There are already gays in the military right now. This isn't a debate about whether they can serve, it's about whether they can serve openly. What's the difference between straight guys currently showering with closeted gay guys (which at least some likely know are gay) and straight guys showering with guys they definitely know are gay? The straight guy's own self-consciousness.

I guess you're just going to be disappointed when they don't segregate the showers and barracks.

You may not be aware the gays are a 100 times better at controlling themselves than straight people are. We're used to living in a world of 90% straight people. The hardest change will be that straight soldiers might actually have to adhere to the rules regarding dating and sexual harassment. And straight males won't be able to blackmail females that turn them down by reporting them for being gay. (Many aren't even gay, it's just impossible to prove you're not gay once you've been reported.)

Then all heterosexual males will then get the full opportunity to bed down and shower with females.
They aren't sexual preditors either.

Regardless if anyone agrees or disagrees with openly gay people serving in the military, this IS a problem that must be addressed. As I've pointed out before….. Gay men and women have the right to defend their nation. That's fine. But there are many internal issues, besides your “sensitivity training” that must be accomplished to make it a go.

There were no personal attacks and no profanity was used.

Can someone tell me what's wrong with the comment under review?

In the end though I think sh*t sandwiches are one of the flaws of democracy since it is a method to try to appeal to as many people as possible unfortunately as our founding fathers learned when drafting our first legislation it does not make you sound coherent or intelligent but it passes and it works until it breaks(all created equal/slavery insanity for instance). I see a “fix” but its the states rights melt the fed to a tiny unimportant thing track which also means the US would begin to rank behind Europe for power and prestige which would limit many of our choices but to be honest I think we pay to high a price to be the global super power and from my view it really only benefits the top .01% anyway. For the rest of us it just distorts our nation our laws and our morality further and further. Put on top of that that pols are creating laws to please Dems Reps and the business community and you get what we have in the current legislation an icoherent giveaway too all three that we will all pay for. In a grown up world I prefer your method but you are correct that it would float like a lead balloon. The only enemies we seem to fear more than those attacking us with bombs is those in the other party which I think is a pretty dangerous state of affairs but it has a long history.

Gays have to abide by the same rules of conduct straights do. They've already been working on this. The repeal will most likely include a time table for the military to follow and it's up to them to prepare and carry it out. And it will likely include training and rules for conduct. Congress legislates, not the military.

1. Temporary nationalization, in order to kill off the current monopolies and start from scratch.
2. Dual layer: nationalize family doctors, but free up the private market using Wyden's approach and repealing McCarran-Ferguson.

The question is what is the fix? I see two valid options that are polar opposites to actually bring down costs, single payer which would cost a fraction of what it costs us now or nothing. When I say nothing I really mean it though, take away the AMA's ability to say how many DR's we will have every year and gut every regulation while nuking the health insurance industry and start from scratch, after 5-10 yrs of extreme pain and trauma we would then be able to pay out of pocket without the market being twisted and true free market principles would be brought to bare. Problem is that neither of those two options are being offered by either side and the “nothing” approach would be attacked from left and right and of course the electorate would never support either. Its depressing but if we want things to change little the current approach seems to be the only option short of doing nothing which looks basically the same with zero safe guards for consumers but Wyden's amendment which I support will switch it slowly from employer to employee at least.

History back to 1900s from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

A more insurance-based view:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?page_id=1647

It doesn't go back far enough, but a graph medical increases. I want one that goes back much farther:
http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=9326

An inflation-adjusted graph of federal health costs, back to 1940:
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-rese…

which is part of a large group of inflation adjusted graphs from this page (well, I found some interesting):
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-rese…

2. I have to disagree with you on this one. Many things were put into place prior to Nixon that helped to end the Gold Standard. But Nixon put the final nail in the coffin in 1971. He didn't cause it, but he ended it.

3. Yeah… Who can possibly argue with that.

Three current nightmares Nixon can be thanked for.

1. Our current health care system
2. Ending of the gold standard
3. China

Nixon?
1. Our current health care system started during World War II, and has in the making for a long time. Nixon had a part in the HMO stuff, but it's a bit much to blame him for burning down the house when he was just throwing one more log in the fire.
2. The gold standard effectively ended in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Act. Unless you can show that he voted for that, his part couldn't mean much.
http://www.historycentral.com/documents/Federal…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
3. Well, yeah, that one I can't argue with.

1. Our current health care system
2. Ending of the gold standard
3. China

I don't.

* * *

“as long as the Democratic party remains sold-out to the ACLU, gays, and humanists”

The extremists within these groups are among the most apathetic, disgusted, or angry Dem voters now.

As I wrote much earlier this year, when Obama was tardy on a favored gay issue that militants wanted resolved in their favor promptly (as if it were a condition of Obama's election and legitimacy in office): Now you know the “back of the bus” feeling that the Religious Right is subjected to, after the election, until shortly before the next!

(CLUE: Obama may offer some lefty groups a sop or two next year, to squelch the apathy and get 'em turning out this time to vote.)

Ya know…. That tends to happen when you get rid of a gold standard and go to a paper standard. The Fed system has made this bed, and now we refuse to lay in it. It's also much easier to start wars that we cannot afford when all you have to do is print more, manipulate a market, or borrow from China.

You and I don't always see eye-to-eye, Don. But I feel ya on this one. My Senators were split on the healthcare issue and Cap and Trade issue. Energy and healthcare happen to be the biggest industries in my state. Can you guess which clown won't be getting this democrat's vote? The one that supports cap and trade and socialized medicine. The house will fare no better with people like me.

I'll gladly vote for a republican just as long as the Democratic party remains sold-out to the ACLU, gays, and humanists.

I have difficulty in believing that you actually believe this statement, Sil.

You essentially said that the poor were made that way by the GOP. First of all, besides outright communism, I don't see the DNC doing much for the poor either. The numbers poor have not shrunk on their watch, nor did they grow from 1996-2006 when the GOP had the Congress.

Additionally, it cannot be defined as an “illegal” war, when it was blessed by Congress – a BI-PARTISAN Congress at that.

Currently, a lot of their base has become disgusted with their spending, and other excesses, so you would expect their remaining base to be a little more uniform.

Absolutely. As with “global warming,” “climate change,” or whatever phrase is chosen next, I've read your postings and am thankful these days that someone else besides me can state what's not only correct, but obvious.

Many lefties (Thom Hartmann makes it a habit on his show) never accepted Reagan's election and what it meant about the public's limit-setting to modern liberalism. As for 1994, Dodd and Gephardt were merely two of the most blatant loud-mouths after that election, on C-SPAN frequently complaining about “extreeee-mists.”

“There is a whole generation of Democrats that knows nothing else and that is reflected in the MoveOn/DailyKos bunch.”

Sadly, we see too much such immoderation like this (and other mischief) all too often lately.

* * *

“So have our bailouts. You might have noticed the banks are still open. That was at one point in serious doubt.”

Well, some of the banks are still open — those who are at the top of the consolidation food chain, and which are at the opposite end from the many banks that have been taken over. Enjoy reviewing all the entries on the following list that have 2009 closing dates.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/bank…

An historically-related side note regarding the banks: Years ago, there was a bank, whose ads in California were catchy, called Independence Bank (of Encino). It featured ads about you and I, the “little fish,” being treated (unlike at, say, Bank of America, where you had to be a whale to get noticed) a “big fish.” Adnan Khashoggi's BCCI (that notorious outfit) took over Independence and made plenty of news. There's a bank currently running catchy decent-to-ordinary-people commercials, called Ally; I wonder if, someday, it will be involved in some kind of shady goings-on (maybe with terrorists, maybe with China).

* * *

“Given the lack of anything coherent from the Repubs, it should be enough to scare the hell out of everyone.”

I'm not scared, only because the GOP is so unappealing currently I'm unsure it would get many votes, necessarily. (Much also depends on what the Dems do after they're done pulling themselves out of their current nosedive with health care “reform” in particular. Additional antics like playing games at Copenhagen with climate politics and related legislation back in the States, and other things the Dems have deferred, like “card check” and immigration “reform,” also will influence what happens. But the GOP is starting from a very weak position with the voters not only holding their noses about the GOP but donning personal protective equipment, almost.)

* * *

“let me guess DLS, you're a “moderate” right?…lol…”

Yes, though not mushy, obviously. I'm also astute when it comes to observing the world around me, including poltical fun and games.

* * *

“I noticed Hannity drooling all over her the other day. Isn't it weird how traditional christianity is thrown out the window when one wants to woo a pretty mindless blonde, who produced lewd sex tapes of herself.”

1. Prejean (and Palin) are celebrities now primarily because of attention (and hatred) from the Left, not the Right. (How ironic that the Tribe of Perpetual Victimhood creates a current True Victim Industry for Palin and Prejean out of true hatred. “Congratulations,” lefties.)

2. I heard a brief exerpt of Hannity's drooling all over her. (Or was it an exerpt of his drooling over Palin?)

3. The best critical commentary I heard was something rare, on a show hosted by, of all people, normally-mentally-ill Randi Rhodes. (Stephanie Miller is pre-junior-high-school childish and at times, vulgar. Randi Rhodes typically is a mental patient who has siezed a radio microphone and radio transmitter. There are better far-lefty talkers much more worth one's time — but I'm now posted where the radio selection is such I was happy to listen to Rhodes. [gulp]) Rhodes did a great show on Prejean and on Palin (it was actually funny and witty), and it featured commentary by Prejean's former boyfriend, for whom the tape was made — someone who described quite a lot fo phoniness and other demerits of Prejean.

* * *

“I'm trying to remember which sermon it was in church where the preacher spoke about how one should emulate someone like her?”

Sounds like a Democratic church and preacher (or would sound like this, if it included the open demand to vote for her, too, and if she were a Democrat). Don't you mean the negative, praying for Obama's death?

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasio…

then try to cultivate the useful habit of acquainting yourself with the rudimentary facts before making absurd, sweeping claims about other people's morality.

Like most leftists, you confuse spending other people's money with charitable giving.

I'm sorry if it seems like I don't get your point.

I completely agree that the Democrats have to do some things. I think they understand this. Certainly this poll ought to be wake-up call. So even though Democrats aren't as uniform in their thinking as Republicans, they will make some real progress.

I also think that the Republicans, in spite of whatever opportunities beckon, seem strangely determined to limit their appeal to a narrow audience.

I'm not saying this is a recipe for a Repub victory. The recipe for a Repub victory is for Dem supporters to stay home, as the original post brought up. It bothers me a bit to entertain the idea of passing any power back to Repubs given the state they're in. Didn't the Repubs just lose the last two cycles because many in their party “wanted to teach them a lesson”? What good will it do if they come back to power without having learned that lesson, whatever it may be? The Dems just need to do something to give people reason to keep them there. Telling voters that the other side is just plain nuts isn't going to do it.

Yes and while Americans of both parties are down in the gutters pointing fingers at the other party at least we have a president who no longer demonizes the opposition party. Gone are the days when Bush called the Democrats “obstructionists” on a daily basis. Gone are the days when the GOP (when it was in power) refused to listen to the Democrats on any legislation. Obama may have won the election in part by putting the blame on Bush/Cheney, but that was all. Obama did not demonize Republicans as a group and instead has offered them places in his administration, even keeping some Bush appointees in place. As far as the Dems in Congress… even they let Republicans offer amendments to legislation, whether it's the stimulus bill back in Feb. or the healthcare legislation or anything else for that matter.

So let's be clear that not everyone is trying to demonize the other party. I think it's to Obama's credit that he attempt to include Republicans in the process. Something Bush (and other Republicans when they had the power) never did.

Given the lack of anything coherent from the Repubs, it should be enough to scare the hell out of everyone.

I presume that as the election draws nearer, this point of yours will become clearer.

And it's hard for me to believe that scaring the hell out of everyone is a recipe for Republican victory.

It's a topsy turvey world out there. I guess you could distill it to say that dems seem to place emphasis on the walk while the GOP seems to put emphasis on the talk. I'll be willing to bet that when push comes to shove [election 2010], people can be reminded of this in spades.

“The rest of what you have to say is bulletproof and nuclear hardened, though I'd view other howlers this year as possibly better. (Look at the material that's been provided about Palin and Prejean, for example, as well as Beck and Limbaugh, and the continued Bush-bashing a year and more after the election, too.)”

**********
Bullets, nukes, Palin, Prejean, Beck and Limbaugh….let me guess DLS, you're a “moderate” right?…lol…

As to Prejean and merely talking the talk. I noticed Hannity drooling all over her the other day. Isn't it weird how traditional christianity is thrown out the window when one wants to woo a pretty mindless blonde, who produced lewd sex tapes of herself. I'm trying to remember which sermon it was in church where the preacher spoke about how one should emulate someone like her?