By Tina Grazier
If you are a wealthy progressive Democrat please listen up. You say the rich have more money than they need. You say they don’t need all of what they have and therefore should be willing to pay a higher percentage of what they earn in taxes. For some reason a “fair share” to you is any amount the government needs. You think this even though the wealthiest 1% of wage earners already pay 38.02% of income taxes. (50% of wage earners pay as much as 97.3% of the income tax and the top 5% pay over half, 58.72% – IRS 2008). In fact, there are a whole bunch of filthy rich progressive Democrats that believe as you do and not one of them, to my knowledge, has ever volunteered to give his excess to the cause. If you really believe the liberal line, that the wealthy are not paying enough, why don’t yiu and your comrades in cash just step up…and shut up!
Calling on all wealthy Democrats to make a very large donation to the US Treasury…and I mean a large donation…don’t delay…do it today!!! Our government even makes it easy for you; here’s the skinny:
Donations to the Treasury to be used for any purpose:
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040.
And for those concerned about our massive debt…there are two ways to make a donation:
You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
As it turns out many of our lawmakers have increased their wealth substantially even as the economy has flagged; surely they can afford at this time to make a substantial donation.
The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms. ** Total assets for the 50 wealthiest lawmakers in 2009 was $1.5 billion
John Kerry tops the list of current lawmakers who are wealthy but he isn’t the only pol in the pack. Al Gore has left politics now but not the public stage. He has considerable wealth to play around with as we have witnessed in the last few years as he jet setted around the globe selling his green fantasy. These public figures are flanked by a whole slew of folk who “can afford” to pay much more and believe they should do so. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Seinfeld, Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Whoopie Goldberg, Ben & Jerry, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates…and his dad…and bunches of big banking dudes and corporate heads…the list of possible candidates goes on and on.
Here’s your chance to make a super fair share contribution. After all…you obviously don’t mind…and you don’t need the money!
Great article, I think it is going to fall on the ears of the deaf though. The Liberal rich, and I mean RICH, only seem to open their mouths and not so much their wallets, unless there is some promotional benefit to them, like a upcoming movie or new book that needs continuous and free media blast to get it going. Even the time they spend helping serve meals to those in need get the TV time, but when is the last time you saw a major effort on the part of the Liberal Media (I wonder if they write off the cost of the production as a charitable donation , hummm?) to focus on the lay people who 7/24 keep the programs alive and beneficial to the needy.
I can’t say that I disagree completely with this philosophy. I used it myself a few years back when I said that if republican arm chair warriors were so much in favor of Bush’s war in Iraq, perhaps they should volunteer.
Great points Harold…reminds me of that a survey a few years back that revealed liberals were less generous in donations to charitiy than conservatives. This goes hand in hand with “unless it’s to promote themselves”…hello, Al Gore.
I don’t completely discount the value of celebrity to call attention to need…some do it more honorably than others. Marlo Thomas does an excellent job for St Judes, for instance. According to Wikipedia she donates all of her royalties from a book and CD to the hospital. Her dad, Danny Thomas, founded the hospital which indicartes the great good people with money can accomplish in the private sector!!!
Joe excellent idea! During WWII we saw many people leave their professions to go off to war. A lot of celebrities did and many of them served with distinction! I don’t know how many of the current crop could pass the physical…lol…but of those who could, it would be great and send a positive message of service and sacrifice to the population at large!
They did Joe, there is not one ‘armchair’ warrior in the foreign theaters today, and just look at the bulk of absentee ballots from our fighting force of GOP soldiers to reinforce that statement. And then consider how the Lib’s try so hard to disenfranchise/disqualify them in a election with tight run offs. More Liberal Gamesmanship !!!!
Lets keep it to politicians and politics, they are the ones who deserve the Jab’s and scrutiny of the American public, Our soldiers may fight for politicians right to be… ,well what they are!, but not so much the politics of how they do it!
Re: Joe Shaw | December 9, 2010 8:28 AM | Reply
I can’t say that I disagree completely with this philosophy. I used it myself a few years back when I said that if republican arm chair warriors were so much in favor of Bush’s war in Iraq, perhaps they should volunteer.
Joe’s snide (and inappropriate) “arm chair warrior” sneer aside, the notion that Republican’s “favor war”, (or favored “Bush’e war”, is, of course, just so much snotty left wing backstabber garbage.
Joe might try to take a look at the joint resolution on Iraq passed by Democrats and Republicans before going off on his juvenile and fallacious sneers about who “favors” war.
http://tinyurl.com/HJRES114
This much can be said, once we were committed Republicans were willing to see it through to success and work towards that ultimate success.
Democrats, however, once they realized that they could use the Iraq war as a political cudgel were perfectly willing to back stab the very people who were risking their lives. Furthermore, Democrats were (and still are) willing to aid and abet the enemy with political propaganda and squabbles aimed at increasing their political clout.
We can always count on people like Joe, no?
Even when faced with critical global issues and especially when the US commits itself to remove a despot and a ever growing threat, and establish a fledgling democracy in its place. Think Nicaragua.
I won’t argue whether the Bush administration moved too fast and over emphasized WMD. I won’t argue that the Bush administration did not conduct the war well and should have engaged in a troop surge long before they did.
I will argue that Democrats love power more than they do their own countrymen and are perfectly willing to aid and abet the enemy in time of war if they think it will give them a political edge.
Thanks Pie, I appreciate thank kind of blunt, bold talk. I agree with you 100%.
“Democrats, however, once they realized that they could use the Iraq war as a political cudgel”
Let me fix that for you:
“Democrats, however, once they realized that the Iraq War was entered into under false pretenses…”
“…were perfectly willing to back stab the very people who were risking their lives.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure the Democrats were trying to prevent soldiers from getting stabbed. And shot. And blown up. And all the other horrible stuff that happens in war.
The ones currently stabbing soldiers in the back are those who believe that gay soldiers should keep their mouths shut if they want to keep serving our country.
“Democrats, however, once they realized that the Iraq War was entered into under false pretenses…”
Let me fix that for you, Chris.
IN FACT, everyone on the planet believed Hussein was a serious threat and that he had WMD. They believed it based on the same intel that Bush relied upon to make his decision. Hillary went so far as to suggest Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaedashe would know!
The following are quotes from several prominent Democrats. Whats so about Democrats is they will lie about even their own partys stated position when it is politically expedient for them to do so and when the opportunity arises to label and smear the opposition leader, member, or party. Did Bush lie? If he did so did a lot of other people…especially Democrats!
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. His remarks followed that briefing.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 Ohio State University appearance – Madeline Albright.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, urging him to take quicker action against Iraq, signed by nine senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Senator Kerry’s comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Senator Rockefeller’s statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 Senator Waxman’s contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option. (hedging her betshe knew she would be running for president one day)
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
In a speech to Georgetown University.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
See also here:
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
You Tube has loads of video…Chris the war was NOT enterred into under false pretenses…That is s a lie!
“The ones currently stabbing soldiers in the back are those who believe that gay soldiers should keep their mouths shut if they want to keep serving our country.”
That is also a lie but typical of the PC crowd who think only of themselves, who cannot get passed the social engineering aspect to acknowledghe the very valid reasons that have nothing to do with sex or gender discrimination and everything to do with readiness, cohesicveness and saving lives. (Brains of a petulant child!!!!)
This is not a good time to try this!
Tina, I never said that Democrats didn’t make mistakes by believing the false reports of WMDs in Iraq. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary, and as we all know now the WMDs simply didn’t exist. Democrats, after realizing this, were justifiably angry. They were misled, as were we all. Republicans, meanwhile, kept claiming that the WMDs were there…they weren’t! Then, in order to silence the opposition, the White House illegally targeted one of their own covert agents out of revenge for reports that countered the WMD allegations. Many of the Democrats you quoted later acknowledged their own mistakes, but the blame for this war has to go straight to the top! Bush had every opportunity to listen to opposing viewpoints, but as even those closest to him at the time have claimed, he was always determined to go to war with Iraq even before there was any evidence of WMDs.
As for DADT, the vast majority of Americans want it repealed. The vast majority of troops believe it is unnecessary and that repeal will have no effect on military cohesiveness. In fact, it can be argued that forcing gay soldiers to hide in the closet does more damage to their effectiveness than anything else. DADT also has the effect of causing us to lose very good soldiers for extremely trivial reasons. The time to get rid of this stupid measure is yesterday.
Chris: “…I never said that Democrats didn’t make mistakes by believing the false reports of WMDs in Iraq. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary…”
What evidence?
“…and as we all know now the WMDs simply didn’t exist.”
But the weapons capability did exist. Had we chosen to not go into Iraq and Saddam was left in control of the country there is a very good chance that today the world would be facing threats from a nuclear or biological Iraq and perhaps an even greater threat from Al Qaeda. I agree with Hillary when she said, “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare.”
“Democrats, after realizing this, were justifiably angry. They were misled, as were we all.”
Angry? Ha! In denial, smug and prepared to use the information as a weapon! Now Bush was vulnerable and in the Democrat/media cross hairs. Playing gotcha with the administration became more important than remaining solidly committed to completing what we had started.
Republicans, meanwhile, kept claiming that the WMDs were there…they weren’t!
When the accusations began to fly inspections were still ongoing. No one could be certain that we wouldn’t still find a cache of chemical or nuclear materials or weapons. We did find equipment. Recent Wikileaks docs revealed the following from the pentagon:
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/wikileaks-saddam-s-wmd-program-existed-iraq
Clearly Democrats turned political and turned their backs on America and the war.
“Then, in order to silence the opposition, the White House illegally targeted one of their own covert agents out of revenge for reports that countered the WMD allegations.”
I’d be interested in knowing how you came to this rediculous conclusion!
Here are two very firm reasons why this entire media event should never have taken place:
“Many of the Democrats you quoted later acknowledged their own mistakes, but the blame for this war has to go straight to the top!”
Mistakes are always made in wars. Responsibility for this war has been taken…by GWB who, unlike some others, doesn’t make excuses, doesn’t blame others, and doesn’t change the story to try to cover his ass.”
“…forcing gay soldiers to hide in the closet does more damage to their effectiveness than anything else.”
Do you ever think in terms beyond individual or group wants? The objection isn’t about them. The consideration is about the effectiveness of the military generally. This is a very poor time to risk disruption, confusion, and perhaps, mass departures. The selfishness boggles the mind!
Tina–“The consideration is about the effectiveness of the military generally.”
Which, according to the vast majority of those in military service, won’t be affected by repealing DADT. Do you presume to know more than they do?
Chris: “Which, according to the vast majority of those in military service, won’t be affected by repealing DADT. Do you presume to know more than they do?”
No, I don’t…but I don’t think a survey, one that was questioned as flawed even by some gay and lesbian groups, is the proper way to determine whether this is a good idea. According to some reports the survey did not represent those in combat situations very well and the questions were designed poorly. It also did not ask whether the policy should be repealed.
But beyond that, just changing this without adequate consideration or planning, as one activist judge tried to do, is pure folly and could be very disruptive. Also there are very real concerns for those in combat. One soldier expressed the following:
I know, you will probably see that consideration as discriminatory. But the failure of many in the gay community to behave responsibly regarding HIV is damned good reason to hold such a consideration.
Y continue to insisit on making this personal rather than a question of determining what is best for the defense of the nation and what steps and planning must be done to make will work if repeal is decided. What’s the deal? Are you miffed because we haven’t posted on this issue?
Tina, I’m hearing a lot of excuses, but none of them get to the root of the issue. Do you honestly believe that allowing gays to serve openly in the military is going to harm military effectiveness? If you do, you must have a much lower opinion of our men in uniform then I do.
“I know, you will probably see that consideration as discriminatory…”
Discriminatory? It’s downright idiotic, and certainly doesn’t represent the opinions of most soldiers. Are you aware that straight people get HIV as well, or did you just arrive here from 1982?
Surely you’re also aware that military members have very good healthcare, and if one were to come down with the HIV virus they probably would not be allowed in a combat situation.
“Y continue to insisit on making this personal rather than a question of determining what is best for the defense of the nation”
Repealing DADT IS what’s best for the nation. It is a wasteful policy that causes us to lose good soldiers with no corresponding positive effects. Perhaps there will be a miniscule fraction of soldiers who will leave due to repeal, but if they are that fickle than we don’t need them. Those few soldiers could learn something of patriotism from their gay comrades, many of whom have been serving their country for years despite having to hide who they are the whole time.
Chris: “Do you honestly believe that allowing gays to serve openly in the military is going to harm military effectiveness?”
In the long run time will tell. My point was that this is not the time to change anything.
“Discriminatory? It’s downright idiotic, and certainly doesn’t represent the opinions of most soldiers. Are you aware that straight people get HIV as well, or did you just arrive here from 1982?”
How very condescending and stupid of you:
http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art42384.html
Is HIV a Gay Disease? What U.S. Statistics Show By Enid Vzquez – August 2007
From Test Positive Aware Network
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/23/hiv-remains-a-gay-disease/
HIV remains a gay disease by Daniel ONeill – Sep 23, 2010, Washington Blade
http://www.avert.org/women-hiv-aids.htm
Women HIV and Aids Avert
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/dires/epi-presentation-croi2004-bisexual.pdf
PDF fileconclusion: indirect evidence that bisexual men play a roll in the HIV epidemic among heterosexual women (in NYC).
As a student you may also be interested in reading this:
http://www.stateuniversity.com/blog/permalink/College-Students-and-HIV-AIDS.html
“…and if one were to come down with the HIV virus they probably would not be allowed in a combat situation.”
Before or after the discovery? HIV is something one can have for awhile withoutnbeing aware…that’s part of what makes it dangerous. This is one of many things that need to be addressed before anything is done to change things.
“Repealing DADT IS what’s best for the nation.”
Thank you for sharing your OPINION.
“Those few soldiers could learn something of patriotism from their gay comrades, many of whom have been serving their country for years despite having to hide who they are the whole time.”
Once again you presume to speak for everyone.
All of our soldiers sacrifice for their nation in the performance of their duties. Straight men sacrifice in ways that gay men do not.
While I recognize the special circumstances that require gays and lesbians to be particularly discreet I don’t agree they have to “hide who they are”. People are not their sexual orientation. Sex is an activity. It is a biological function (designed for procrestion) that just happens to also be pleasurable but, IT IS NOT AN IDENTITY!
I reiterate. It may very well be that this change would do nothing to change the military. I don’t think now is the time to risk it. And if you are wrong and it is terribly disruptive then what? (hard to put that genie back in the bottle)
I firmly believe that women should be serving seperately as well…for obvious reasons and another day!
Tina, I am aware that gays are more likely to get AIDS then straight people. That still doesn’t make it more rational for a soldier to be afraid of treating a bleeding gay soldier than a bleeding straight soldier. The possibility of infection is there regardless.
And as I said before, I am pretty sure when you go into the military you are screened for everything. I don’t know if they include HIV screenings but they certainly should, regardless of sexual orientation. This is especially true for those who will be in combat situations and will have to deal with exposure to the blood of others. HIV often goes unnoticed for a while, but if my understanding is correct, if one submits to an HIV test then it is easily discovered. HIV tests should be mandatory for soldiers, if they are not already.
I’d also like to add that encouraging monogamy among the gay community would be an effective preventative measure against the HIV virus.
“Straight men sacrifice in ways that gay men do not.”
Could you elaborate on this? I honestly don’t know what you mean. Gay men often have spouses and families back at home too, and their sacrifice is no lesser due to their orientation.
“While I recognize the special circumstances that require gays and lesbians to be particularly discreet I don’t agree they have to “hide who they are”. People are not their sexual orientation. Sex is an activity. It is a biological function (designed for procrestion) that just happens to also be pleasurable but, IT IS NOT AN IDENTITY!”
Tina, despite the right wing’s attempts to make it so, this isn’t about sex or even attraction. I can’t recall, are you married? If so, I want you to imagine how you would feel if you were in the military and you were expressly forbidden from making any references to your spouse. Keep in mind you may be sent to a far away country, where you won’t have a lot of contact with your spouse or your family. You also can’t talk about any exes you may have if it comes up in conversation. If a fellow soldier asks about any of these subjects, you will have to either deflect or lie about the details. You might have to change the name of your spouse in order to protect your secret.
These are crucial aspects of one’s identity, Tina, and they inform every part of life. That you attempt to reduce them to mere sexual issues shows that you have not tried to put yourself in their position, and that you don’t understand the complications that gay soldiers have to go through. You and I are both privileged enough that we don’t have to think about how sexuality informs every aspect of our identity. But it does, Tina. You would be a different person if you were married to a woman. Your life experiences would be different. Can you imagine having to hide all those life experiences from your fellow soldiers, all of whom are free to chat and gossip and laugh about their spouses, and exes, and families back at home? Can you imagine the crippling effect it would have on a soldier in a foreign land who not only has to worry about being killed, but has to worry that at the slightest possible slip of a tongue–saying “he” instead of “she,” or vice versa–all the work they have put into serving their country honorably might turn out to be a complete waste? That their sacrifices will, in the end, mean nothing to the country that they have pledged their lives to? Can you imagine the toll that would take?
“And if you are wrong and it is terribly disruptive then what? (hard to put that genie back in the bottle)”
I am confident that I am not wrong. All the evidence is in favor of repeal. Allowing gays to serve openly in the military has not caused problems in a single country that has tried it, and most soldiers in America do not believe it will be a problem here. I will not justify this wasteful discrimination based on the extremely miniscule possibility that the American military can’t handle it. I believe that they can, because I believe in America. While you don’t intend it, you are paying our men and women in uniform a great insult by insisting that this change will be too drastic for them.
Chris: “That still doesn’t make it more rational for a soldier to be afraid of treating a bleeding gay soldier than a bleeding straight soldier. The possibility of infection is there regardless.”
Gay men are 44%-86% more likely to have HIV in the civilian population. A person could be tested one day and contract the disease within a week following the test. The population where he hooks up is statistically more likely to infect him. Within a month he deploys having been given a clean bill of health. I can understand someone having that concern even with testing.
“…encouraging monogamy among the gay community would be an effective preventative measure against the HIV virus.”
Yes! It’s a shame more of them don’twant or encourage monogomy…they can you know.
“I honestly don’t know what you mean. Gay men often have spouses and families back at home too, and their sacrifice is no lesser due to their orientation.”
I was thinking of young newly married men who miss the birth of their children, especially their firstborn. (The internet has made a difference in this but it still isn’t quite the same as being there.)
“despite the right wing’s attempts to make it so, this isn’t about sex or even attraction.”
Of course it is at a very basic level.
“I can’t recall, are you married? If so, I want you to imagine how you would feel if you were in the military and you were expressly forbidden from making any references to your spouse.”
Yes I am married. Before I imagine not being able to make references to my spouse I had better imagine knowing that before I enlist!
“These are crucial aspects of one’s identity, Tina, and they inform every part of life. That you attempt to reduce them to mere sexual issues shows that you have not tried to put yourself in their position, and that you don’t understand the complications that gay soldiers have to go through.”
You continue to make assumptions about me. I’m not unaware of the difficulties of living this lifestyle. I am very aware of the difficulties. I get they are very challenging BUT…as I said, gays know this going in and so far quite a number of them have chosen to buck up and serve anyway. There are many circumstances in life where people are required to buck up. When one thing becomes more important than another you do what is required.
“You and I are both privileged enough that we don’t have to think about how sexuality informs every aspect of our identity.”
I am privileged and proud to be a woman and I honor my biology. I would not choose another lifestyle. I will indulge the fantasy for the sake of discussion, however. To adopt another lifestyle I would have to accept that choices bring consequences. I would choose to be responsible for those choices and consequences, including negative feedback from society. I would also live as I do now, keeping my porsonal life to myself. I would not choose to serve in the military because the rules would require me to misrepresent myself. That goes against my character and in any case is a terrible way to begin a relationship. If I had a strong desire to serve my country I would look for ways to serve without joining the military.
Sidenote: For those that have made the military their profession and have served with honor I do thank them and acknowkledge and appreciate their discipline and sacrifice.
Thank you for sharing your opinion, Chris. You may be right about all of it. On the other hand the young, who seem to accept this idea easily, also might find down the road that there are unanticipated consequences they never bothered to consider or lacked the experience to adequately consider.
Whatever decision is made the fact remains:
Fatcat Dems can donate all of their riches to THE US TREASURY or THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC DEBT…anytime!