Skip navigation

Advertisements

46 Comments

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    • Permalink

    Do ya think Disneyland will have an updated version of Mr. Toads wild ride? Whereas Mr. Toad will now be known as Sayyid Ahmed difdi’ al-jabal. Who learns of islam from his visits to london. And plows if explosive laden car into the House of Commons, screaming “Hello Fellows! and Allahu Akbar!”

    Its funny, until you realize that london is quickly becoming a hub for islamic terrorist training.

    Ref:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041094/
    http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyland/mr-toads-wild-ride/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1238843/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-To-eternal-shame-Britain-STILL-hub-Islamic-terror.html

    • Steve
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    • Permalink

    On a simpler note – [ as the story of the Wind and the Willows is a bit more complicated than grasping the fallacy of behavioral-based minority status, or word problems in basic algebra ]…

    …acceptance of a terrorist front group like CAIR, by public school teachers is becoming more common, and their anti-Semitic, destroy Israel agenda may soon be promoted and indoctrinated into our school children for the foreseeable future, unless someone has the backbone to stand up against them…
    Aren’t public employee [thug] unions great ?

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    • Permalink

    The Wind in the Willows has already been modified toward more socialist bent. The River Bankers (creatures who lived on the river bank) were even vilified in other books as “bankers;” fat-cat Financial District types.

  1. More strawmen. Nothing like this is actually happening anywhere.

    I was going to say that if you wanted something to be legitimately furious about, the de-emphasizing of the Holcaust in British schools out of fear of “offending” Muslims was at the top of my list. Problem is, it’s not true. It was a chain e-mail rumor. Even I fell for it, and I don’t ride the “Muslims Are Taking Over” train. Says something about how the lie will circle the globe three times before the truth can even finish fastening its tie. I had been taking this as more or less true for three years, until just ten minutes ago when I bothered to look it up.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_teaching_controversy_of_2007

    But Europe is a whole other can of worms anyway, as the population there has a higher percentage of the embittered, separatist-minded, jihad-justifying element. That problem doesn’t exist to anywhere near the same degree here, as Muslim immigrants to America are much more likely to smoothly assimilate, and hopefully we can keep it that way.

    Authorities buckling in abject cowardice to the demands of thugs and bullies is not something any of us are interested in seeing happen, especially not in our own country. But said demands are often played up and exaggerated by those who rely on division and xenophobia to butter their bread. It’s a lesson I thought I’d learned, but had to relearn again today.

    And Steve, if you’re going to accuse CAIR of being a front for a terrorists, you’d better be able to back that up with something substantial. Words are a lot more “expensive” than you seem to think they are….

    • geeknerd
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 5:14 pm
    • Permalink
    • Steve
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles… You (LOL) have a lot of ‘brass’ (aka hubris) to presume to lecture someone about how “expensive” the use of words are. What a joke !
    My words are chosen carefully – so go ahead a send me the bill, if you can…

    CAIR, as you are conveniently ignorant (again) of current events, — IS A TERRORIST front, they are a ‘PR’ front for Arab terrorists. That is a fact.
    Many conservative journalists, bloggers, etc… have documented this (well footnoted), repeatedly over the past few years…

    I guess you expect everyone to serve you on a platter every information convenience that suits you…
    If you (for once) take the initiative to go seek & learn for yourself, you might actually develop a new useful wrinkle in your brain.

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles-
    Really?
    I know the question was directed at Steve…. But come on.

    http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/fbi-cair-is-a-front-group-and.html

    I will check some more sources to make sure that the dallasnews is not front news organization for FoxNews…

    This is in relation to the HolyLand foundation. That had connections with CAIR. Furthermore, This is CAIR attempts at stifling negative press and or judgments. The Federal government pretty much told CAIR to pound sand.

    Overall link for the above.

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions

    “Estate of John P. O’Neill, Sr. et al. vs. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation, it is stated, “Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR Canada (collectively, CAIR), have aided, abetted, and materially sponsored al Qaeda and international terrorism…”
    Look, CAIR was created by HAMAS as a front or PR group. It has done quite well at this since.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=442_1234899394

    “if you’re going to accuse CAIR of being a front for a terrorists, you’d better be able to back that up with something substantial.”

    http://www.anti-cair-net.org/HLFJudgeSolisUnsealedRulingCAIRHamas.pdf

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/2340/federal-judge-agrees-cair-tied-to-hamas

    Then there’s the FBI who is struggling with the whole CAIR is connected to terror straw man thingy….
    http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/265.pdf
    Hope this helps your research….

    • Steve
    • Posted December 29, 2010 at 10:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Ikabod-
    Regarding that old expression (paraphrased), “…you give a man a fish and feed him for a day,… or teach him to fish and feed him for life…”

    If you keep giving him all your deluxe sources, the day may come where someone will give Marbles a can of night crawlers, a cane fishing pole rigged with a bobber, a sinker, and a new Eagle Claw hook – and he will swear it is a Sarah Palin made torture-drowning devise for earth worms.

    We need to help our young, city-boy libs grow up !

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 30, 2010 at 8:11 am
    • Permalink

    Hey Steve, did you hear Fox News is actually a terrorist front? Check it out!

    [ note: moonbat left-wing links are viewed by the moderator first… and likely are deleted – however, you are free to describe their assertions in your own words ]

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 30, 2010 at 9:28 am
    • Permalink

    Marbles is pretty savy with this. I’m sure he has a counter to my posting.

    • Steve
    • Posted December 30, 2010 at 10:05 am
    • Permalink

    Cobainfan – Wow!… how very impressive!…it looks like you put a whole lot of serious thought into that in-depth comment (LOL).

    The jealousy you libs have about how Fox’s ratings has been kicking the ass of your favorite bed-wetting networks, for many years – is so very predictable !
    Your side of the media (news, talk radio) are such LOSERS-!!… and sore losers, at that!

    You cannot accept what the free & open market likes, can you?

    CAIR is, what they are – a media & well-lawyer’d -up front office for the Arab terrorists.
    Those facts really do bother you… sorry, life can be that way.

    How about you and Marbles do this; go gather up all the thousands of your “gay” friends, and book a vacation in the land from where your CAIR friends comes from ?
    You two like to defend these two causes & cultures… so grow a backbone, have the gumption to put them together in a nice, “multi-cultural” mixer…!!

    You and Marbles stand before all the Mullahs and lecture them to all the valid and equal aspects of the “alternate” life style… just be your good o’l progressive selves, ok?

    Please do – and I will enjoy watching the extended play Blue Ray DVD of the… consequences, shall we say?

  2. Steve:
    Deleted link or no, the fact remains that Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal heads the Kingdom Foundation, which not only backed the Park51 “Ground Zero mosque” but also has been accused in some quarters of supporting “radical madrassas” the world over. The problem is, the very same bin Talal also just happens to be the second biggest shareholder of News Corp after Murdoch himself, owning about 7% of the company.
    You see how this works? By the exact same logic Fox News uses to tie various tangents together and accuse people and organizations of having ties to terrorists, they themselves are in the exact same boat.

  3. Anyway, I’m checking your CAIR links again. Let’s see where this goes…

    • ikabod
    • Posted December 30, 2010 at 1:01 pm
    • Permalink

    “the very same bin Talal also just happens to be the second biggest shareholder of News Corp after Murdoch himself” That is true. He does. Yet one would think that with that much of a stake he would a little more influence on programing? Perhaps right after Fox and friends we would have something like Bin Laden and friends? All siting around smoking the hookah:
    Abdul: “Hey lets go to the Gaza strip and check in with the latest in bomb vest fashion!”

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:09 am
    • Permalink

    Also Steve, please be aware I don’t watch any news networks, I find them all equally awful; Fox News is just one smelly lump in the steaming pile.

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 1, 2011 at 12:04 am
    • Permalink

    “So what exactly is CAIR doing to support terrorists?”. I can see the problem cobainfan. You consider Hamas just a bunch of kids that want freedom. I see Hamas using CAIR a PR firm to keeping themselves looking pretty for the progressives in the United States. Hamas created CAIR.

    I supposed the FBI’s conclusion that CAIR is such is nothing less than the MAN putting more muslims down.

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/782/hamas-deputy-chief-settled-us-funding-dispute

  4. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/01/katie-couric-ca.html

    Katie Couric Calls for Muslim Version of Cosby Show

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 3, 2011 at 9:29 am
    • Permalink

    Finally, a show worse than “Outsourced”.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted January 3, 2011 at 11:07 am
    • Permalink

    I can’t wait for the episode when the Dr. Huxtable does an honor killing of one of his daughters for wearing an outfit to school that shows too much skin.

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m just wondering how the show will get around the antisemitism. If there going to do an honest portrayal.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    • Permalink

    ikabod, don’t you know? Anti-semitism is just fine (that is, politically correct) if if comes from Muslim sources. The same goes for sexism and homophobia, but not yet for racism.

    • Rob
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 4:30 am
    • Permalink

    Marbles have you ever been to the UK? I live here and Muslims have taken over areas over our country and our political class have encouraged and enabled them. Wikipedia is full of left wing bias and b**ls**t so if it concerns the bad behaviour of a libtard pet community or supposed lack of preferential treatment given to that community the opposite is almost certainly the case.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
    • Permalink

    Hi Rob – glad to have you ‘on board’ here at Diversity Lane.
    You reference an aspect about “libtards” (I see a new expression most every day…[lol] )

    If you expect them (libtards) to think in terms of the long-term consequences of their idea’s,… sorry, but you are wasting your time. They are too immature and arrogant to even consider long-term ’cause & effect’.
    In part, it tends to interfere with their feelings.

    Example in point; 30+ years ago, Phyllis Schafley (a well-known American conservative) was debating in a round-table discussion about the Equal Rights Amendment. She asserted that if it passed, it would enable same-sex marriages to take place (simple, honest, clear reasoning).
    She was mocked, laughed at by the liberals, called an “alarmist”, they jeered at her repeatedly over this prediction.

    Guess where we are today?

    Even our military is being forced to accept this behavioral-based “minority” (homosexuals).

    Do you think for ONE second, our little family of liberals here at Diversity Lane will acept any responsibility for the consequences of what this WILL do to the US Armed Forces ?

    Asking liberals to maturely consider future consequences of their idea’s today… is like herding cats in a rain storm.

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 10:21 am
    • Permalink

    “ikabod, don’t you know? Anti-semitism is just fine (that is, politically correct) if if comes from Muslim sources. The same goes for sexism and homophobia, but not yet for racism.” Geeknerd, your absolutely right! Anti-semitism is not racism… No its been morphed to mean anti-oppresion! Just like the oppressive Christains in Egypt where doing that horrible of things…… new years eve mass! How dare those racist Christians! Offending the muslim world with their hateful tradition! So really those 21 Christains had it coming.

    “Asking liberals to maturely consider future consequences of their idea’s today… is like herding cats in a rain storm”
    Steve California is feeling the pain of economic decisions and unionist silver platter pensions from the 1970’s and 80’s. Your right, I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to acknowledge the folly.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 12:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Please, PLEASE tell me, Steve, what will happen to the US Armed Forces once “Don’t ask don’t tell” is repealed. I can understand applying the “slippery slope” argument to Islam, since its radicals have attacked our country and people, but gay people? You act like homosexuality is some disease that will decimate our military. Many, many other countries on the planet allow gay people to serve their military openly (Australia, China, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, the UK, and more), so why don’t we? The United Kingdom lifted their ban on allowing homosexuals to serve openly back in 2000, and ten years later have publicly stated they noticed absolutely no notable changes to the morale of their soldiers.

    Please, give me some reason, Steve. Give me a proper reason as to why homosexuals are somehow just as bad as Islamic terrorists. I am really dying to know.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm
    • Permalink

    Also in relation to the Katie Couric suggesting a “Muslim ‘Cosby Show'”: looks like Canada has had one going on for a while now! Haha.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Mosque_on_the_Prairie

    Its fifth season just started yesterday, apparently. Seems like just a generic family style sitcom, though. Thank god American TV has such higher standards in TV prog–…Pffhahaha! Oh, sorry. Couldn’t keep a straight face for that one.

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 5:42 pm
    • Permalink

    Im going to have to see this Little Mosque on the Prairie show cobainfan69. Yet like the office…. the US is getting their own… apparently:
    “In June 2008 Fox announced plans to adapt Little Mosque on the Prairie into an American setting, in partnership with the show’s production company, WestWind Pictures. The planned deal would not affect the Canadian version if it were to be picked up in the United States by another distributor or network.”
    However I did notice there where no Jewish characters. That being said I guess they are being true to form. Or rather there are no “token Jews” to at least display solidarity of the two religion. Ooops! there I go seeing racism where I create it.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    • Permalink

    Cobainfan
    (btw – with a name like this, do you endorse having a ‘snack’ of 1-1/4 oz. lead shot, swallowed at 1,300 feet per second, from a 12 Ga. shotgun ? …I hear it is a no-salt, zero fat, zero calorie item)

    You are a genuinely learning & reading impaired individual. In the military, folks like you would be classified as “untrainable”, and sent packing (oops, cannot use that phrase) given a discharge (nope, that is not someone giving you a friendly ‘reach-around’)… sent back to the civilian world.

    Now, my young Mr. Cobainfan, read carefully… turn off your iPod, find a quiet, distraction-free place, set down whatever legal, or illegal intoxicating substance you have…
    Ready? … h e r e we go-
    Homosexuals are a behavior-based group. It is not about skin color, spiritual beliefs or ethnic origins (aka, “race, color or creed ).
    It is about (or desires towards) voluntary B-E-H-A-V-I-O-R… premeditated, discretionary BEHAVIOR. That is about the 8th time I have stated that FACT (another word you can look up at your favorite wikipedia).

    Regarding consequences –
    First, you have never been in the military – so you have no point of reference of first-hand knowledge of what that environment is about. Do you?

    The culture you come from thinks the military is just another institution where you can “break down barriers”, then all stand around and screech , ” faa – aaannn taaasstiiccc -!!! “

    The military is very, very good at determining what qualifications are appropriate for its own members. This too is why they do not accept drug users, convicted felons, amputee’s, people on a respirator, paraplegics, quadriplegics, the blind or folks in a comma.

    Your pro-“gay” in-the-military rumors of other countries militaries are shallow, at best, most of those are likely false. Further, you are not inclined to research and discover the problems caused by open homosexuals in their ranks – however your ignorance of those consequences is reason enough to be credible to you.
    As the consequences of active duty openly homosexuals accumulates, not one officer who values his/her career will say a thing.
    The US military has never acknowledged the endless parade of costly problems caused by integrating women aboard combat US Naval vessels, have they?
    Any serving officer who would publically itemize all the broken careers, costly changes to ships, diminished level of combat readiness, and even loss of life – would end his/her career promptly. And every serving officer knows this.
    …but hell, another “barrier” has fallen due to the efforts of the femi-nazi hairy legged lobby, the mission of the US Navy is secondary to their feel good “equality” agenda.

    You last question proves your reading comprehension is as defective as your reasoning…

    I am still trying to understand why the US Military has been forced to go through contortions that will cost endless millions, good soldiers careers, for;
    – a tiny sub-culture of 1.5-2.5% of the population,
    – who struggle with a mentally dysfunctional condition,
    – that leads to mal-adaptive, destructive health threatening, life-shortening behavior,
    – who cannot donate blood / organs, due to the health risks of their behavior.

    Why? …how do individuals with these verifiable risks, help the mission of the US Military?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 4, 2011 at 11:15 pm
    • Permalink

    Those poor folks trapped in a comma, slaves to the Punctuation Agenda…

    I really find it hard to have any kind of conversation with you since you just keep such a caustic tone to all of your responses to me (you even basically start off that reply with “Kill yourself”. Classy). I keep being told that these comments are meant to host mature, civil discussion, but you somehow keep slipping by with (admittedly weak) potshots at me. But OK, I’ll bite:

    The only basic “behavior” of a homosexual is that they are sexually attracted to a person of the same sex. That’s it. Tell me exactly how this would impair one’s ability to serve in the military to the degree of being paralyzed from the waist down, or being in a ‘comma’. I can’t imagine a squad of troops being pinned down by enemy fire and a gay soldier suddenly thinking, “Man, Private Jenkins’ sure has a nice ass…”

    I do like how you claim I come from some culture that just thinks the army is just a playground for diversity. In reality, I believe the Armed Forces are just a place where any able-bodied American can protect and serve their country. If a man of excellent physical condition, intellect, and health wants to be a soldier, but also happens to be in love with a man, why should he be prohibited from voluntarily enlisting?

    Your reasons for open homosexuals in the US military are based on extraneous habits that aren’t naturally inherent in homosexual people. Drugs and alcohol abuse? Hey, straight people do that too. HIV/AIDS and other STDs? Whaddya know, these can also be transmitted through heterosexual intercourse, too. As far as I know, being homosexual in itself is not a crime, but a sexual assault committed on a man by a homosexual man is, because it’s still sexual assault (incidentally, there’s also the very fascinating issue of women being raped in the military, but I’ll save that for another time).

    So what exactly is inherently present in being homosexual that negatively affects a soldier’s performance? If you hypothetically took a gay soldier deployed overseas, and replaced their lover back home with one of the opposite sex, what inherent advantages does this soldier suddenly gain? (Besides better pictures to have posted in a barrack)

    And my “rumors” of other militaries of the world… Well, it’s a fact other countries ALLOW homosexuals to serve openly, and they’ve never seemed to have problems. After the repeal of their gay ban ten years ago, various officers of the UK military have publicly stated that no negative repercussions came about from it, and some have even suggested that other countries that have yet to do the same SHOULD do it. Now, if they were just keeping tight-lipped about any problems, why would they suggest other countries to do the same? When exactly has a homosexual soldier directly caused the death of other soldiers?

    You keep telling me of all these consequences that I am somehow overlooking. What are they? Please tell me! I’ve tried looking, but all I keep finding are just blog posts talking about hypothetical problems that people assume will occur once DADT is repealed. If you could assist me, Steve, I would appreciate it.

    Give me real, specific reasons for your argument. Give me reasons that don’t revolve around simply being a homosexual, and not just irresponsible behavior towards sex or drug/alcohol use. Give me specific examples of women being on US Naval vessels causing lack of combat readiness, or causing loss of life (women account for 15% of the Active Duty Navy, surely that kind of notable presence has gotten at least one person killed, right?).

    I try to keep an open mind, but you seem to just keep shoveling regurgitated, vague reasoning and insults into it.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 12:54 am
    • Permalink

    Wow Cobainfan – you do have a ‘tender disposition’… if not subject to inferring some odd, presumptuous extrapolations.
    “Kill yourself” -? Where do you infer that drama-queen drizzle?

    As it happens, suicide is a shameful, extremely selfish act. In fact, considered to be the most selfish act one can commit. How someone can be a fan, of someone who concludes their existence as such, is puzzling.
    However, that happens to be an old-fashioned way of thinking.

    First, as your laser-accurate reading comprehension must have detected, I did not mention the whole US Navy,… did I ? [ this is an invitation to re-read it ].
    I referred to the inclusion of women on combat vessels (aircraft carriers, missile ships,…).
    The consequences of these crews going co-ed, has been documented for years, and has cost plenty. There have been unwritten quotas for females to achieve officer commissions and higher ranks for 30+ years.
    Go get acquainted with a variety of veterans… ask & listen to their numerous accounts of where female service members were not held to certain standards that men are, routinely.
    As an officer candidate in an extremely strict and controlled training school, I witnessed multiple events where a female OC did something stupid or careless, events where any male OC would have been dismissed – but these ladies received their commission as I did.
    Go do a little ‘searching’ – to find some consequences of female Navy pilots turning the fantail of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier into a flaming inferno.

    That means – people died… $40+ million aircraft were destroyed at the hands of someone whose evaluations later showed they never should have been passed into fleet carrier operations.
    Those ‘promote women’ quota’s for combat status are really great, right?

    Further, having women on combat vessels ( that is a sub-section of the whole US Navy ) requires additional space used for privacy considerations. Navy combat vessels are designed to carefully allocate every cubic foot of space to mission needs. Weapons, munitions, aviation fuel, aircraft maintenance & spare parts, food… Space is needed for supplies and assorted support needs for the crews. In this very tightly confined environment, being forced to have the accommodations for females, necessarily displaces something else.
    Go ask someone who was a ships quartermaster, medical officer – female specific supplies and medical resources are needed for women. More significantly, those senior NCO’s and officers who have to manage the disciplinary problems that always arise from the male-female mixing aboard a ship.
    Several years back, the carrier, Abraham Lincoln had to have sixteen (16) female crew flown off the ship while on deployment in the W. Pacific, due to getting pregnant while on board, within its 6 month deployment. When she came back to her home port, the media picked up on the banners welcoming “the Love Boat” home.
    Cobainfan – Do you have the slight clue – the faintest idea of what it costs to fly ONE sailor from a ship in mid ocean deployment?

    Everything I have noted directly takes resources away from combat readiness. Tons of personnel hours, senior leaders expending significant amounts their time on these consequences, instead of combat training – good sailors getting their careers ended due to circumstances created by mixed-sex crews… that costs the Navy plenty.

    Women on combat ships are now the status quo – and the cost and consequences are now a ‘non-news’ item. Likely, in your way of reasoning, that means all is just fine.
    Nevertheless, the facts, the costs are, what they are.

    NOTE: I am not opposed to women doing anything – AS LONG as they can meet the established standards without compromise, for any reason, and mixing both sexes does not detract from mission readiness & resources.

    The military has had a prohibition on homosexuals for decades – for plenty of good reasons that you are immune from understanding, much less accepting.
    If mental stability and behavioral caused health risks do not sink in to your brain tissue as significant reasons to filter out people who can be called to function in very violent, stressful, life & death conditions…
    … I guess your civilian-progressive wisdom trumps it all.
    .
    .

    Insults?… who do I insult?… those nancy-fancy libs who all screech ” faa – aaannn taaasstiiccc -!!! “…in perfect harmony?
    Some of them actually do that! What is the big deal?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 8:07 am
    • Permalink

    I’m not a fan of Kurt himself, just his music. I don’t endorse suicide in the least, and I find it sickening that you assume I would just because I like Nirvana. (Besides, Dave Grohl was my favorite member, anyway.)

    Anyway, thanks for giving me more concrete reasoning about women on US navy combat vessels.

    Though, what reasoning does that present against having homosexuals not serve? Gay men can’t get pregnant, or wouldn’t need the extra accommodation on naval combat vessels. There is no health risk inherent to a homosexual that isn’t also inherent to a heterosexual–reckless use of intoxicating substances and unprotected sex is behavior that can be practiced by people of any sexual orientation.

    My stance on DADT is just that any capable soldier should not be barred from serving just because they love someone of the same sex. Once again I ask: if a perfectly healthy (physically and mentally) homosexual man wants to serve his country in the Armed Forces, why should he be prohibited from doing so? I’m not saying every gay person should be forced to enlist against the military’s will, but if that person is able to meet the standards to serve (like you said, without compromise), what should it matter about their sexuality?

    (And the ‘insults’ comment was more as insults directed towards me. Notice how I don’t call you incapable of reading comprehension just because of missing that intonation; wasn’t hard at all!)

    • geeknerd
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Regarding homosexual troups; will they need more protection when sent into countries whose Muslim teachings demand that homosexuals be killed for their sins? Talk about America being insensitive to native populations.

    Of course we could use homosexual behavior to create espirit d’corpse, as the Spartans of old did. When a Spartan fell in battle, his lover would fight ferociously to avenge his death and retrieve the body (very important in ancient Greek culture).

    But the Spartans remembered that homosexual behavior means no children (before the invention of the turkey baster), so they passed a law that it was every Spartan male’s duty to his family name and his country to marry before a certain age and father children.

    In effect, the Spartans used homosexuality for military purposes, but forced them back into the closet so as not to depopulate the country.

    Nevertheless, we are sending troups into Muslim countries; if we send homosexual troups, it will give Muslim radicals another reason to hate the Great Satan, and to spur recruitment (isn’t that the liberal’s reason for opposing anything we do in the Middle East?)

    • ikabod
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    • Permalink

    I’m just going to after the affects of such a policy would be on the enemy. A gay/straight integrated American platoon, comes up against a “religion of peace” ambush in Afghanistan. Soundly defeated the remaining survivors run back to tell the tale of being getting their asses kicked by a bunch of American soldiers who have great eye for fashion and interior design! Oh, the humiliation! Captured insurgents cant claim torture either…. Cuz it’s not torture it’s a lifestyle! NOT saying this would happen.

    Just sayin….

    • Steve
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 1:30 pm
    • Permalink

    All joking aside… [ about the prospects of our soldiers marching in cadence to the Village People singing ‘ Y M C A ‘…]

    The Spartans?
    Honestly, what useful linkages can we ascertain from the way an ancient, Non (pre) Judeo-Christian culture from 2,500 years ago, handled the circumstances of homosexuality ?

    Ditto for the Roman empire… although these civilizations were the early beginnings of Western civilization, the principles of our modern law and this Constitutional Republic are far more rooted in recent centuries of how our inalienable rights and freedoms evolved — principally from the Judeo-Christian scriptures ( I bet that is a surprising factoid to some of you! )

    Today’s European cultures are considered by Christian historians as basically ‘post Christian’ secular, as opposed to our Judeo-Christian history. So, where is the surprise if some European military accepts openly homosexual members? To many ancient cultures, homosexual behavior was mostly an eccentric distraction, an entertaining dalliance outside the usual ‘married w/ children’ life and family structure.

    We might also notice, the Spartans and their culture did not exactly stand the ‘test of time’.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    • Permalink

    Very good points, Steve.

    If we keep to the 21st century, (or as close to it as our Islamofascist enemy can get), I still say that homosexual troups in the Middle East will be a double target for our enemies; first, because they represent the Great Satan, and second, because the Koran clearly states that the sin of homosexual behavior must be punished with death.

    Homophobia is only bad if exercised by the West.

    By the way, I find nowhere in the New Testament a demand that anyone be executed for this–or any other–sin. Of course, God may strike someone dead (like Ananias and Sophira), and the secular authority may carry a sword for a reason, but that’s not the same as a Koranic demand for the death penalty.

  5. geeknerd and ikabod, you are being ridiculous. The suggestion—hopefully facetious—that gay soldiers fighting jihadists will somehow enrage them even further is comical. Not that this needs saying, especially to a conservative, but no American should give one hair on a rat’s ass what Islamic nutjobs think. They already think what they think. So screw them, screw their mothers’ uteruses, and screw their fathers’ left nut.

    The only time we should lower ourselves to the level of worrying about what those cockroaches think is if our actions directly endanger our or other people’s lives. Yes, it’s a terrible sacrifice for some us to refrain from burning or flushing a Koran**, but such are the realities our times demand from us as a nation.

    And cobainfan, stop giving Steve what he wants. You’re acting like, well, a Democrat.

    **Joking aside, only a complete douchebag would even entertain such a notion. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of people who mistake douchebaggery for patriotism. Or in some cases, for anti-patriotism. I’m talking to you, flag-burners.

  6. Steve, your usual rock-stale bigotry aside, the line you adapt can be easily countered by the differing experiences of other vets,–gay and straight–and also tempered by other conservatives with a less reflexively caustic view of those different from them. You know this. You pretend not to, though.

    And pragmatically, it’s difficult to see how anyone can continue your line while there’s a certain elephant standing in the room named Israel.
    No army in the world is required to be a tougher bunch of mother#@!%ers. If it’s not an issue for them, that it. That’s the end.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 5, 2011 at 8:17 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles – your predictable pusillanimous name calling, “…bigotry”, is typical of those of you who will not or cannot accept uncomfortable facts, and you are incapable of engaging others in the arena of competitive ideas [ ignorance is a cozy place for you, right? ].
    …so you cowardly choose one of the classic ‘ racist – bigot – homophobe ‘ girly-man mantras,… it’s so old and shallow… – try something original ?

    I was reading an Orthodox Rabbi’s** teaching about the subject of people using foul language and what it truly reveals about the inner character of the user. ” mother#@!%ers ” and ” douchebaggery ” are interesting revelations about how your mind works – or does not.

    Happy New Year !

    ** – go search for Rabbi Daniel Lapin – he is an expert on the Torah (Jewish scripture, the Five Books of Moses).
    Rabbi Lapin can offer you some interesting insight to what “…an abomination” means in both scriptural and real-to-life, terms.
    How about you enlighten us as to why this gentleman is a bigot, too ?

  7. As my favorite columnist once said, “Lord, save us all from the irony-impaired.”
    Your reply is the equivalent of that famous protest sign that said “Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion!”

  8. Oh, and Happy New Year.

    • V
    • Posted January 9, 2011 at 12:26 pm
    • Permalink

    Interesting comic as always 🙂

    Some interesting comments too, though…

    Actually, I was reading the comments and I’m surprised at the ferocity you guys have towards these things. I always figured that DADT didn’t really affect me since I’m not in the military. My friends that were are all finally home too, thank goodness.

    I know this uproar over DADT is an issue about rights and everything, but our troops fight for freedom for everyone, right? Wouldn’t they fight for this too if they felt that strongly? Or against it, for that matter?

    Anyway, I hope everyone has a great 2011.

    • Steve
    • Posted January 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm
    • Permalink

    @ V
    The center of these heated exchanges is what defines, what merits benign differences among people.
    My position is simple; homosexuals are a behavior-defined group. That is self-evident, and factually verifiable.

    Freedom from discrimination based on race, color, or spiritual beliefs, go the very core of this Republic’s heritage. All three of these aspects were fought and bled over, for many generations. Nowhere, from the landing of the Mayflower, through the last barriers of racial equality this Republic has achieved, has a behavior-based characteristic, ever been considered as a benign difference.
    The fact that these individuals feel their urges as such, does not, in any way, contradict this.

    The prominent ‘politically correct’ culture immediately paints my view as “hateful”, “bigoted”, or “homo-phobic” (an ignorant and false use of Latin, not at all meaning what it intends). Their motive is to stop the debate via name calling. Among cowards, this works too often.

    So, please consider what else can happen when other, behavioral-based “minorities” rise up to claim their entitlement;
    – Folks who like having sex with their dogs, or various farm animals… after all, just like homosexuals, it “feels good”, and this too is about “…who they love”.
    – Folks who want to have a three, four,…nine-way “marriage” – just as long as that too, feels good.
    – Folks who disfigure themselves with facial tattoos, and multiple facial piercings… you cannot chose not to hire them, because it defines “…their individuality”. Never mind, their freakish appearance, caused by their willful decisions, scares away your customers, disrupts your fellow workers… ok ?

    This also includes a newly hired teacher, who could have an obscenity tattooed across his/her forehead… that person has a “right” to be your child’s teacher! — Remember, this is about D-I-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y !!
    There is no end to the twisted anarchy that comes from behavioral-based, protected “minority” groups.

    What our military is supposed to fight for is grounded in our founding documents, and the rich heritage surrounding them.
    An arrogant, misguided, self-serving, entitlement seeking, anomalous tiny sub-culture, defined by their self-destructive, maladaptive sexual behavior, regarded as abhorrent by a large majority of Americans, — are not within light-years of what this Republic stands for.

    Zack or the moderator ought to be reading complaints about my “…hate speech”, soon.

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted January 10, 2011 at 8:35 am
    • Permalink

    What a wonderful world you must live in Steve, where that stuff actually happens.

    • V
    • Posted January 10, 2011 at 11:11 pm
    • Permalink

    @Steve
    “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum?” Seems that way since you don’t like the behavior but aren’t commenting on the actual individuals.

    Behavioral-based minorities… that’s an awful lot of people. There are the people that get judged for getting pregnant young, the people that are promiscuous, people of different religions (after all, you can change your religion)… Actually, tons can be changed nowadays though, right? Even gender. So most minorities now would really be more behavioral-based except for race, really. And well, so many people in society look down on them that people just probably united because there was a common enemy: mainstream society forcing them to be less than equal.

    Nobody likes to think of it that way. This is a country where everyone’s supposed to be equal. So… I guess it becomes a “what happens when equality means your viewpoint thinks I’m wrong and should be punished for it?”

    I still don’t really have an answer. Judging everyone from the actions of a few seem wrong, but at the same time isn’t it only human to want your family, friends, and country protected? To be seen as the bad person because if someone wants to blow up my cousin for his choice of lover, I would rather them gone first because of intolerance? Except in that case I become the intolerant one and it’s a spiral of hate and anger where nobody wins.

    “Hate speech?” Well, I guess everyone has the right to opinions. Very ferocious in your views, but not exactly hateful.

    But that’s a bit of the problem though, isn’t it? We all have such different views and beliefs and logic that it will ALWAYS be a clash trying to make people see and understand what, to us, is normal or right. But that’s the cool thing about our rights is that we can discuss this rationally… or with only a bit of name calling. We’re not hunting each other down or stoning people to death for not agreeing. So I mean, yeah, we don’t all agree, but something has to be being done right if we’re all alive and not going insane demanding horrible death upon those we deem “wrong.”

    • Steve
    • Posted January 11, 2011 at 3:07 am
    • Permalink

    @V — perhaps, you and I could enjoy a fine, Dominican hand rolled cigar… chat & ponder such human conditions of political & social competitions… – who knows -?-

    I submit we ought to be thoughtful of this: “rights” are one thing, also, consequences from ones behavior result from, however sociologically complex, the compilation of the “rights” of many others who exercise their rightful behavior, such as the freedom of association.

    Isn’t life and reality a bitch ?

  9. I did not know what the “Wind in the Willows” was when I first saw this cartoon but it seemed to be somewhat similar to “Where the Wild Things Are” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” I had to ask my wife a while back if she had ever heard of “Where the Wild Things Are” when a commercial came on advertising its broadcast later on that week. In any event, it seems that certain Islamic groups what have you do not want but demand to be accepted, or to be appeased or to have accommodations made for their benefit alone by me, by you and by everyone else in the non-Muslim world and not not begrudgingly but cheerfully; with smiles on our faces. If we don’t do as we have been warned, er, instructed, that opens up the distinct possibility we might be on the receiving end of some kind of punishment such as stoning, flogging, beheading, suicide bombing, crashing planes into skyscrapers or whatever punishment they believe should be meted out to the convince us to see things their way.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: