, thanks. I am certainly not parroting others, I have molded my own opinion from what i know of the military and from what i know of people's reactions to homosexuals in their midst.
So in retrospect, because you lacked facts, you made a strawman claim based on your opinions. Nice...
Well, if you adhere to the Kinsey studies then around 10% of the U.S. population is gay. More recent studies done which have been supported by the 2000 Census Bureau show it to be around 2-3%. Even though he made these claims without the proper evidence it turns out he had a valid point.
I think the info gleaned from the Census data pertains to same sex COUPLES, not individual gays and lesbians.
Wrong. Look at it yourself.
I dont have hard stats but common sense would make me think the Kinsey report would be more accurate. I think people arent that forthcoming when answering personal questions on GOVERNMENT forms. The Kinsey data was scrupulously and scientifically gleaned over MANY years of rigorous study.
Kinsey was a crackpot.
Cite a better example.
"homosexuals in their midst'
Oy vey.
"homosexuals in their midst'
I think Dian Fossey was really just trying to cash in with that movie.
Lefty, your cinematic references make me go all misty-eyed.
One in three men have had an adult sexual contact with another man.
Also, the sheer number of gays DISCHARGED disproves your statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html
That is interesting. Do you think that by lifting the don't ask don't tell policy, recruiting will increase? No sarcasm intended, I just find that line of reasoning interesting, given the percentage of the homosexual population in America. I would think you may have some who are gay who would readily enlist but I think it is certain that some straight folks would choose not to. No proof though. Just a thought.
Thats actually a very good point.
Im no expert in this field. But I'm willing to bet that the number of openly gay people who would sign up becuase they can now be open would probably be less than the number of who would refuse to sign up due to open homosexuality around them.
I could be wrong, but no one here has any proof of there answers on this question.
So, because some people are bigoted, that means other people can be denied their rights under the Constitution? That's a "good point?"
There is no constitutional right to serve in the military. You can make an argument about a civil right, which is really the discussion here. To claim that this is a constitutional issue is not a "good point".
Not so sure. I think a good 14th amendment argument can be made
It's a good policy and it works.
Tell that to those who truly wanted to serve their country but were booted out of the service. it's a stupid policy that should be scrapped.
Riiiiight, so having openly gay men in the military has a positive effect on the fighting ability of our military? Your wrong. Nothing is stopping them from enlisting now, the military doesn't ask and the enlistee doesn't tell. There are plent of Americans who want to serve their country but can't. How about those with sever mental health issues, mental retardation, people in wheelchairs, people wtih flat feet, felons. Physical issues are not the only disqualifying reason for these folks, there is a obvious threat to troop morale, unit cohesion that you seem to know nothing about.
I dont think it is a good policy as it codifies bigotry.
Yeah, the "gay-friendly" side of the aisle is evident.
But it's certainly a little perlexing seeing as how there have been more high-profile, influential, Conservative, Republican homos outed this past year than any number of years with Demos.
Barney Frank has to be laughing his a$$ off about now.
I will agree with you. Not so sure what is going on with all this Larry Craig, and whoever else stuff. Personally, I consider myself conservative on most issues, but not all...and homosexually is one of them. When it comes to race & sexual orientation, I have no problems with anyone - except when certain groups start to play the race card or want special treatment.
Umm, "special" treatment, or EQUAL treatment? There is a big difference there.
Special Treatment - like Affirmative Action. Something in which one race/gender receives a benefit that one does not.
But that’s the problem: there would be no need for Affirmative Action if there was equal treatment of minorities and women to begin with. Passing a few laws does not automatically erase sexism and racism in the job market and educational system. It’s too deeply ingrained in our culture to erase with a stroke of an ink pen. LBJ understood that it took more than just bussing black school children to defeat white supremacy, which is why he passed many Civil Rights bills to remedy the broken system that have benefited white men over other citizens for centuries. Furthermore, it’s not special treatment when the government initiates certain institutions to consider an equally sufficient candidate that happens to be of a different race or gender. If we want to REALLY get technical about Affirmative Action, in American, white men have been receiving Affirmative Action over minorities and women since the beginning of our democracy, and to somehow say that Affirmative Action is special treatment – or to use the Right’s favorite buzzword, “reverse-racism” – is very disingenuous, and shows a lack of critical-thinking. Now, I’m not for Reparations because I happen to believe such programs causes more harm than good. Political Scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. wrote a great article about Reparations a few years back in The Progressive, and I pretty much agreed with his take. But there’s definitely a need for Affirmative Action in a nation that perceives itself as innocent and the exception that all other countries should strive to become.
so it is o.k for the person who is most qualified for the job to be passed over because of his skin color?
Now, Chris, you know very well I'm not suggesting that. The point I'm making here is that while Affirmative Action is a flawed system -- just like Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- it's the best we have right now, and until we figure out a way to fix the problem, trashing it is not going to help women and minorities in this country. The point I was making is that white men have benefited for being white and male in this country for centuries, it's in the foundation of this country. I’ve heard too many times from conservatives – and centrist liberals -- that Affirmative Action belittles minorities and women because the program operates on the belief that without any government help women and minorities just can’t make it. The point here is that women and minorities are not asking for handouts, sympathy, or even for people to open the door for them, they’re asking to stand out of the way so they can open the door themselves. But they can’t do that when there are many barriers that block them from even getting to the door.
So all barriers that provide a cover for discrimination should be removed, absolutely - nobody is suggesting otherwise. Then evaluations are made on excellence, skill and competence ALONE - there is no need for affirmative action, otherwise known as reverse discrimination.
It is patently unfair to GET a job based on your gender or skin color alone, as much as it is to be PASSED over for a job based on that same criteria.
Im sorry to say this to you, but thats all BS. The problem is that the minorities KNOW that this law BENEFITS them, and they would never give it up. They dont want it to go away, because it gives them an edge, not equality. If you are going to tell me that after over 45 years of this stupid law being around - that minorities and women have NOT advanced enough to pull this off the table? Or are you going ot tell me that after 45 years, our people are too stupid to know how to modify it for modern times? Christ, we have a dont ask dont tell policy now for our military - but we cannot get REAL EQUALITY for our workforce? how pitiful.
What is fair to one is inherently unfair to another, when affirmative actions, based on skin color and gender, are employed - it can't be any other way.
Now, I am in favor of economic affirmative action for colleges and universities because I don't believe one should be denied an education simply because they can't afford it - but beyond that it's up to them to continue.
The only fair route is to remove barriers that allow discrimination, then everyone is given a job, or denied one, based on the skills required for that particular job performance.
Now, I am in favor of economic affirmative action for colleges and universities because I don't believe one should be denied an education simply because they can't afford it
People aren't denied a college education because they cannot afford it, but they may be denied entry into a specific private univeristy due to not being able to afford it - and i dont have a problem with that part. State schools should allow students regardless of financials, but those students should be required to take out loans, not just go for free. Even people whos parents have money still make their kids take out loans and be responsible for their own education - me included in that. And since my parents make good money, Im also not eligible for grants since most of them are need based. So there is already inequality in the education system, but to need based people.
Yes, but then when you take out loans you get in debt. This is why all public universities should be entirely state supported like k-12 public schools.
So it's the governments job to make sure a person gets a college education? At what point does a person have to stand on their own two feet? Things you obtain in life aren't worth a fiddler's fart unless you work for them.
"Things you obtain in life aren't worth a fiddler's fart unless you work for them." - Achrispage6992
Ah. Can I assume you are against the "Death Tax", then?
So it's the governments job to make sure a person gets a college education? At what point does a person have to stand on their own two feet? Things you obtain in life aren't worth a fiddler's fart unless you work for them. ACHRISPAGE
---------------------------------------------------
While I don't believe it is the government's job to ensure that a person gets an education, it is in the country's best interest to make sure that its citizens are educated. It only makes sense.
Right, we do that now. Perhaps the government should fund anyne who wants to pursue a Doctorate. Perhaps it should be mandatory.
Would you also be in favor of doing away with legacy admissions, and admission of marginal or unqualified students because their parents are willing and able to fund, say, a new biology lab?
Those are for private schools, not state schools. A private school can, and should be, able to accept whoever they want. A state school, however, should not.
But if you want to make the "admissions" argument, then we should also get rid of all black and all women colleges, as those are discriminatory as well. its the whole "i want into your school, but dont want you into mine". theres two sides to every story here.
"The problem is that the minorities KNOW that this law BENEFITS them, and they would never give it up."--Freethinking guy
I went to a high school that was nearly 50%. And I noticed the opposite effect. A lot believed that the system was so against them that they didn't believe that it was worth the effort to get good grades or even care. On their minds were things like Rodney King and "driving while black" along with 400 years of American History. I think some of the African Americans that made it see Afirmative Action as giving them a fighting chance.
If your argument were true, then there would not be a disproportionate amount of African Americans in prision.
Now, I will answer your next rebuttal about the above mentioned fact:
If there are a disprop. # in prision, then AA is not working. My response would be that AA is not enough. There needs to be some kind of investment in the black community (and that also goes for any poor community): business loans, and stuff like that that would empower a disenfranchized people.
I made some mistakes because I had to finish what I wrote in a hurry because of a phone call. It should be "50% African American"
Onionhead, you are definitely correct, the African American is not working, and believe me it is not that an opportunity will get him to work, the African American is used to not working and living of of welfare, it is a habit. You can pump as much government grants as you want (which is what the government has been doing) into the poor communities, but this only creates a marginal difference and a whole lot of wasted money. not to mention a population with a deep sense of entitlement and thus bawling for the government to hold them up (more votes for the dems). What we need to do is empower the black and poor (Pearlene should note that Onionhead groups these terms together) communities with tough love, let them stand on their own feet rather than become increasingly dependent on government handouts.
I should have never make it sound like every "black community" was "poor". There are some well-off communities.
But as for the rest of your response:
You knew damn well I meant Affirmative Action and that I didn't say it wasn't working. Everyone of your responses just revels how ignorant you are. Racist--as whole
The problem is that the minorities KNOW that this law BENEFITS them, and they would never give it up. If you are going to tell me that after over 45 years of this stupid law being around - that minorities and women have NOT advanced enough to pull this off the table? Or are you going ot tell me that after 45 years, our people are too stupid to know how to modify it for modern times?
Do we still have racism in this country? Has the United States become a color blind society?
About a week ago a poster, Finarfin explained to me that whites were simply superior to blacks. Black and brown people should recognize the privilege given to them when allowed to live in white neighborhoods. Black could not speak proper English. He said all that and more. The year is 2007, not 1934. Just imagine him owning a business or being on the board of admittance for a college, how many black or brown people would get the job or get accepted to college based on his opinion? Now take the population of this country and imagine how many people there are who think exactly like him. The number is not as small as you think, unfortunately.
I've find it funny, in a sad kind of way, reading other posts about gays in the military. There was a time when members of the military did not and would not allow blacks to serve. There was a time when the excuses given about gays were used regarding blacks, "It would disrupt the morale, and disruptions were dangerous". Can you imagine, we would have never had Colin Powell. There was a time when blacks were not allowed to live in the same housing units with white military personnel.
My point is we have to atone for our failings as a country regarding race and although AA is not perfect, I don't think you want to go back to the way things used to be. You have to accept that there are people in power who think like Finfarin about black and brown people and the only way to balance against his type of thinking is AA. You might want to place your anger on those who still think like he does rather than thinking that black and brown people simple want to take advantage.
Pearlene,
Of course there is racism in this country, but you cannot use an idiotic statement by a racist who says whites are superior to blacks as some norm by any stretch. There will always be those so ingnorant and full of hate that will believe that, no matter how much affirmative action or anything else that exists.
The issue is that we as a country and a government condemn all types of discrimination through our laws that allow barriers of any kind, we remove any avenues or any cover that racism has or can get some foothold in within our society. Will that eliminate racism? No. Just as there is homophobia or people that hate other people for all sorts of reasons, we can deal with them if they break our laws, but not by their thoughts. They have that right.
We have made great strides in the past 40 years, that cannot be denied. We should all be proud of where we have come from as a country regarding race - we still have to fight the good fight, but we don't need reverse discrimination to do it.
We have made great strides in the past 40 years, that cannot be denied. We should all be proud of where we have come from as a country regarding race - we still have to fight the good fight, but we don't need reverse discrimination to do it.
Is the playing field leveled for minorities? If not AA, what do you suggest? You seem to feel that racism is simply a small problem in this country. It's not like it used to be, signs for blacks and white only, discrimination today is handled more discretely.
You seem to think that Finfarun is one of a small number while I think he's simply one of many who happens to be very verbal in his thinking. You say that I can't use him as the norm but you can't dismiss him as one of a few. Tommy racism is alive and living in Las Vegas. There are some places here that remind me of the south and you can imagine what some places in the south are like. There are many places in this country where discrimination is alive and breathing. You may not want to believe that but trust me, it's true.
You think that AA is reverse discrimination and I don't. I think that race should be one of many factors in diversifying our society, you don't. On this, we disagree.
Pearlene,
Then let me ask you considering I assume you are a Democrat and have voted as such for awhile. If racism remains a major problem and a huge impediment for minorities in this country, and the strides made in the past 40 years have only been made "discretely", then why in the world do you support a political party that repeatedly caters to minorities - if what you say is true, they have been incredibly ineffective in overcoming racism, have they not? What have they done? They held the majority in Congress for 50 years up until the mid-90's - and there have been several Democratic Presidents - Johnson, Carter, Clinton.......why stick with them then?
Seems to me if I voted for the same party, or even supported them so vigorously yet thought that a major problem such as racism is only "discretely" better, I'd switch allegiances awfully fast.
So, Tommy, what you're suggesting is that the Republicans would do a better job of eradicating covert discrimination in the job market than Democrats? Granted, I don't disagree with you that many so-called "liberal" Presidents have been pretty weak -- I'm thinking of both Clinton and Carter -- in terms of fighting for racial equality, but that could be because there hasn't been a TRUE progressive President that held the White House since the 1960s. I do admit that I think it's destructive for blacks to be joined to the hip with the Democratic Party if that party is not willing to deliver certain promises. This is one of the reasons why I'm an independent and have no loyalty to any party because I think both are not that different from each other. With the defeat of McGovern, that pushed the Democratic Party more to the Right than the Left. Unlike the Republicans who built a strong coalition after the Goldwater defeat, without losing its identity, Democrats have alienated many of their progressive supporters by moving the party more to the Right. Ronald Reagan dominating the 80s certainly didn’t help matters for the Democrats, either.
Therefore, yes, you are right, black folks shouldn't support the Democratic Party if they're not willing to be the progressive party it presents itself to be, especially in terms of racial equality. But we can’t deny that out of all the Democratic Presidents, Lyndon Johnson done the most to move blacks more into the mainstream of America than any President after him. And blacks are willing to vote for someone who MAY have their best interests at heart but too afraid to push any legislations through -- out of fear of being smeared by the Right Wing Noise Machine -- than Republicans who could give a rat’s ass about your interests at all.
Republicans have ZERO black Senators and Representatives !
Exactly! Which speaks volumes of the party and its agenda.
Seems to me if I voted for the same party, or even supported them so vigorously yet thought that a major problem such as racism is only "discretely" better, I'd switch allegiances awfully fast. Tommy
You think I should vote and support Republicans? That same Republican party that found answering why more black don't vote Republican difficult? That same party that has somehow managed to miss each and every debate offered by black/brown people? That same party that gave us the Willie Horton ad and found NOTHING wrong with it? That same party that has a senator who thinks that things would have been better IF we had followed Strum Thurmond's thinking? The same party that has absolutely ZERO blacks in Congress representing that party? The same party made up of some of the same racists, both northern & southern - who left the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s because they hated our Civil Rights? The same party that has used the black race as a wedge issue to gain support from whites? YOU think I should switch to Republicans?
I know exactly where I stand regarding Republicans. I'm not wanted nor needed. Sorry but they certainly are not any type of alternative for black folks.
PS: Check out Farfarin's post to see racism 2007 alive and breathing.
You forgot how the Republican party used a campaign ad that basically claimed the black Democratic candidate was going to take all the white women. Or a Congressman who received a lesson in racial slurs.
And on that logic Tommy, if you are a true fiscal conservative, are you going to vote for a party other than the Republican party? They, after all, are the ones that have an uncontrollable habit of spending money on anything and everything.
And it wasn't just Bush. The Republican majority in congress allowed that spending spree, and in fact encouraged it.
Pearlene, tis good to be palavering with you once more, I noticed that you accuse me of being blatantly racist, do you think that all humans having evolved in different areas of the globe actually have equal levels of intelligence? As the good Dr. Watson pointed out, this is in no way proven by the facts, facts that many people excuse as residues of oppression, facts such as the disproportion of African Americans in prison (OnionHead), and the generally lower test scores. Empathetic humans naturally want to think that everyone is equal, I was once one of such romantics who foolishly ignored the facts that discomfited my former belief of absolute human equality. How can you explain the fact that Europeans where the one's who dominated the earth? Geography of course, it allowed for Europeans to advance faster, and as a consequence they became generally more intelligent.
It is a privilege of the negro population that they achieved such liberties here simply because they did not have them before. Now you might argue that all men are born with an equal right to free will but this will not hold up in the real world. You must know that there is really no entitlements in this world, it is idealistic and foolish to think so, rather, all that can be taken away is a privilege.
the fact that [most] African Americans can not speak civilized English is, well, a fact. Notice that i said African Americans, i am sure that Africans can speak their native languages (whatever they may be) without twisting the dialect in an effort to avoid speaking like their former oppressors.
about owning a business, well i would hire indiscriminately, although i would hire a cultured black rather than a counterculture scum, with a criminal record longer than his "bling".
You seem to think that i am some skinhead neonazi consumed with hate, but you are wrong. I truly do not feel hate towards certain ethnicities, and i cannot emphasize this enough. (plus i have a full head of rich, long hair). But it is your misconception, not mine, you think that way for you just do not know me.
Finaarfin, I must say that I truly appreciate your honestly. I much prefer for someone to tell me that they hate blacks to my face that hide behind polite niceties however based on your posts your bigitory is still alive and breathing within you. You seem to believe that your beliefs about blacks are facts which they not and I'm sorry, I don't consider spending time trying to correct your lack of knowledge of blacks time worthy.
Pearl, you have a lot more patience than I do. I ignored this fool a long time ago because most of his rants are just that -- rants. He's an unabashed white supremacist with no credibility at all. That laundry list of Right-Wing talking points gives him confidence that he has the upper-hand in the debate; in fact, it only proves that he's a fool that lacks critical thinking skills.
Preston, actually I was gritting my teeth trying to be polite. I feel pretty nasty when I read his posts but working hard not to go completely off on someone who will never change and is not worth my effort to educate.
How log ago Preston, did you start to ignore me? It seems to me that i have never debated with you before, but then again I could be wrong, a possibility that I am indeed capable of acknowledging.
And Pearlene, you must know that by disregarding my arguments you really do nothing except have the last word.
Since the word was so ignorant letting that steaming pile hang there stinking like the rotten crap it was can be seen as a fine tactic. Only ignorant racists would consider it a real argument or discussion instead of pure distilled ignorance and racism.
Your white Supremist trash is offensive and ignorant Fin. The Europeans conquered the Globe because after centuries of internicine warfare they excelled in VIOLENCE. When they came to America the Mayans were more advanced than them in medicine, astronony, agriculture, architecture and virtually every area EXCEPT violence and mettalurgy. India had industry that was at least on a par with Europe they produced as much iron as all of Europe. Britian bought warships from them their textile industry was more advanced than that of Eurpope. China invented the printing press a hundred years before Guttenburg. You are a bigot who knows nothing about history. Your racist dogma is without merit. Iron your sheets and take this crap to a Klan meeting.
You state the areas in which a certain peoples where greater the Europeans. What then, was the mighty accomplishment of the Africans that they also where overpowered by the Europeans? The African tribes are many, and they often war with one another, so then why after years of "internecine" violence did the Africans become not so proficient in killing as the Europeans? About the tribes of Central America, it is true that they where indeed superior to the Europeans in aspects of agriculture, astronomy, and medicine, but I would contest the statement that they where superior in architecture. They may have built monuments of a grand scale but they were still a primitive people, similar to the Egyptian civilization. Were not the Mayas replaced by the Aztecs and Incas by the time of European conquest? India was also a place of many squabbling tribes, and you say that India produced as much iron? Why do you think so? Because England brought industry to India. It was a place of untapped recourses, a rather large territory. They where weaving with looms until the British brought industrialization to India. The Chinese had a greater need of printing because of the nature of their language and alphabet. Your argument is weak and the history you provide is fallacious. your knowledge of history is nonspecific.
No my arguments arent weak, you just dont know what you are talking about. By what criteria were the Central Americans primitive? Cortez came from Spain with some of the most beautiful cities in Europe and said Tenochtitlan was the most beautiful city he had ever seen and he WEPT when they destroyed it. The FIRST Central American high culture was the Olmecs they were a BLACK people. They sailed the seas and built Central Americas first great cities. Monte Alban and Tres Zapotes. The African tribes didnt get as good at violence from their intenicine warfare because they werent as brutal and uncivilized. Warfare for them like the Central Americans was a huge battle where a few dozen warriors were killed and the rest taken hostage, they worked a while and were let go. Europeans just killed everything that moved and burnt the crops the people lived on. They just raised the bar of barbarism to unknown levels where ever they went. In the dark ages the best universities in the WORLD were not IN Europe they were in India and Arabian countries. The only reason we have ANY writings of Plato is when they were all burned by the Catholic church they survived in Arabic and were transcribed in Spain by the Jews under the Moors. Your racist tripe is based on you having NO understanding of real history. The Chinese language isnt even built on an alphabet its ideomatic. That is irrelevant, it is a language just like English. They didnt NEED a printing press anymore or less than Europe they just invented it first. Your white Supremist garbage is an embarassment to me as a white man. It may fly in your Klan meetings but not among knowlegable and decent people.
The only problem with this is that there's still inherent racism today, and a lot of it. If you've ever read the book Freakonomics you read about how someone with a "black-sounding name" with equal qualifications will be passed over more often than not for someone who has a "white-sounding name." That's what Affirmative Action corrects, the inherent racism in the system. Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of the law, but not anytime soon.
so it is o.k for the person who is most qualified for the job to be passed over because of his skin color?
No, it's not. Why do you think Affirmative Action was instituted? That's what was happening all the time.
That being said, is it an injustice for a white person to be passed over when he may be the absolutely best qualified person?
Before you light into me on my "racism" let me tell you that I form these opinions from experience. As a "mostly" native American (Lakota, Upper Brule) I am living proof of the fact that affirmative action is not needed any longer. I have never took it, instead, I worked hard and became the best qualified person. The odds are against minorities.....so. Work harder, it can be done. There comes a time when self realization becomes a neccessity and you have to realize that your own individualism is what will get you through, not gifts from Uncle Sam.
Chris, this is why I find it frustrating talking about race with you because most of the time your arguments are not that different than many conservatives. In fact, you can google many transcripts of "The O’Reilly Factor" where he says the same thing: Affirmative Action isn’t necessary; blacks need to work harder and stop looking for handouts! You tend to have this attitude – like many conservatives – that blacks are looking for sympathy and handouts from the government because they lack “personal responsibility” to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. If you know anything about blacks and our history it’s that we have always pushed ourselves to fight against the odds, even when the entire system – Congress, Supreme Court, President – were rigged against us. Where do you think this will-power to march and fight for equal rights using civil-disobedience came from? We didn’t have guns and battle tanks for our defense, only our spirit to believe that America can become the righteous nation to look at ALL humans as equal. What gives you the impression that many haven’t worked hard but still can’t make it based on the barriers that blocks them from getting in? What gives you the impression that the whole talk of “self-reliance” and “personal responsibility” isn’t a creed we believe, a message that many devout blacks hear in church every Sunday?
Using the example of being Native-American that achieved success without government assistance isn’t enough to prove your case. If I remember correctly you did say you’re white also, correct? You don’t seem to understand how race – and particularly the “one-drop rule” – operates in this country. You have every right to be proud of your Native-American ancestry and self-identify yourself as a Native-American. However, you being part-Indian does not erase the fact you are also part-white, and in America, if you LOOK white, with no trace of black blood in your body, then that’s how you’re treated: as a white man with privilege. There are many WASPs in this country that have Native-American blood running through their veins, yet they’re still white and treated as such. You can be mixed with any race or ethnicity, but when you’re mixed with black, and it shows that you’re part black, then you’re placed into a caste system with others who are black. Furthermore, Native-Americans and African-Americans carry different stereotypes and baggage. Today, Native-Americans are not stereotyped as being lazy, uncultured, uneducated, government-dependant victicrats. You don’t hear of Right-Wing think-tanks bankrolling pseudo-scientists like Charles Murray to prove the genetic inferiority of Native-Americans. (And that could be because Native-Americans aren’t in the mainstream as much as blacks.) Nor has Native-Americans’ “pathology” been used as an example as to why many of them live in poverty compared to other immigrants who arrive here and succeed. Thus, your comparison doesn’t really hold under close scrutiny.
In closing, truly selfish people don't understand or feel empathy. And true empathy can't be and isn't self-interested. If the emotional reward for helping others directly stems from emotional concern for others ("I can't stand to see others suffer"), then that's not something based in self-interest but in a morality connected to other human beings. The fundamental question for any adult human being would then be "Why can't I stand it to see others suffer?" If people are unwilling to grapple with the moral consequences of that emotional response and instead dismiss it as "guilt," then it will not be possible for them to directly influence and benefit the lives of individual sufferers without alienating them, insulting them, or patronizing them. The answer is a self-denying, anti-materialistic carryover of Christian morality in the back of their head.Finally, truly selfish people don't understand or feel empathy. And true empathy can't be and isn't self-interested. If the emotional reward for helping others directly stems from emotional concern for others ("I can't stand to see others suffer"), then that's not something based in self-interest but in a morality connected to other human beings. The fundamental question for any adult human being would then be "Why can't I stand it to see others suffer?" If people are unwilling to grapple with the moral consequences of that emotional response and instead dismiss it as "guilt," then it will not be possible for them to directly influence and benefit the lives of individual sufferers without alienating them, insulting them, or patronizing them. The answer is a self-denying, anti-materialistic carryover of Christian morality in the back of their head.
I don't look white Preston. Your race had it ten times better than mine. One has to assimilate to succeed in society. That is a fact. Oe can't sit around and complain about how the odds are against you. It makes no sense. IN a perfect world we would all adopt your solution, but frankly I don't see many solutions only, who,what and why has caused your race to not be treated fairly. My suggestion is accept the reality fo the world and overcome the adversity given. Life ain't easy. Spending ones time explaining how the white european has kept your people down really does nothing. Time would be better spent explaining how to overcome the odds. There is no substitue to personal experience. Every American has the chance to become educated and succeed. It' harder for some, but that is life. there is a valuable component to the personal responsibility viewpoint. Show me one person who lacks personal responsibility and has become succesful and contributing citizen.
Chris, you’re being quite smug and self-righteous again, so I’m going to end by saying this: Ignorance is what leads people to avoid real discussions about racism; ignorance is what leads people to downplay history, giving them the desensitized mentality to repeat it. If you think my goal is to lecture white people into feeling guilty about “how they kept my people down,” then you got me all wrong. As I often repeated many times before to you, this generation has been historically conditioned by history. White people, just like Black people, and Asian people, and Native-Americans, Latinos, etc. are really just victims of history itself. Many of us are not even consciously aware that we are conditioned, and we are not even consciously aware that we could be racist for that matter. The generation today is not to feel guilty of the past, but to be aware of it. We had nothing to do with the past, but we must make sure that we NOT to become ignorant of it. If we become ignorant and self-righteous, then we become defensive and illogical Choosing to be ignorant of the past will only lead to the path of racism and cold-heartedness towards other races. That’s the point I’m making. But if you want to simply brush it off and say that I’m “lecturing” people and I should only focus on how a few – like Oprah Winfrey, for example -- overcame the odds rather than focusing on the REALITY that many in the ghetto face day-after-day – so be it. I’ll remember next time to not spark dialogue with you again if you’re going go have such a condescending, dismissive, I-don’t-wanna-hear-it attitude like that.
I don’t dispute the fact that the Native-Americans had it worse than anyone else -- even worse than black people. However, there are many Native-Americans that still live in poverty in certain Reservations, and it’s not because of their lack of “personal responsibility” that placed them there. As scholar Tim Wise once said, “In other words, whites too often use "personal responsibility" as a bludgeon against others, when we no longer want to deal with the crap we put out there, whether its discrimination in lending by white banks, racial profiling by cops, or moving away from a neighborhood when too many of "those" people move in.”You often quote Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech and hold it as a shining example of America progress. Therefore, in closing, I’m going to quote something from one of my heroes, sociologist Stephen Steinberg, that kind of touch on the “false optimism” he often writes about in his book: “Martin Luther King struck the right balance between optimism and pessimism in his famous I Have a Dream oration. On the one hand, he held forth the vision of a world where “children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But King was no cockeyed optimist: he knew the difference between inspiring dream and brute reality. In the same speech, he also said: “There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” Note that this latter passage is not the one that is replayed endlessly on the King holiday. It is much easier for white America to celebrate King for his dream of a future utopia than to deal with his uncompromising resolve to tear down the barriers that prevent us from realizing that dream. The nation commemorates King’s death, but forgets that he was killed, not for his dream, but for his fearless challenge to the racial status quo.”
For some reason my second paragraph converted into those small fonts, so here it goes:
I don’t dispute the fact that the Native-Americans had it worse than anyone else -- even worse than black people. However, there are many Native-Americans that still live in poverty in certain Reservations, and it’s not because of their lack of “personal responsibility” that placed them there. As scholar Tim Wise once said, “In other words, whites too often use "personal responsibility" as a bludgeon against others, when we no longer want to deal with the crap we put out there, whether its discrimination in lending by white banks, racial profiling by cops, or moving away from a neighborhood when too many of "those" people move in.”
That wasn't my intention at all Preston. If that is the perception you got then I apologize. I just flatly disagree with you. Just because someone has a vibrant disagreement with you does not mean they are smug and self rightous. I take umbrage to the fact that you call me ignorant because I don't see this as you do. That is rather simplistic and I expect more from you. If you are comfortable with that tone then so be it.
I can't help but to think that if a young child of color read your previous posting in which you compared me to O'Reilly he/she would be left with a sense of self worthlessness. There is in fact numerous examples which validate my view on this. I say this with all due respect, but the pity party has to end in order for real change to occur. The "history" you put forth is only opinion based on historical information. How do we end racism? We become one society, not a society split by labels and color. children of color need ot understand that they do in fact have odds against them because of their color. They need to realize that to overcome that a large majority of the workload is upon them, not everyone else. People don't change their minds about a person until their actions prove them worthy. Let us take a hypopthetical. Let's assume that all the black children in this current generation under the age of ten, magically had a stable home and parents who valued education and hard work. Let us further assume that these children all grew up, assimilated, worked, and became productive citizens. Then their children did the same. How do you think future generations would see black americans if this occurred? Would perception be changed? Of course it would. Stereotypes which fuel racism would be a thing of the past. Instead of Preston the black guy who lives next door, it would be Preston the guy who works at At&t lives next door. I just have a firm belief that the approach of changing peoples minds about race through incessant use of victimization does not work. Telling people that they are racist and but they don't even know it and can't help it because of history is defeatist in my opinion. I think we would do better by telling minorities that that they can succeed and showing them is a better approach. Do you know one person who is successful and has overcome adversity without personal responsibility?
I apologize then if I took your message the wrong way. It just came off kind of cold and dismissive to me. It sort of reminded me of when conservatives put their fingers in their ears and say, “I don’t want to hear it! I’m tired of hearing the pity-party. You have a chip on your shoulder. You suffer from victimhood complex. Learn some personal responsibility; stop looking for handouts from the government and things will work itself through! This is America, a land where there’s opportunity for everyone! ” As a black man raised in poverty and knows the complexity of such issues – outside of academia, remind you – it’s not so easy to sum-up like that. I get very defensive with that type of talk because black people have always believed in self-empowerment. That’s one of the hallmarks in the black church: to uplift and give those who are powerless a sense of humanity and self-worth that they don’t get from the mainstream. Black people have always been critical of their own out of love and respect. So the problem isn't personal-responsibility in the black community.
I know that socially you tend to lean more conservative and on foreign policy you lean to the left. That’s why I say your talking points aren’t that different from a Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. This is not to insult you in anyway, I’m just being honest and telling you that your tough-love-get-it-together-you-lazy-bastard message does not empower and inspire those that are often misunderstood, powerless, confused – those who are wrote off as unreachable. This was the problem I had with Bill Cosby: not so much his message, but the way he said it. If you want to talk about what beats down a person’s self-esteem, judging and mocking their “culture” and their “behavior” as something inferior – rather than taking the time to neuter and understand them – is not the way to do it. I’ve seen this method failed before my very eyes too many times and it doesn’t work. Had I not been lucky to have a strong mother – someone who worked three jobs to take care of me and my brother – and a few teachers at my school and professors at my college who believed in me, who knows where I would be now; neither of them degrade me by saying I’m “playing the victim” or “have a chip on my shoulder.” You’re a Vietnam veteran and perhaps that’s the foundation of your “get-it-together” message rather than a conservative viewpoint. I just know that methods such as that appear very condescending, degrading and exclusionary to those from a different background. As far as personal responsibility goes, of course that’s important, and you’re exactly right – personal responsibility have many viewpoints. That’s why Tim Wise is correct when he says that “personal responsibility is a two-way street.” Sure hard work is required to succeed, but blacks shouldn’t have to work harder than whites just because of their race -- as if your race is a stigma. Life isn’t fair, sure, but saying that is a weak copout; it doesn’t take too much effort to level the playing field. Black people have been in this country since the 1600s, and for two-hundred years we helped build this great nation; therefore, if we can’t at least get the same equal treatment as whites, while working with the same capacity, then yes, black people should speak out against this for it is an injustice. Furthermore, there are many people in this country that became successful without working as hard as the next person. Are you saying it was solely personal responsibility that put George W. Bush into office? As for assimilating, assimilate into what, exactly? Define that for me. All I’m saying is that “personally responsibility” is not enough. It takes connections with powerful and influential people to move to the top. Sometimes its just pure luck being at the right place at the right time. Sometimes it takes nepotism and manipulation. But to insist the problem with the working-poor is laziness and lack of personal-responsibility sells these people short. It ignores many factors -- such as social stratification -- the keeps them in poverty.I know that socially you tend to lean more conservative and on foreign policy you lean to the left. That’s why I say your talking points aren’t that different from a Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. This is not to insult you in anyway, I’m just being honest and telling you that your tough-love-get-it-together-you-lazy-bastard message does not empower and inspire those that are often misunderstood, powerless, confused – those who are wrote off as unreachable. This was the problem I had with Bill Cosby: not so much his message, but the way he said it. If you want to talk about what beats down a person’s self-esteem, judging and mocking their “culture” and their “behavior” as something inferior – rather than taking the time to neuter and understand them – is not the way to do it. I’ve seen this method failed before my very eyes too many times and it doesn’t work. Had I not been lucky to have a strong mother – someone who worked three jobs to take care of me and my brother – and a few teachers at my school and professors at my college who believed in me, who knows where I would be now; neither of them degrade me by saying I’m “playing the victim” or “have a chip on my shoulder.” You’re a Vietnam veteran and perhaps that’s the foundation of your “get-it-together” message rather than a conservative viewpoint. I just know that methods such as that appear very condescending, degrading and exclusionary to those from a different background. As far as personal responsibility goes, of course that’s important, and you’re exactly right – personal responsibility have many viewpoints. That’s why Tim Wise is correct when he says that “personal responsibility is a two-way street.” Sure hard work is required to succeed, but you shouldn’t have to work harder than whites just because of the color of your skin -- as if your race is a stigma. Life isn’t fair, sure, but that’s not an excuse, it’s a copout; it doesn’t take too much to effort to level the playing field. Black people have been in this country since the 1600s, and for 200 years we helped build this great nation; therefore, if we can’t at least get the same equal treatment as whites, while working with the same capacity, then yes, black people should speak out against this for it is an injustice. Furthermore, there are many people in this country that became successful without working as hard as the next person. Are you saying it was solely personal responsibility and merit that put George W. Bush into office? As for assimilating, assimilate into what, exactly? Define that for me. All I’m saying is that “personally responsibility” is not enough. It takes connections with powerful and influential people to move to the top. Sometimes its just pure luck being at the right place at the right time. Sometimes it takes nepotism and manipulation. But to insist the problem with the working-poor is laziness and lack of personal-responsibility sells these people short. It ignores many factors -- such as social stratification -- the keeps them in poverty.
See here is the thing. Afirmative action was never needed to help the exceptional. It was needed to even the playing field among the average. The top one percent isnt going to be effected no matter what you get 1550 on your SATs no one cares what skin color you have white or black you are going to get into your college. Is it ok that a better qualified applicant didnt get into Yale because Bush was a legacy? Why is it I never hear those who are against affirmative action rail against legacies? Is it that priveleges for the priveleged are fine but when you try to give advantages to the disadvantaged then the hysteria begins?
"Furthermore, it’s not special treatment when the government initiates certain institutions to consider an equally sufficient candidate that happens to be of a different race or gender."
That is the problem though, the candidates are too often NOT equal. Let me give you a very good scenario: my father was a fireman in Cleveland, OH for over 25 years. During that time, he would apply for certain promotions. In order to do that, you would need to take a long written test in which a score would be given at the end, and the top scores SHOULD have gotten the job. Now, lets take the exact example that happened when he ran for Leutenant. My father, white, and 6 other white men, as well as 2 black men were voluntarily choosing to apply for the promotion and take the exam. There were two positions open. My father scored the highest at a 99% (he would later be Chief of cleveland) and got the promotion. Two white applications scored significantly higher than the highest scoring black applicant - I believe the scores were 94, 91, and 81. Well, according to affirmative action - who do you think go the job? Yes, the black fireman who scored an 81. Now you can defend all you want to, but there is no way in hell, that anyone here in their right mind is going to say this is right. A firemans job is to save lives. Something my father did very passionately and seriously. You do not give a promotion in a life saving job to someone less qualified, point blank.
Now, i know where you are going with the inequality thing. But lets be real - there is always - ALWAYS - going to be some sort of racism, sexism, etc in the world. You cannot stop it by passing bills, or lecturing somone....and you certainly cannot do it by making laws like affirmative action. All that does is making the situation worse.
Unless I see a law somewhere that says "a white man can do...xxxxx", but "a black man can do...xxxxx" or any other race/sex, then I dont want to hear about.
I should have rephrased my last paragraph. What I am meaning is that unless i read laws that specifically state what blacks, whites, or any other skin color are allowed to do that others cannot...the there is no racism in our goverment or laws - only in peoples minds. You can change laws, but you cannot and do not have the right, to make someone think differently.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
You can't make a person change there opinion but if they choose to be a part of society which is govern by laws then they have to obey the LAW, period. NO ONE is exempt from following the law, no matter what you think or feel.
No, but racism isn't that obvious. Remember the Jena 6?
Boys brutally harassed the town of Jena, Louisiana. A white kid beats up a black kid, it's simple assault. A black kid beats up a white kid, and they're charged with attempted murder. A black kid kicks a white kid with a shoe on, it's aggrivated assault, with a tennis shoe being "A dangerous weapon."
A black kid wrestles a firearm away from a white kid who was pointing it at him: Theft of a firearm and Robbery.
That's just from one case in Jena, Louisiana.
I think the government was right to initiate equal opportunity initiatives, perhaps the more fair discussion should be around how long should said programs last?
That was HARDLY an equal opportunity law. That was reverse descrimination - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Well, let's put it this way then. Slavery ends in 1865, but it takes 100 years for the country to stop treating them like 2nd class citizens with seperate drinking fountains and bus seats in the back of the bus. 40 years later, and we are still seeing racism and job discrimination against the minorities, crappy school systems (some deliberately so) and etc. etc. So, how long do you feel it should take to completely put an end to these practices and how should they do it?
50 years?
100 years?
Considering the 150 year span between the end of the civil war and today, don't you think they have a right to expect to see changes in their lifetime?
That was reverse descrimination - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
No, it wasn't. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
So he became Chief and this some how proves your point?
It proves my point that the other men who were more qualifed for the second position were not given the job. If you cannot understnad that, then you are either very stupid, or very ignorant. In fact, if its the second one - i hope you get trapped in your home when its on fire and you call a fire department with unqualified management personnel.
Yeah, it proves your point in your mind. But for anyone else it doesn't prove a thing as it is anecdotal and missing pertinent information. All I can say is I won't ever be in the situation you mentioned cause my home is built with entirely flame retardant material and can't burn! ;)
You are an idiot.
And Bush got into Yale when many more people better qualified were left out because he was a legacy. IF you cant see that you are very stupid and ignorant. There is still insitutionalized racism in this country if you cant see that you are very stupid and ignorant. I have a good job. One that a high school graduate can make 100,000 dollars a year at. Yet though blacks are about 18 % of the population they are about one percent of my job latinos in the southwest have GOT to be about 25 % of the population in the Southwest but make less than 10% of my job. Now the railroad hires plenty of black and latinos just not in my dept. One hispanic was told in 74 they wouldnt hire a Mexican to be an engineer. The job is easier to get if you have a relative in the industry and that is just racist momentum. I blame our Union to some extent but also the inherent racism of those MBAs the Railroad loves to hire into management and promote. This is STILL going on. By having affirmative action you put some blacks and hispanics in the position and they can get THEIR kids in eventually it may even out but without that first push it is going to REMAIN an exclusive club.
First, your whole story is pretty antidotal. I don’t know all the details that went on with your story, and each situation is different. For all I know those black UNEQUAL candidates may had other qualities outside their testing scores that gave them the job over the white candidates who scored higher. You just can’t assume that because the guys were black is why they were hired over the other firemen. Therefore, that does not really prove your case to me since I do not know all the details in that job’s hiring practices. I just think the arguments used against Affirmative Action are pretty simplistic, like your example you gave to me. As far as testing, there are many factors as to why some may score higher and lower than others, but I do know I’ve seen many occasions where people score higher on a test than some and were completely incompetent in their field, whereas those who scored less proved to be less so. Test scores is not the final say on how well a person will perform at their job. There are some people who are masters at taking tests but when thrown into a situation—the real world—to prove their worth they fumble. Not to say this is always the case, but scoring a high test score is not the final say.
Second, your whole attitude on “there will always be some sort of racism, sexism, etc, in the world...I don’t want to hear is” is precisely what I’m talking about why Affirmative Action is needed. Instead of creating solutions to the problem, you shrug and say, “Meh. There will always be inequality in some forms, you can’t enforce people to change their attitudes.” Sorry, but in a country that pounds its chest all the time, declaring it’s the greatest country in the world, the longest living democracy in the world, we owe it to ourselves to live up to the image we put forth. America will never become the great nation it strives to be when you ignore the problems that effects those that are powerless, and think it will simply go away. It’s this type of attitude that Affirmative Action is designed to attack because this lack of empathy is what keeps minorities and women from being hired in the job market. So, no, I’m not just going to settle for less and say there will always be problems so we just have to live with it and not fight to change. With that type of attitude there would still be segregation and Jim Crow laws in effect today had it not been for those courageous blacks in the Civil Rights Movement who marched and fought to push America in eradicating its social ills and examine its blatant contradictions.
Finally, you’ll never see an ostentatious law TODAY that states a white man can do this but a blacks and women cannot (then again, we still have pseudo-scientists and journalists pushing the theory that blacks are genetically inferior to whites based on test scores), but the point I’m making is that the foundation of this country was built on the notion that it’s a white man’s nation and the others here are simply guests. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote the Declaration of Independence, yet he was a slave holder, and thought of blacks as genetically and culturally inferior. This belief of blacks is in the DNA of America, and by ignoring it or not talking about this is not going to solve anything. THAT will just make things worse.
Anecdotal! Uh, sorry about that and the other grammatical errors.
Darn it! I was trying to come up with a pun for that, but you got to it first. =)
Ha! I figured someone would point that out and make a joke about it, so I quickly jumped to the rescue to correct myself. :)
If you are white I bet your father and/or his parents had no problem buying a house where ever they wanted to.
I bet the black guy's parent's and/or grandparents were not able to. I bought a house that was built in the late 40's and in the deed it specifically stated that the house could NOT be sold to black people.
White people have benefitted from "affirmative action" for hundreds of years. If a few "more qualified" people get overlooked as a payback to hundreds of years of oppression inflicted on black people by white people, I'm ok with that. Maybe as some point it won't be necessary anymore.
I love how conservative's always say "Life isn't fair" blah, blah, blah, but get into such a tizzy over affirmative action.
Life isn't fair, and the "most qualified" person doesn't always get the job - with or without affirmative action. So what.
Now you can defend all you want to, but there is no way in hell, that anyone here in their right mind is going to say this is right. A firemans job is to save lives. Something my father did very passionately and seriously. You do not give a promotion in a life saving job to someone less qualified, point blank.
How do you think Junior got into Yale? I sure as hell wasn't his grades yet you don't seem to have a problem with that. The system that allows children of wealth and privilege to move ahead based on who their family is not on their abilities. And speaking of a life saving job..... I'd say being President is a pretty damn important job!
How does any of that have to do with affirmative action in the job market? it doesnt.
Special Treatment - like Affirmative Action. Something in which one race/gender receives a benefit that one does not
Yes it does. Legacies are affirmative action for rich stupid white kids like Bush. He couldnt even GET into the University of Texas his first choice.
Good points. Which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican in today's Republican party. Some in their party are far too concerned with demonizing gays to placate their right wing homophobic base, and I find that reprehensible.
If and when they return to small limited government and out of the bedroom issues, I would consider becoming a member - until then, never.
regardless your view on the question, which I find completely relevant, CNN did a crappy job researching the people
There is a proverb that goes "If it's the truth, what does it matter who said it?" You agree that it's a relevant question but still suggest CNN did a "crappy job" by allowing him to ask it? What should have been the requirements for asking a question?
Note in answering that your alternative of sending someone else out would not have worked - it was the fact that he was a retired general that was the hook that got him picked out of other YouTube entries.
The problem is not that he was a general or even that he was gay - all that did was give background to why he felt the question was relevant. What the problem is, is that democratic party campaigners are supposed to stay out of republican debates, and vice versa. This is not a new issue my friend, and everyone knows exactly what the issue is. Don't make like its a blowover because you favor one group over the other.
The question was relevant, the person was not.
As Jane Fleming Kleeb said, “The last time I checked, we’re a democracy. I’m a Democrat. If I want to vote for a Republican, I can. And I’m allowed to ask Republicans questions.”
Perfect rebuttal!
Now, work on being scathing, to complete the package.
Weiner is a sick man, amazing the repugs wouldn't denounce this clown every day.
Do you think it's possible that Michael Weiner has recognized latent homosexual tendencies in himself? Maybe that would explain the hatred he spews toward gays......
This question gets brought up alot around here. I don't know, maybe Larry Craig could confirm this for us?
I do know that if I saw anyone hanging around that corner playground who looked anything like the picture shown, I'd be rounding up the childeren!
PJ,
I don't know if you realize it or not, but your slam against Savage has lots of irony in it.
Apparently you are upset with Savage's denunciation of Kerr.
By postulating Savage as a homosexual and then creating a school yard scenario and the need to guard your children, it seems to me that you are making a reference to child molestation by homosexuals. If that is the case, you have also implicated Kerr, whom we all know is homosexual.
After all, if you think one needs to protect children against a suspected homosexual, what do you do with a self-outed one?
Now, I do not agree with you or your characterization of Savage (even though I don't care for him, ) or by implication, Gen. Kerr. I just find it ironic that you smear one man as a suspected homosexual in defense of another who is an admitted homosexual.
"it seems to me that you are making a reference to child molestation by homosexuals"
Nope. That was never suggested. You are projecting your own bigoted beliefs onto others' comments.
Gen. Kerr served our country honorably. Little Weiner did not. There is a big difference there about who deserves our respect.
Kerr is a proud, openly gay man. Weiner is a closeted gay homophobe. HUGE difference there.
It's OK to attack little Weiner for being a bigot and a homophobe, and it will be even sweeter when he comes out of the closet.
In summary: There is nothing with about being homosexual. There IS something wrong with being a hypocrite and a bigot.
QED
ANOTHERAMERICAN: I don't know if you realize it or not, but I didn't postulate Savage as a homosexual. I merely responded to someone who did - and commented that it is a common assumption at this website. Maybe I shouldn't have started my response with my "color commentary" - I must be watching too much Faux News.
The thought of linking homosexuals to child molestors would have NEVER crossed my mind - however your attempting to do so, only proves the ignorance in the mindset of folks of your ilk and how they like to propogate false stereotypes.
I'll stand by what I said about Savage looking like the typical perv in that picture - and I'm sure most of your neocon friends (if they didn't already know who he was) would think the same, and react in the same way I suggested.
It is the way that your Weinner buddy characterized a respected U.S. military officer as an "old queen" that had me upset enough to respond. That is why it is the part I quoted. I guess you don't know the definition of a "queen" either, or you would have "got" my post. Again, Gen. Kerr is no queen.
To be fair, I picked up the same "homosexual = child molester" vibe from your original post. Apparently, you ran what you considered two separate thoughts together; but I can see where AA got the idea that you were equating the two.
Though I will say that I'm not comfortable with the equating of "smear = calling someone gay", as AA suggested.
We've seen it too often: person A virulently attacks gay people to garner more attention, then person A is outed as gay. That's why some people propose that Wiener must be a self-loathing gay person.
It's not a "smear" to suggest that someone is gay, however, any more than it is to suggest someone is Caucasian, African American, or whatever.
This man is the most hateful person on radio, why he has advertisers is beyond me. I have done my civic duty in the area I live in , this hater is on WOR radio in NY, I have written to WOR months ago asking them to please take this man off the air, I would hope a national movement can begin where advertisers of the stations that carry him regardless of the program are targeted. Savages hates Gays and his latest smear against a man who served our country is disgusting.
What a shame - WOR, the station built on "Rambling with Gambling," is being destroyed by Michael "Itty-Bitty" Weiner.
Your mistake was in writing to the radio station.
I learned a long time ago that radio stations pretty much count the number of times you mention a host's name, and the more times a host is mentioned, the better he does next time his contract is up for renewal. Of course they're interested in what you have to say about why you listen, but all they know is, you're listening.
If you want action, you write to the advertisers.
Savage can't stand anything, can he? Lucky for him FOX thinks he's an upstanding individual.
I'm sick of it! I'm sick of the whole country, it's like Rome! It's melting down like Rome! - The Savage Weiner
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you're so sick of the whole country, why don't you take your sorry a$$ elsewhere, Savage. This country isn't melting down. It has it's problems. However, a true patriot wouldn't say he's "sick of the whole country". A true patriot would do something about it - other than rant and rave from behind a microphone. He's just another douchebag who mischaracterizes others in order to promote himself. Classy, Michael. Real classy.
commonsense, If you paid attention to anything, you would know Savage is doing something about it. He filed a lawsuit against CAIR and its radical muslim agenda. Hopefully MMFA gets pulled into this lawsuit for providing the copyrighted audio clips to CAIR. Savage is proctecting his and other's free speech with this lawsuit.
Additionally, if he has any money left over from donations to his defense fund when the lawsuit is settled, he plans on creating a conservative lawyer's group to counter the radical left wing agenda of the ACLU.
Oh, and the fact that Savage reaches millions of people each day, telling the news like it is meant to be -- raw and uncut, with no regard for who might be offended by the facts.
Savage suing CAIR is hardly "doing something about it." Get a grip.
I plan to make a million bucks by December 31. I plan to donate half of that to liberal lawyers who will fight against the conservative/republican lies, cheats and denigration of this country.
See - anybody can say it. It's actually doing it that matters. We haven't seen anything from Savage other than racism, xenophobia, homophobia and lies.
Again, if Savage is so sick of our country, maybe he should consider living elsewhere. I'm sure that suing a non-profit is going to do a lot.
Well, perhaps you need to read up on CAIR and how dangerous they are, and how the FBI has described them as a turnstile for terror suspects. The higher-ups in CAIR support an Islamic state in the US. These people are a danger to both conservatives and liberals. Go to Savage's website and read the lawsuit. You don't have to agree at all with his views on anything to see that his lawsuit is good for America.
I doubt that. I am not going to the Weinerdogs website the man is insane. Nothing he says can be taken seriously. IF CAIR is a terrorist problem the FBI can take care of them. They have a right to ADVOCATE anything they want including an Islamic state though I doubt they do. YOUR obsession with CAIR is uninteresting.
Micheal Savage has no free speech rights to a radio gig. Nor to a national audience. I dont know how anyone could be dumb enough to pretend he did. He has no special rights. His free speech rights extend to what he says in public they do NOT extend to being exempt from the CONSEQUENCES of what he says. If I say something that makes my employer look bad I can be fired and the same goes for the Weinerdog. CAIR has free speech rights to say whatever they want to his advertisers. His lawsuit will go nowhere. As to the ACLU, I know you rightwingers just have a pavlovian response whenever they are brought up but they are standing up for the Bill of Rights. IF the Weinerdog had a lawsuit about freedom of speech that had any merit they would help him just like they did Limbaugh. Your post was just a rant that made no sense like most of what you post.
Why does Weiner hate the troops? He should move away from this country, along with all of the other America haters.
Excellent. :-)
"Phony" general?
The savage Weiner is suing CAIR for using his own words to condemn him.
Now Weiner is calling a general "phony?"
Prepare to get YOUR butt sued, Weiner! (Possibly)
And how much service did YOU give your country? Easy answer: None.
I doubt he will get sued. Most of America's service men and woman have both class and decency.
Speaking of class...
" But the shame here, really, is that the Republicrats didn't boo the guy out."
Even "Republicrats" can show some class toward someone who served their country.
Support the troops!
Support the troops!!
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!
Unless they're gay.
Dan D.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!
SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!
Unless they're gay...
or Muslim...
or Hispanic...
or non-Christian...
or liberal...
or oppose the war...
um....
SUPPORT MOST OF THE TROOPS!!!
The rest can go to hell...
but if they're Latino, Gay porn-stars who've swallowed the neo-con koolaid, then its OK
Isn't it interesting how these right wing talk show hosts incessantly rationalize their ego trips by saying they are speaking out for the people, they are doing what they do for us. Beyond that, I also find it very interesting how Savage finds it o.k. to attack others service when he ran like a little schoolgirl when it was his turn. I'll tell you what I'm sick of....I'm sick of these "patriots" who lust for war and expound the virtues of military service and none of them, I mean none of them, know which end of the gun the round comes out of. These guys and especially Savage are sickening and rotten to the core.
Is "Weiner" pronounced "ween-er" or "whine-er" ? Either one works, I guess. This guy's a scumbag. Phony general. I love it. And this guy won't even have the minuscule amount decency/sense that Limbaugh had to at least TRY a back off it (claim out of context, whatever) this guy'll stand by his bigotted filth, and be pround of it. "Christians" like these make me really want to believe in Hell.
Most repugs in the political and talk radio spotlight have never served their country, they have the one repug characteristic COWARDICE.
Every time Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter or any of the smarmy MSM punditocracy utters the words "loony lefties", I think of Michael Weiner and his hate-filled, demented savagery. And then I think of the plague-on-both-your-houses mentality which likes to claim that there is just as much ugly politicking "on the left as on the right". And then I wonder what alternative universe those folks inhabit.
And then I really wonder about the advertisers who pay to put on the air a man whose sole shtick consists of revealing to the world how hateful and insane he is.
And finally, I wonder about the audience who listen to him...
We live in interesting times ~
I don't care about this old queen, frankly. He disgusts me to make -- my flesh crawls from the old queen. That was a general? Now you wonder why we're still in Iraq five years later.
The guy's a total idiot. I guess he never heard about the dozens of gay linguists booted from the Army since the war started? Now which might be more the reason we're still in Irag 5 years later?
And Weiner needs a dictionary. If he needs an acurate resmblance of someone sounding like an "old queen", all he needs do is watch a video of Dick Morris.
Savage spoke for about 5 straight minutes or more on this topic....what a pathetic headline.
Yeah, THAT is the problem here - that MMFA reports it.
Copius,
Cherry picking the most inflammatory word(s) is standard fare for MMFA, but in this case Savage deserves the skewing he is getting. Can he be anymore disrespectful, "old queen"? Come on, why must he use such language in discussing any topic....it invalidates any argument he intends to make.
He ought to apologize.
It's just like war intel, cherry-picking is what makes or breaks your case. ;-)
Absolutely, rotten cherries in both baskets.
Copious - for once I agree with you. It is pathetic what Savage said. Thanks for your support of MMFA!
CD,
Since this bothers you so much, feel free to place links to all of the "anti-American" soundbites you often accuse liberals of making that last LONGER than 5 minutes. Is it fair to say that if the soundbite of what you would call "America hating" is shorter that you would be "pathetic?"
That is my challenge to you, but since you seem to be a hit and run poster, I doubt it will be taken.
Friedbergboy, my first reading of that was that it was only 5 minutes, but on re-reading "5 straight minutes or more", I think this is spinning in the other direction, that the headline was cherry-picked from an otherwise intelligent discussion by weener.
I know, sometimes it's pretty tough to even figure out which angle the wingnuts are attempting with their whining.
HBL,
Fair enough, I would still like to see him accept the challenge :).
What a worhtless and pathetic poster you are. Will you EVER make a point worth reading?
So the Savage Weiner wouldn't go up against Al Sharpton and Whoopi Goldberg? Jesus H. Christ, what a coward! And then he goes on about what he would've said to them! If those remarks were so devastating, why didn'tyou go and make them to their faces?
Because that's how these weasels operate. Safe in their immune boxes,in their radio studios, they can say anything they want, call anybody names,make any wild accusations, lie, lie, lie. But they never go out, because they've got nothing when it comes to dealing with somebody who fights back. They don't argue, they don't think on their feet, they never defend their positions. They all spout from safe places. They never mix it up. And why? Because they've been promised they don't have to.
I am sick of people whose position on one side of the microphone gives them freedom from responsibility. On that basis I dislike the Don Imuses and the Joe Kleins and the David Gregorys as much as the Rushes and Savages. The real danger to our society is less their opinions than their immunity.
Here's my humble proposal: in order for anybody to become a talking head on TV or a pundit on the radio, they have to do five nights of stand-up at a brick wall comedy club. They don't have to be funny: they just have to handle an audience five feet from your face, and who have been drinking. And every two years they have to have their license renewed.
None of them would go. The old guard would: Novak would. Phyllis Schlafly would. but this generation ?Never.
Serious question. Does anyone know if Weiner stays at the same psych ward as Coulter-geist?
He either has not been taking his medication or perhaps he's taken too much. Either way, someone should alert his doctors.
Who listens to the radio during the day ?
The many millions of Americans who work in office buildings in offices or cubes. I for one listen to the radio all day.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
"Brig. Gen." Keith Kerr
Kerr is a total disgrace and a liar. First, he deceived his wife and kids and totally disgraced his family. Second, he lied during the debate by keeping his party affiliation and Clinton campaign connection in the "closet". Third, his "emotional" question was the most biased and stupid question ever asked at a debate.
Kerr is the perfect reason why we NEED the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. In fact, it might be the only thing that Bill C. (the impeached and disgraced ex-prez) ever did right during his lackluster two terms in office.
I'm not defending Savage - who went a little too far. But we don't have to pretend that Kerr is worthy of any kind of "respect".
Your link is bad.
FYI - I just copied the "general's" name from the topic summary at the top of the this page - the "link" was not intentional.
Truthy -
Just so we're clear on this...do you hate ALL American troops, or just the ones that serve our country honorably?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and assume that you've never served our country, honorably or otherwise.
Of course he didn't serve. He just loves to sit on the sidelines and wave his flag and pass judgement on those who at least had the courage to put on the uniform. the truth is that Kerr could probably kick his hiney.
From what I've read from our friend Truthy, Kerr's wife and kid's could probably kick his butt as well.
Truthy loves to pass judgement on people who've served, yet he's only a keyboard warrior.
Worrier - I did a quick check on General Kerr. I don't see anywhere that he is/was married and has kids.
Truthy - could you pony up some proof of that?
"the truth is that Kerr could probably kick his hiney."
Only after he tickles that hiney with a pink feather.
Maybe, but the fact remains that folks like Savage, Limbaugh, hannity, O'Reilly, Boortz, etc, etc. etc., and Justice, maybe YOU cheerlead war, wave flags, and you would with no doubt be the first to run and hide once the shooting starts. It' s pitiful and anyone who supports these jokers are just as pitiful
Only after he tickles that hiney with a pink feather.
That was intelligent. Got any more homophobic things to say? Wanna toss in some racism, too, just for laughs? And hey, I'm sure you can rattle off all sorts of "jokes" about "islamofacists" and probably even Catholics. Bring it! Show us what you got!
Oh right, I forgot when a conservative makes a joke it is homophobic, racist, hateful. If any of you liberals had made a little quip like that, you all would have been chuckling and patting each other on the back. Homophobic? Give me a break. Get a sense of humor.
That joke WAS homophobic and worse it was STUPID and not anywhere NEAR funny. Bigots always THINK they are funny but normally they arent.
With such a fair-minded question I'm astonished that CNN didn't pick you to ask the question during the Republican debate.
Sorry, JusticeTrollus, but you don't deserve the protection that these fine service men and women provide for all Americans. You'll receive it anyways, but you certainly don't deserve it.
"First, he deceived his wife and kids and totally disgraced his family."
I was able to piece together that link and it lead to Kerr's biography page at SLDN.
What I'm finding interesting is that in regard to his personal life, I can only find this bit of info on that page:
"The Rev. Dr. Alvin Gomer, Episcopal priest and licensed psychologist, was his partner of 26 years. Dr. Gomer died in 2000."
As of yet, I haven't been able to find anything that mentions the wife and kids that have captured your sympathy. I'm not dismissing it, I just can't verify it.
Also, I can't find any statements from any of his relatives that indicate they have been disgraced by Gen. Kerr.
What are your sources?
The link isn't the only thing that's bad. Truthy once again shows everyone his military "expertise".
What is it with you cons and the way you love to call an honorable man, "a disgrace".
I'll challenge that, I think the "Diamonds or Pearls"question was worse.
He lied during the debate? Show me where in the debate he was asked if he was a republican.
You do know what the meaning of lie is, right?
You do know what the meaning of lie is, right?
Clinton?
So I guess the answer is "no".
Though I'll bet he/she knows what a TROLL is...
You are a liar and a fool
Sounds like Larry Craig and Mark Foley
Truthy, considering the moronic spew you pull out of your lonely brain cell and lay on us almost daily, what makes you think that you deserve any respect?
Sure, that's all nice a sweet but what about his question?
You are a liar a fool and a troll and have yet to make a post the reading of which wasnt a total waste of life. You are clearly the most pathetic and worthless poster on this site. A waste of precious oxygen and an embarassment to Homo Sapiens everywhere. Go away and let the adults talk you pathetic waste of DNA.
Mr. Savage's sense of entitlement is mind boggleing. At least thats my take from the written clips. His, I'm not gonna go on CNN cause they probably won't let me be a total ass with my fellow guests rant, makes me glad I don't waste any time listening to him.
Weiner Savage should know who is a "gay, phony general" or not given his vast military experience serving under all those straight generals. The upshot is that we are a civil society and access to all rituals, branches and other parts of this society should be given without question and without regard to race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation and the like. If the Weiner Savage doesn't understand that he'd be a laugh riot with his views in Saudi Arabia.
You know what they say, takes one to know one...
Hitlery's plant Kerr is a phony general. It was an honorary bestowed on him after he retired with the rank of colonel.
People with honorary PhD's, if they have any integity at all, do not go around calling themselves doctors.
Honorary citizens of citizens, so proclaimed by mayors, do not go around calling themselves residents of those cities.
I've spoken with a number of current and former reservists. They all said that kerr is a piece of crap for claiming the Brigadier general title and say he is an embarrassment.
The whole thing is just another liberal lie. It's what they do. It's all they have
All instances that I've seen his rank mentioned on his behalf have all been accompanied by the acronym "CSMG", even MMFA clearly does so at the beginning of their article. That acronym stands for California State Military Guard, where he served after retiring from the Army and where he was promoted to brigadier general.
Is that all you have?
CORRECTION: That's CSMR (Reserve, not Guard).
So all your sources are the lying corruot MSM and the lying, corrupt MMFA?
You do realize how silly you look, don't you?
The liar Kerr achieved onky the rank of Lieutenant while on active duty...which only lasted a few years.
The rest of his career was in the California Army Reserve in which he only achieved the rank of colonel.
He received the phony Brigadier General rank after his retirement.
Lie...it's all the left does. it's all they have.
What is your source?
According to my source:
Kerr retired from active duty as a colonel in 1986.
He then served in the CSMR where he received a promotion to brigadier general.
And as I said, every time I see his rank mentioned with his name it is accompanied by the acronym CSMR, clearly labeling it as a California State Military Reserve rank, not a U.S. Army rank.
I don't see anything deceptive or fraudulent about that.
Based on what I've found THERE IS NO LIE.
So again, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE???
You are a liar and a fool. Like most wingnuts you lie constantly or are far to ignorant to EVER know what you are talking about. In the reality based universe you are wrong, and incredibly ignorant
So, did all those reservists you talk to know him personally? Served under him? Anything like that? No?
I didn't serve under Colonel Sanders either and I know he wasn't a real colonel.
Ah, so the answer is "no". You or your friends only know of him through scuttlebutt. The unthinking 1/3...
That's the same joke that JusticeTruthyWhatever used. Is that being put out there by Wiener? Or are these two the same guy?
My GOD you are stupid
You are a LIAR. He was a Brigadeer General in the Guard, you know those guys serving in Iraq RIGHT NOW? He is not a phony but YOU are a moron.
Kerr is a phony general. The titled was bestowed on him as an honorarafter he retired as a colonel.
He is a liar.
I like the director's cut even better.
Kerr retired from the Army as a colonel. MMFA, the Clinton Campaign and his biography at SLDN all clearly identify Kerr's rank of brigadier general as the rank he held while serving in California State Military Guard (CSMG).
There is no lie. Try again.
Correction: That's CSMR (Reserve, not Guard)
Well...if the Clinton campaign claims it's true...then it just has to be! :)
...just another example of the lying liars on the left telling their lying lies.
Disprove it then. Posters have been asking for your source all afternoon!
Your ignorance is beyond belief. Your stupidity is awe inspiring. I would not believe someone as stupid as you could actually use a keyboard. There is no lie here. I know as a rightwingnut you lie like you breathe but apparantly even with this level of experience you cannot recognize one when you see it. You are stupid. Too stupid to be taken seriously. Go back to your bridge where your ignorance will not embarass you so much you snivelling, worthless piece of garbage.
It wasnt honorary it was a rank in the reserves. You are ignorant beyond belief you lying moron.
If we take away the dont ask, dont tell policy, will there be thousands of gays lining up to enlist because they are now liberated from this "disciminatory" rule? I highly doubt it.
What purpose does it serve to know if someone you work with is gay or not? None, unless of course the gays start meeting up and forming reltionships with eachother within their units. Wouldn't that be great?
I'm not saying it would turn into a big sex party, but I cannot figure out a valid point that would prove that the removal of this policy will in any way help our military.
Then you, my friend, have not been paying attention.
More and more women are serving on combatant naval ships. The men on board are aware of their presence.
Would gays be more prone to 'sex partying' than men and women who serve together in close quarters if they were to become aware of each others presence?
Part of Kerr's point was that gays are often discharged not for conduct unbecoming, but because their sexual orientation simply became known.
John######, (assuming you're a heterosexual man) would it be ok with you if you were fired from your job for mentioning your wife?
Nice attempt to lead me on with that question. However, I'm not as stupid as the republican candidates. The point you are trying to make is irrelevant due to the fact that I do not have to eat, sleep, and shower with the people I work with.
Not a trick question, I just wanted to know how you would feel. Apparently, not OK with you.
If you did sleep, eat, and shower with your co-workers ( your guidelines), you'd rather their sexual orientation was a surprise to you. I think I've got it.
All he wants to know is, Is it wrong for you to let others know you're a heterosexual? If not, then why is it wrong for a gay person to let others know he or she is a homosexual?
Thanks, Marv. I sometimes post brief comments or questions that I think are so clear, simple and to-the-point, and am accused of trolling or,in this case, posing an unfair or leading question (more Republican whining).
I swear, it's nice when somebody else volunteers to spell it out.There are times that the hardcore rightys are so consistently confused by what I consider pretty straightforward comments-well, I almost start to question my own sanity.
Must be a product of the conservative media,of having those lies repeated and hammered into ones head for hours at a time until they make sense.straight-up logic is like a light beer to a rock bottom junkie.
Your question is pretty cut and dry; however I think your question is leading me to only 1 possible answer that bolsters your point of view. A person's sexuality in the workplace really is irrelevant. It would be best if people could never mention anything that would give away their sexuality, such as a wife. But this is nearly impossible, and yes, it is much more acceptable to mention your wife as opposed to your boyfriend for the following reason. Being heterosexual and mentioning your wife is normal, meaning, it does not go against anyone's religious beliefs or the vast majority of American's personal moral beliefs (in fewer words, I've never seen the heterosexual lifestyle frowned upon by any group). On the other hand, talking about your homosexual partner can be very distastful to people of nearly every kind of religious background, and based on the voting results from past state ballot initiatives, it is true to say that the majority of Americans reject homosexual behaivor. Therefore, even though you may not agree with dont ask dont tell, does it not make sense at the most basic level of understanding that homosexuality is offensive to more people than those who celebrate it as normal?
What purpose does it serve to know if someone you work with is gay or not? None, unless of course the gays start meeting up and forming reltionships with eachother within their units. Wouldn't that be great?
I love the presumption that this isn't already happening.
Why not let the gay person who wants to enlist sign up and do his duty. If he fails, he fails. If he succeeds, we all succeed. Where's the problem?
Oh, I know what the problem is. You're scared that if a gay guy looks at you, you'll get the urge to sleep with men. Is that it?
Thank you, thank you, thank you
The best way to get rid of bullies is to stop ignoring them and then to tell them to STOP. The right wing media and Neocons have perfected their "art". Media Matters calls out their lies. They'll only stop, though, when enough people are doing this.
thanks to MM for leading the way!!
So it's seems like every time I see Savages' picture up there, there's a quote where he's either calling someone gay or a gestapo agent. He's really rather uncreative.
And then I really wonder about the advertisers who pay to put on the air a man whose sole shtick consists of revealing to the world how hateful and insane he is. I don't think the advertisers really pay attention to the content of the shows on which they advertize. They basically look at estimates of viewership. It's about numbers. I really doubt that the advertizers are dropping him because a Muslim group has asked them to (which represents very few consumers as far as advertiser-thinking goes). They are dropping him AFTER learning about the content of his show because their legal advisors suggest he's too controversial. Soley the number of times he says the word "kill" (about any of the groups of people he hates) would be enough to make a CEO squirm. Then there are the people he says should "be taken out and hung!!!!" and then there are those he says "should be taken out and shot!!!!!" In general, the solution offered up on the Savage Nation to the problem of "undesirables" often involves killing them or some other dreadful fate. Which brings me to my next point.
And finally, I wonder about the audience who listen to him...
Have you ever listened to the comments made by the callers? That in itself is fodder for MMA on a slow misinformation day. There are actually people who think he is a "Prophet" http://www.jihadchat.com/index.php?showtopic=8054 I've even heard a couple of callers tell him he was a prophet. Savage has a cult-like following that is really creepy. When he goes on one of his "kill" rants I often wonder if one day we will open a newpaper to find some Savage Nation devotee has responded to the "calling" of his "prophet." Oh...... but then again, I supposed there is nothing to worry about since his lawsuit implies that his rants are art and not to be taken literally.
One thing I found interesting in Weinie's rant is the rank double standard. He wouldn't go on with Whoopi because they might cut off his microphone. At the same time, he slimes Anderson "Blooper," (a pun so brilliant I soiled my shorts) for NOT cutting off Gen. (CSMR) Kerr's mike. There is no place in a debate for "opposition." Silly me. I always thought opposition was the point of debate.
So, I get it. Authenticity and First Amendment rights accrue to Weinie and his acolytes, while those who have different opinions are phonies and should be silenced. Makes perfect sense. Lefty, if you're there, draw me slow pint.
Like anyone who looks like that picture should be calling someone an "old queen"...No offense to any old queens the world over. Savage, er..uh, Weiner is a joke!
One more comment - and this may relate more directly to the topic of Savage and gays, but has everyone checked out this site?
http://www.savagestupidity.com/
I read somewhere that Savage sued this guy too. So many critics, so little lawsuit money! I think it's low and cheap for Weiner to ask his listeners (seem like people who are not high on the food chain) to send him money when he's lives in a posh area of San Francisco and blabs on and on about his yacht and royalties from his book sales.
Oh, wonderfull. Another right-wing bigoted clone of Rush Limbaugh spewing his vile hate-filled crap on the radio. Why does anyone listing to this moron?
Someone calling another soldier phony.... I thought someone would 'learn' by now.. First it's because they don't agree with the war... now it's because they're 'gay' and have an agenda... as if those are bad things. But from everything he said.. the reason why he's not on the panel is because he can't reframe from personally attacking people
And appearantly gay solider isn't reality.. and that this issue isn't 'real' ... the guy feelings aren't real and his position isn't logical.. and appearantly republicans shouldn't address this issue.. which seems to be the backbone of their politics.
I think that's the real reason why Savage can't stand on his own.. because his value are in fact.. fantasy.. along with his fears. The playing field is obviously even.. He just can't deal with it.
I can't buy that he is a plant for this.... planting people for the GOP is pointless.. because they don't stand much of a chance to begin with. More than likely, the Gen. is.. or was a republican. And his question was very valid... what happened was that no one answered it. Their answer -- regardless if they said it directly or not -- was no. But no is a bad answer... so they tried to misdirect it to 'other' topics and avoiding the question. It shouldn't be surprising they readdress the issue.... they allow the question to go through in the first place.
I think Savage is pretty 'un' american... He dismisses political points and basically say he is reality.. It's not what's best for america he's after.. it's whats best for his views.. and when people question them.. he attacks.
I think Savage protests a little too much. I think Savage wants him some man lovin' but is too uptight to beg for it. Go ahead Savage, beg for the lovin', theres at least one person out there willing to oblige your dark secret...LOL you ass.
The Gay Colonel was real. The question was a planted question by the Democrats. They (CNN) flew him in and knew all along what was going on but didn't stop it.
YouTube debates are a joke. Get unbiased questioners with relative questions to the Country. Not Gays in the military. Kind of old news. And MMFA thinks this is newsworthy? And you want my money to continue your investigations into nothing. Not a chance.
Mikey Weiner = Fred Phelps
The homophobic UnAmerican Right Wing = the Westboro Baptist Church
"Moderate" right-wingers denounce the "extremist" rantings of Weiner & Phelps -- but agree with them, nonetheless. They just don't like bad PR.