Feb
13

Shower Me With Your Love




Posted at 10:51 by Gavin M.

Above (l-r): Aristogeiton, Harmodius.1

Action Alert, The American Family Association
Obama’s new military: Gays showering with straights
Tell Congress not to overturn ban on homosexuals in the military

Dear Gavin M.,

Gays showering with straights? Absolutely.

Ab-fabsolutely. I mean wait, no, OH MY GOD. This is worse than Alexander the Gay, I mean Grape. I mean Alexander the Great — worse than him in there rubbing down his buceph-’phallus,’ heh-heh, like the horse,2 get it? Oh, whatever. Never mind.

Dear Gavin M.,

Gays showering with straights? Absolutely.

No wait, OH MY GOD, I thought it said ‘show ring,’ as in dressage, but it actually says ‘showering,’ like when you wear bathing suits and wait, what? OH MY GOD.

Dear Gavin M.,

Gays showering with straights? Absolutely.

OMG OMG NAKED OMG SOAPY WIENERS OMG OMG BUTTS

Oh, oh, it’s like every single time my high school used to play the football team from the gay high school across town, where they bused all the gay students who would ordinarily have been mixed in among us, like, unbeknownst.3

Long story short, after every game a drill bit would come whizzing through the shower tile, and our players would be forced to screech and cover their private parts with helmets and towels as laughter and wolf whistles echoed in the opposite stall. And then if you did it back to them, they’d just make these naked vogueing poses or pretend to be humping with comedy woo! and heh-heh! faces. I mean no, fine, not gays showering with straights exactly, but one time the tip of a penis came poking through the hole, and everybody stared at it like aaah! as it pushed through, and everyone was like ohshit! as it kept thrusting through the wall, and then it fell right out onto the floor and bounced rubberishly as the opposite stall cracked up laughing, and pardon me, but that was gaying it with some estimable gayness, right there.

Imagine if they’re in the same stall as you. We’re talking synchronized soap-dropping and breakout choruses of ‘Wash That Man Right Out of My Hair,’ and just imagine.

If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

Unless your son or daughter is a fug muffin.

Talk about creating a hostile work environment for people who practice normative sexuality!

Sure, everybody talks about creating a hostile work environment for people who practice normative sexuality, but at last someone is doing something about it.

As former General Colin Powell observed in 1993 (before bowing to pressures of political correctness),

I.e., before [mumble-mumble].

“…it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate gays and lesbians in the current military structure.”

He compellingly argued against the completely bogus comparison between race and sexual preference: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

It’s almost as invalid an argument as the completely bogus comparison of existence and nonexistence, a total-opposite argument of comparing in which the HEY, STOP THAT.

Also, the polite term is African-American.

To recap: When we left our Action Alert, Colin Powell had compared skin color and sexual orientation and declared that it was invalid to compare the two. This was introduced with the phrase, “He compellingly argued.”

Here are some important facts:

There seems to be a pattern here.

* Both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (which includes four million vets) have come out strongly against overturning the ban, with the VFW calling it a “new social-engineering project.”

If the American Family Association can social-engineer an extra 2.4 million members into the Veterans of Foreign Wars (which includes 1.6 million vets), then it’s time to debut my new Social Engine Earring, and to settle this question once and for all.

* More than 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change, saying that overturning the ban would “undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughter to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”


Above: Aha, but have more than 1,160 retired admirals and generals seen this?

* Richard H. Black, the former chief of the U.S. Army’s criminal law division, citing numerous “criminal reports document[ing] serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs,” calls the ban “an essential element of military discipline” which “must be retained.”

I leaned back in my chair and lit a fresh Newport. The phone rang once, then stopped. “Must not be the postman,” I said, as a dame poured through the door with a bow-chicka-wow and a sex scene commenced. The name’s Dick Black, African-American private investigator.

* Overturning the ban will likely preclude advancement and promotions for officers and chaplains who do not publicly affirm homosexual behavior, essentially ending their military careers.

Like when the ban on Hinduism was lifted, and all the chaplains were forced to publicly affirm Hinduism.

If we do not insist that the ban on homosexual military service be retained, our military will no longer be the place America’s families want to send their best and brightest young men and women.

Thank God for the ban on gays in college.

Take Action


Above: Yeah, maybe that’ll make (huh) a man out of you.

Email your representative and senators urging them to oppose the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Additional resource: AFA has established a dedicated webpage with extensive resources to help you understand and debate this issue.

Okay. Hey, look who’s behind it. They can knock diversity all they like, but it certainly keeps seeming as though it’s a frickin’ small world after all.


Notes:

1 Original bronze statues by Kritios, 476 B.C.E., now lost as usual. The ones pictured are, as usual, Roman marble copies, but through the magic of Photoshop, they have been freed from the structural crap that the Roman copyists generally piled up next to the legs to keep the stone from cracking, and somewhat re-bronzified in the style of the contemporary gay couple and the spray tan. Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the Liberators, are the same-sex parents of Athenian democracy, and therefore American democracy, right up to its fatal self-maiming in a drunken fireworks accident.

2 This is really not worth it as a pun, even an opportunistic Greek one, but Bucephalus was Alexander’s horse.

3 It was in several cases widely knownst, although once the rumors lost their freshness, and once the standard epithets had been volleyballed around and duly retorted, nobody cared much except the angry, closeted kids. One of these was an athletic type named Peter Wack. As an appropriate name encountered in real life, this is now in the Number Three position, under a kid named Damien Omentu. The one recently added at the top of the list has been doubted, so I am pleased to see that the Internet now confirms the existence of Dr. Wasim Attar.

In my perfect tomorrow, there will be a university named after him.

125 Comments »

  1. M. Bouffant said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:01

    I thought “Bucepahlus” was Hank Williams Jr.’s (from the generation that the talent gene skipped) nickname.

    You pointy-headed Eastern eliters w/ your book larnin’. Sheesh! Don’t your hair ever hurt, thinkin’ like that?

  2. M. Bouffant said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:03

    Seriously. Edit function.

    Less importantly, the comment zone is looking strange. Oozing beyond the sidebar, cut off on the left & so on.

  3. Chris said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:15

    “If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.”

    Like that never happens to sports teams, or manual laborers, or anyone else whose job may require showering with his co-workers.

    ““Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

    Skin color may be benign and nonbehavioral, but the way people react to (which is all that matters) sure as hell isn’t. White Southern boys with strong conservative backgrounds were the backbone of the military in 1947 as today; does anyone really think they felt any more comfortable sharing showers with “spics” and “niggers” (still viewed as animals by polite society) than their grandchildren today would with gays?

    “More than 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change, saying that overturning the ban would “undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughter to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.””

    Good. Maybe we can finally bring back the draft. I say “finally” because if the American people as a whole had to bear the burden for the wars they endorse, you can bet they’d be taking a closer look at them. For the last thirty years the American public’s been gleefully cheerleading every time there’s a war while doing everything it can to insulate itself from the effects. I for one am getting goddamn tired of it and think it’s about time the people start accepting the consequences for their own votes again.

  4. Smut Clyde said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:15

    Strangeness and oozing I can cope with. They seem appropriate for the current topic.

    I see from the AFA website that they classify the “Focus on the Family” lobby group as “our good friends”. This would be FotF as in James Dobson, of “men should shower with their sons to intimidate them with the size of their willies” fame. There’s a definite shower fixation emerging here. Perhaps if the US armed forces switched to hot baths, the whole problem would go away.

    What’s that, Wikipedia?

    [AFA]‘s Wildmon has stated that he believes obscene content on television and in movies is a result of the media being controlled by Jews, who intentionally place anti-Christian messages and activities into their programming to undermine Christianity.[56][57][58] Wildmon further characterizes Jews as more supportive of gays than other Americans.[55]

    Media Matters claimed an article in the March 2005 issue of AFA’s Journal insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society.

    Do not trust these people when they offer you a shower.

  5. Smut Clyde said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:20

    “More than 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change”
    Well bugger me rigid. Do you really have so many retired high-ranking officers, or is this another AFA sadistic? Do they hand out admiralties and generalities in boxes of cereal or something?

    More goodness from the Wikipedia article:

    Former AFA California leader Scott Lively[97][98] is a co-author of The Pink Swastika which claims that many leaders in the German Nazi regime, including Hitler himself, were gay.

    The thread comes conveniently pre-Godwinned.

  6. M. Bouffant said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:31

    practice normative sexuality!

    How long must they practice before they get it right? (And always a crack-up when a bunch of know-nothing anti-intellectuals use a big word.)

    parents who lend their sons and daughter to military service

    “Lend?” Rosenfeldt better keep that Lend-Lease crap out of our military! And we don’t need that daughter, she can stay at home.

    Also amusing, from the “who’s behind it” link:

    Promoting high standards and sound priorities for our military men and women.

    Because they’re a bunch of cretins who can’t take care of themselves?

    break the All-Volunteer Force

    Uh, keep up the bombing & Kristoling all over the world & we’ll need a draft before you know it. Then everybody who would’ve pretended to be gay to avoid being killed by/for their gov’t. will have to serve. So let the ‘mos in!!

  7. tensor said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:50

    … your son or daughter …

    Children of wingnuts go anywhere near our military? When did this ever happen?

  8. M. Bouffant said,

    February 13, 2010 at 11:52

    We got at least 2 million saps in the service, active & reserve, & 224,144 active ossifers as of Feb. 2009.

    So that many retired flag officers is not amazing. Many get out (or have to get out) once or as soon as they make a star, to enjoy themselves facilitating bribery in the defense community. And as they get pretty good medical care even after they’re out, they live longer than they deserve to.

    Of course, like the list of 30,000 non-climate scientists & pediatric dentists mentioned a thread or three ago, who don’t go for the possibility, even, of climate change, there’s no reason to think a whole lot of these aged & ret’d. asswipes were ever in the same theater where combat was occurring,or that they know much about anything but desk jockeying, hanging around at the O Club & going home to their base housing.

    If y’all haven’t seen this, via these guys & gals, you should.

  9. M. Bouffant said,

    February 13, 2010 at 12:01

    Children of wingnuts

    Well, it’s not the children of the actual typing, bloviating wingnuts who serve, it’s the offspring of the poor & rural idiots who watch FOX News exclusively & swallow it whole. Victims of wing-nuts, really.

    Although I don’t get that “lend their sons and daughter,” because once you’re 18 you don’t need anybody’s damn permission, just a recruiter desperate to meet his/her monthly quota.

  10. The Tragically Flip said,

    February 13, 2010 at 12:38

    I’m waiting for them to claim that gays in the military will encourage Al Qaeda because everyone knows fags are simpering limp wristed cowards who will drop their rifles if they chip a nail, and the terrorists will overrun the camp like Viet-Cong.

    We’re talking about people who learned everything they know about gays from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

  11. Smut Clyde said,

    February 13, 2010 at 13:22

    Like when the ban on Hinduism was lifted, and all the chaplains were forced to publicly affirm Hinduism.

    Probably not just a random example, because the American Fambly Association do not like the heathen hindoo either:

    AFA sent out an “Action Alert” to its members to e-mail, write letters, or call their Senators to oppose the Hindu prayer, stating it is “seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god.”

    a hostile work environment for people who practice normative sexuality!

    Oh how I hate those assessments which inevitably end with the Frau Doktorin informing me that I am not yet reaching the expected performance level for my pay grade, and I must keep practicing.

  12. Lesley said,

    February 13, 2010 at 13:33

    Putting Gays in the military might rob some guys of the opportunity to harass and sexually assault female soldiers. Who knows, having a Gay around could get in the way of all the illegal activity straight fucked up men enjoy that Gays just don’t appreciate.

  13. Smut Clyde said,

    February 13, 2010 at 13:35

    overturning the ban would “undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughter to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

    Perhaps their concern is misdirected.

  14. Snarla said,

    February 13, 2010 at 14:19

    I kind of hate to ask this, but what’s funny about Dr. Wasim Attar?

  15. Lady Doctor Missus Mommy Marita said,

    February 13, 2010 at 14:25

    We’re talking about people who learned everything they know about gays from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

    Are you sure we’re not talking about people who learned everything they know about gays from a dimly-lit rest area late at night, with their wife and kids safely at home and none the wiser?

  16. Lady Doctor Missus Mommy Marita said,

    February 13, 2010 at 14:29

    I kind of hate to ask this, but what’s funny about Dr. Wasim Attar?

    Say it out loud, Snarla.

  17. El Cid said,

    February 13, 2010 at 14:33

    So, does Gavin want gays showering with straights or not?

  18. El Cid said,

    February 13, 2010 at 14:45

    By the way, this is the 21st century. For quite a while now, the U.S. military has possessed the advanced technology of individual shower stalls.

    When I served, in the old barracks there were still the older multi-shower-head style showers.

    You know what? Guys didn’t want to wake up and shower with the other, presumably hetero [just sayin', going with the prevailing assumptions] guys’ hairy, farting asses either. They figured out a schedule and took quick showers so that everybody could shower on their own.

    All this was done without command structure intervention or any formal work, or any giant posters screaming ARE YOUR SHOWERS BREEDING GAYS.

  19. Pere Ubu said,

    February 13, 2010 at 15:09

    For quite a while now, the U.S. military has possessed the advanced technology of individual shower stalls.

    Huh. I did not know that.

    I’m sure, though, the image of the military in AFA-Land, much like their general view of reality, is frozen in time along about 1944 or so. Before fags were invented.

  20. El Cid said,

    February 13, 2010 at 15:20

    For example:

    The Navy recently has awarded military construction contracts involving the construction of market-style housing, comparable to what is commonly found in the private sector, for unaccompanied sailors in Norfolk, Va., Mayport, Fla., and the Pacific Northwest.

    Under this design, each member would have a private room and a private bath while sharing a living, dining and kitchen area. (Under the Homeport Ashore initiative, however, two sailors on sea duty would share a bedroom while the ship is in port, until additional construction allows each sailor to have a private room.)…

    …The Marine Corps was granted a waiver to the one-plus-one module in favor of a “two-by-zero” approach. This plan calls for two junior Marines (paygrades E-1 to E-3) to share a room and bath, to support the tenets of team building and unit cohesion. E-4s and E-5s are to be assigned private rooms.

    Using input from quality-of-life surveys, the Air Force has developed a new standard called “Dorms-4-Airmen.” This design provides a four-person module with four private bedrooms and private baths, and a shared kitchen, washer and dryer, and living room. The Air Force design promotes increased privacy and social interaction, while creating an environment for mentoring and “buddy care.”

    The Army’s current standard is similar to the Navy’s module; it includes two bedrooms, one bathroom and a kitchenette, but does not include a washer and dryer. In Korea, however, those in paygrades E-1 to E-4 share a bedroom and bathroom; E-5s and above are assigned to private rooms. In some areas of the U.S., those in grades E-1 to E-4 share a bedroom and a bathroom.

    Google is your friend, unless your fucking idea of the military was formed from visits to your local 1960s-era YMCA and watching “300″ over and over and over.

  21. El Cid said,

    February 13, 2010 at 15:24

    You can also find military barracks and dormitories with TVs, gaming rooms, vending machines, and all sorts of things more relevant to a volunteer military staffed by young men & women used to a fairly common U.S. social life and structure, and not at all like the lives experienced by authenticity enthusiasts re-enacting the Civil War.

  22. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    February 13, 2010 at 15:58

    authenticity enthusiasts re-enacting the Civil War
    ~

  23. Lurking Canadian said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:02

    Things that create a hostile environment for our troops and require our immediate action to oppose: Requiring them to bathe in proximity to homosexual comrades who are sworn to serve beside them.

    Things that (apparently) do not create a hostile environment for our troops and with which we needn’t concern ourselves: Sending them to Middle Eastern countries where every single person above the age of reason wants to kill them.

  24. N__B said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:03

    Do you really have so many retired high-ranking officers,

    Keep in mind the MASSIVELY SWOLLEN size of our military, its state of CONSTANT READINESS FOR ACTION, its RIGID rules, its focus on QUICK-STRIKE capabilities, and its history of COMING IN WHERE IT’S NOT WANTED.

  25. Rusty Shackleford said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:16

    Nothing in the Action Alert about civil rights?

  26. LittlePig said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:23

    Gays? Why the hell should I be worried about that? I’m afraid my kid may have to shower with Republicans.

    That hole where the soul is supposed to be is a hell of a lot more scary than any hole in a gay person,

  27. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:25

    N__B, Whatchoo got against New Zealandites?
    ~

  28. Celia said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:33

    our military will no longer be the place America’s families want to send their best and brightest young men and women.

    Now, maybe I’m entirely too foreign for this thread (the UK has allowed gay perverts to queer up the military for just over ten years now) but the internet had led me to believe that these “best and brightest young men and women” were, in many quarters, violent criminals and the mentally disabled because the US forces were, in fact, so desperate for bodies to go in uniforms that they were more or less pulling people from the gutters outside recruitment offices and throwing a uniform at them. Just so long as they weren’t fags, because that would be gay. This isn’t tactical sense, it’s a superstition. Sailors used to hold that it was bad luck to allow women onto boats, and bad luck to kill dolphins. Now women are allowed onto boats (although dolphins are generally still not killed) and it’s now bad luck for someone to have a same-sex romance. It’s not connected to any rhyme or reason, it’s just “the way things are”. What happens if you ask “why?” What happens if you do the thing you’re not supposed to do?

  29. J— said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:38

    The Center for Military Readiness has put together some very convincing flow charts (pdf) that demonstrate how changing the law “would impose a crushing weight on the men and women of our military.”

    Don’t let them shove this weight down the throats of the men and women of our military.

  30. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:42

    What happens if you ask “why?”

    Why can’t we help our military ladies and gentlemen by getting them back home from Iraq and Afghanistan?
    ~

  31. DrDick said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:51

    What really terrifies them is that their own little weiners will go sproing! if confronted with naked frolicking gays in the showers.

  32. Arky said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:52

    Email your representative and senators urging them to oppose the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military.

    Except there is no such ban and no one is talking about such a ban. I guess the dipshit who wrote this got all distracted by thoughts of showering with teh ghey.

    your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

    So. Wait. The same dumbfucks who claim every ghey is a heart beat away from butt fucking anything with a pulse also think that not being to openly state our perverted preferences is all it takes to keep us from giving little Jimbo the eye?

    Did Sarah Palin write this letter?

  33. Jennifer said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:56

    You know, I had never seen Alicia Bridges, and did not realize until now that she is a transsexual.

  34. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 16:59

    Overturning the ban will likely preclude advancement and promotions for officers and chaplains who do not publicly affirm homosexual behavior, essentially ending their military careers.

    Publicly affirming homosexual behavior is best done by setting an example. They could learn more about this from staunch conservatives like Larry Craig and Bob Allen.

  35. D. Sidhe said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:00

    What’s killing me is surely they understand that there are already queers in the military. They don’t seem to be objecting to that, possibly because they need the fairly literal body counts to keep up with all the wars they want to start. What they seem to want is just the right to persecute any queers who step out of line.

    This is not untypical. All sorts of otherwise rational people will tell you that they don’t mind homos, as long as they “keep it to themselves”. They seem to be aware that queers exist, they just want us to shut up and hide so they can pretend we don’t. This may or may not go along with the common statement that they “don’t believe in homosexuality”, as though there is some doubt of its existence.

    I suppose this is why they can’t make the leap from race to orientation, homosexuality can politely hide its existence and therefore leave their worldview in peace. And yet the fucking queers still refuse to be decently normal! Clearly that’s some kind of harassment, right? They’re just publicly being gay to bug us!

    (My mom still thinks that. She thinks I’m pagan and bi and polyamorous and schizophrenic just to piss her off. Well-meaning people can still be clueless assholes. And when they start out as malicious creeps, you get AFA.)

  36. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:14

    If we let the gays serve openly then what’s next? Why, they’ll be letting in convicted rapists! And kidnappers, murderers and terrorists! <= pdf warning

  37. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:23

    The conservative think tank Rand Corp. is solidly on their side, having said to keep the gays out way back in 1993! *

    * Excepting that they said exactly the opposite.

  38. Army Manual Update said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:27

    There will be a vague feeling of unease when you first get into the shower with a homosexual but then you understand that it isn’t different than showering with anyone of the same sex.

    If the feeling of unease lasts longer than 5 – 10 seconds ask yourself why.

  39. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:31

    And don’t forget, Ollie “Treason is my middle name” North says repealing DADT will fill the military with pedophiles! We all know pedophiles are attracted to adult…..wait a minit!

  40. ice9 said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:40

    There’s more. They are preparing for the future.
    I hacked their server and uploaded one of their planned future alerts. To see it go here:
    http://storyarc.squarespace.com/afa-page/

    Be prepared!

    ice9

  41. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:43

    Google is your friend, unless your fucking idea of the military was formed from visits to your local 1960s-era YMCA and watching “300? over and over and over.

    Diaskueasis for completeness sake.

  42. unclemike said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:47

    Are these people so stupid that they don’t know there are already gays and lesbians serving in the militar–

    Never mind. Just answered my own question.

  43. noen said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:48

    “This may or may not go along with the common statement that they “don’t believe in homosexuality”, as though there is some doubt of its existence.”

    It’s not about it’s existence. It’s about picturing in their minds hawt sweaty gay gay gay sex going on over, and over, and over in their minds. They don’t believe in that. Must…. fight…. it off…..

  44. El Cid said,

    February 13, 2010 at 17:57

    By the way — why do they think there’s something so special about showers that they’ll be the hive of the gay activitizing, as opposed to all those private, lockable dorm / barracks rooms?

  45. A concerned citizen said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:03

    They do know that buttsecks has been a cornerstone of military service for at least the past 2000 years, right?

    On the D—, homosexuality was rife, and one could see with his own eyes how it was going on between officers. I have been told that in some services (the Austrian and French, for instance), nobody ever remarks about it, taking such a thing as a natural proceeding: that may be so or not; but in any case, nobody was ‘shocked’ on board either the A— or the B—. There were half a dozen ties that we knew about … To my knowledge, sodomy is a regular thing on ships that go on long cruises.”

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2794/rum-sodomy-and-the-lash

  46. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:15

    They do know that buttsecks has been a cornerstone of military service for at least the past 2000 years, right?

    I posted a link the other day, um …ah, here it is wherein some conservatard uses ancient greek culture as an argument AGAINST gays in the military. You just can’t make this shit up. Seriously, Alexander, boi emperor and boi fucker, is a great standard* one which to hang one’s hat.

    * “standard” can also mean “pole.” heh.

  47. Arky said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:19

    I suppose this is why they can’t make the leap from race to orientation, homosexuality can politely hide its existence and therefore leave their worldview in peace.

    And once upon a time the coloreds could be kept in segregated units and/or given tasks that didn’t make the “real” soldiers uncomfortable. Like cooking, or driving.

    Of course, given the U.S.’s definition of race, there must have been African-American soldiers serving in what were supposed to be all white units. But provided the non-white soldier didn’t say anything no one’s delicate feelings were offended.

  48. A concerned citizen said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:22

    1. Our soldiers are our best and brightest, all 1.5 million of them.

    2. Our healthcare system is the best in the world.

    3. Clearly, our military should be bigger, in addition to less gay.

    4. But by definition, there are only a limited number of “best and brightest”. If they are serving in the military they’re not in the healthcare field, which could lead us to no longer having the best healthcare system in the world.

    5. They’re also not doing financial stuff, which means fewer bests and brightests working on Wall Street.

    6. And also, let us not forget about the young republicans and every person Bush ever appointed. Surely they are also the bestest and brightest.

  49. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:23

    I’m waiting for them to claim that gays in the military will encourage Al Qaeda

    Wait no longer.

  50. tigrismus said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:30

    … your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.
    Talk about creating a hostile work environment for people who practice normative sexuality!

    Heterosexual rape doesn’t create a hostile work environment, I guess, just clean gay people.

  51. g said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:35

    I’m sure, though, the image of the military in AFA-Land, much like their general view of reality, is frozen in time along about 1944 or so.

    Everyone is in the mess tent peeling potatoes on KP.

  52. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:36

    practice normative sexuality!

    Well, gosh, there’s your problem. I don’t need to fucking practice my form of sexuality, I just do it. Maybe if you stopped rehearsing whatever gets you off, you wouldn’t have to worry about what the gay people next to you want to do.

    Goddamn susceptibility to peer pressure. What a terrible way to live, constantly having to put up a mask about who and what you are so that you can keep telling your friends, family and assorted intimates that no, really, you’re okay, you’re normal.

    Huh. That went into a whole subtextual kind of thing. Weird.

  53. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:37

    Wait no longer.

    Missouri state Sen. Gary Nodler, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the open seat of GOP Rep. Roy Blunt, has offered up an argument for keeping the ban on gays in the military: That allowing gays to serve openly would endanger the troops, by offending the people of the Muslim countries where we are fighting.

    Holy fuck!

    P.S.
    ~

  54. A concerned citizen said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:40

    Normative sexuality? Ah yes, who can forget Aristotle’s famous work on the subject, the Dickomachean Ethics?

  55. J— said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:40

    active and open homosexuals

    “Active homosexuals” on active duty would be doubly active.

  56. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:41

    Well, that makes sense.

    I mean wasn’t D’Souza’s whole oeuvre about how everything liberal America did offended the terrorists, and so to properly combat them, we had to jettison every single aspect of liberal America so they wouldn’t be so angry with us anymore?

    Also, the shooting them apparently didn’t offend them that we had to stop doing that. Or maybe we did and the wingnuts just didn’t give a shit about that part. D’Souza seemed kind of a dolt like that.

  57. mingo said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:43


    Heterosexual rape doesn’t create a hostile work environment, I guess, just clean gay people.


    well, if those sluts weren’t in the army, where they don’t belong, instead of at home getting pregnant and baking cookies, they wouldn’t get raped, now, would they????!?!?! /extremely bitter snark.

    i truly think they believe the above. Plus, the armed forces are their vicarious brush with strutting manliness, and if there are gays (for them, the very antithesis of manliness) and women, then the head will possibly explode from the cognitive dissonance. which, it occurs to me, is sort of frosting on the cake of allowing gays to be open in the military – exploding wingnut heads!!!

  58. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:44

    … your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

    If they were military growers, on the other hand, they’d probably go completely unnoticed. Fucking size queens.

  59. g said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:53

    A commenter over at PeeJ’s link said something to the effect of, well, it’s irrelevant that Greek warriors were fucking each other, because, those Greek civilizations didn’t last, those city/nations/states were defeated and died – which is central to his point that there shouldn’t be Teh Gheys in armies.

    Erm…Beginning of the Greek Archaic period? 750 or so BC. Defeat of Greek Empire at Corinth by the Romans? 146 BC.

    Let’s do the math……

    Now try this one: Beginning of United States? 1776. Today? 2010.

    Let’s do the math….

  60. mingo said,

    February 13, 2010 at 18:59

    math is fer libruls!!

  61. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:02

    Let’s do the math……

    Defeat of U.S.A. Empire at Washington, D.C. by the Republican party?

    2001-2008 AD.
    ~

  62. hale said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:04

    Are you sure we’re not talking about people who learned everything they know about gays from a dimly-lit rest area late at night, with their wife and kids safely at home and none the wiser?

    Thus the classic “I was just passing by” defense.

  63. Arky said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:15

    Missouri state Sen. Gary Nodler, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the open seat of GOP Rep. Roy Blunt, has offered up an argument for keeping the ban on gays in the military: That allowing gays to serve openly would endanger the troops, by offending the people of the Muslim countries where we are fighting.

    So THAT’S what the Israelis are doing wrong. The hostility of the Palestinians has nothing to do with who was where first or religious differences. They’re just driven crazy by Israel’s Big Gay Army.

    And we need to tell all of the allied forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to take their big openly gay integrated forces and go home. That’s right, we don’t need you, upsetting people with your “fighting units.” Get outta here, all of you!
    [crickets chirp]
    Hey, where’d everyone go?

  64. Wyatt Watts III said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:26

    Won’t someone please, please think of the children?

    Because when we finally get a 100% racism-free tea-bagger (take that, Captain America!) in the White House, those wars with Iran and France aren’t gonna fight themselves, and we’re gonna need to draft the young’uns. Just think about it: your ten year old could be forced to defuse a land mine with a known open gay homosexual!!!! Donate now to the AFA or your child will simultaneously be converted to militant fundamentalist Islam and the homosexual agenda, and will immediately declare a cultural jihad upon himself! In the shower!!!!!

  65. tigrismus said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:39

    will immediately declare a cultural jihad upon himself! In the shower!!!!!

    And unfortunately the UN recommends as a MANDATE to teach kids, even kids as young as five years old, that that’s OK.

  66. She said, She said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:40

    My brother, a marine, said he just read Jarhead. Apparently it is very accurate in its discription of wartime.

    Also, the dialogue is very homoerotic and dead on in the way marines talk to each other.

  67. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:40

    Thus the classic “I was just passing by” defense.

    “And I was concerned that he might fall down, what with his pants around his ankles, so I grabbed him by his firm, manly buttocks. To prevent him from falling down of course. But then, then he put his tongue in my mouth, and I thought “Well, goodness, this is not what I had in mind, sir.” But I didn’t want to be inconsiderate…”

  68. justme said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:41

    Now come on. How do you expect our boys in uniform to fight our wars if they’re all busy buggering each other in foxholes, huh?

  69. N__B said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:42

    N__B, Whatchoo got against New Zealandites?

    Nothing at all. Oversized hairy feet on miniature people, on the other hand…

  70. Martian Buddy said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:47

    Celia:

    Bear in mind that here in the U.S. we love to incarcerate people. If Wikipedia is to be believed, the majority of the waivers were given out either for crimes against property (theft, check kiting, etc.) or for drug offenses–and 511 isn’t a whole lot when you’re talking about a goal of 7,000 recruits.

    Besides, thanks to farsighted Republican economic policies, we’ve got plenty of destitute Americans who’ll sign up to keep their kids fed or pay for their wife’s brain cancer treatment. That should give us all the manpower we need for Kristol’s invasion of Iran.

  71. noen said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:48

    “To my knowledge, sodomy is a regular thing on ships that go on long cruises.” “

    National Review Cruise

  72. mingo said,

    February 13, 2010 at 19:56


    cultural jihad upon himself! In the shower!!!!!

    so that’s what you kids are calling it these days.

  73. N__B said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:01

    “To my knowledge, sodomy is a regular thing on ships that go on long cruises.”

    What about rum and the lash?

  74. stryx said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:02

    They seem to think that all “the military” are privates and seamen and whathaveyou living side by side in the eternal combat zone of

  75. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:05

    cultural jihad upon himself! In the shower!!!!!

    so that’s what you kids are calling it these days.

    Around here, that’s only foreplay.

  76. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:07

    hehheh stryx said seamen

  77. stryx said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:13

    They seem to think that all “the military” are privates and seamen and whathaveyou living side by side close close close quarters of the eternal combat zone.

    Unfortunately for us Americans, many of the hated homos have jobs like finance officer or computer analyst or, oh I don’t know, translator in some language used in some place we are currently blowing up, and they work in cities like Cleveland and Omaha and Reston fuckin Virginia.

    If any of these “the military” let slip that they’re a friend of Dorothy, we end up losing that much more of our capacity to blow up strange places without getting a whole bunch of our service members killed.

    My penis references wear only the most ultrathin veils….

  78. Martian Buddy said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:16

    noen:

    I’d pay to see Rich Lowry flogged. Or better yet, keelhauled.

  79. Arky said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:32

    If any of these “the military” let slip that they’re a friend of Dorothy, we end up losing that much more of our capacity to blow up strange places without getting a whole bunch of our service members killed.

    And if the Brits had shown icky old Alex Turing the door earlier we’d (or rather you all ‘cos my non-Aryan ass wouldn’t be here) could well be goose-stepping around and leaving flowers at the feet of statues of the Fuhrer.

    Surely the AFA wouldn’t want that!

  80. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:40

    pssst…..arky… Alan Turing

  81. El Cid said,

    February 13, 2010 at 20:50

    pssst…..arky… Alan Turing

    No, you’re thinking of Alan Arkin.

  82. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:03

    No, you’re thinking of Alan Arkin.

    No, you’re thinking of Joseph Heisenberg.

  83. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:06

    No, you’re thinking of Joseph Heisenberg.

    I’m uncertain about that.

  84. stryx said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:08

    Sweet Jeebus.

    Fresh post at Great Orange Satan:

    Fox News Poll Finds Majority Supports Gays in the Military

  85. bondwooley said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:11

    Regarding DADT … Some day we’ll look in amazement that any form of a communication gap was tolerated in the military:

    http://bit.ly/9YNli3

    (satire)

  86. Chris said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:15

    Wyatt, that was good. Thanks for the laugh.

  87. Matt P said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:18

    …your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

    I think the thing that pisses me off the most about this is that they get the verb tense all wrong.

    In the three years I’ve lived within driving distance of an Army base I’ve managed to make teh buttsecks with at least five active-duty soldiers, two of them on post. Every one of them had served at least once in Iraq, and a couple were waiting for a trip back. I’m neither an attractive nor a particularly young man, so I reckon that if I was able to score five then there must be a whole lot more with higher standards.

    The military is already chock full o’ gays, bisexuals, and bi-curiouses, so they’re already sharing showers. Removing the demonstrably useless ban will do nothing but end a lot of unnecessary discharges. (And there’s a straight line for you.)

  88. Froley said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:19

    They seem to think that all “the military” are privates and seamen and whathaveyou living side by side close close close quarters of the eternal combat zone.

    I had to explain to someone at my work (anti-gays in the military) that the living situation portrayed on “Gomer Pyle” doesn’t resemble the current setup for most military members. A lot of them that aren’t currently deployed live by themselves or with their families in apartments or houses. Even if your living quarters are on base, most of them resemble apartments much more than barracks (the old barracks built in the 1950s have been torn down).

  89. jim said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:20

    Wasn’t the law in ancient Greece intensely homophobic as applied to the plebes, whereas the aristos had a cultural birthright to slack out on big sofas together & plook each other silly? Maybe I’m remembering that wrong.

    Yes, I done darn did me a tetch of bridge-lurking again, this time @ the soft underbelly of your “fatal self-maiming at a drunken fireworks accident” link, & since for some strange reason (heh-heh-heh) it seems unable to go up there, I’m just going to cuntpaste it hither:

    ANY political ideology, once pushed far enough down the road to its (extremist) logical conclusion, becomes impossible to functionally distinguish from psychopathology.

    Hmm … stockpiling weapons … expects impending global apocalypse … thinks only Sarah Palin can save America.

    Nuts?

    That just sounds like another average contemporary post-2008 Yankee conservative to me.

    Poli-Sci Tautology 101: When a group keeps actively moving further & further toward an extreme, eventually (although I’m sure this sounds incredible) they wind up arriving there.

    The surreal obscenity of Ronald “I Too Am A Contra” Reagan solemnly placing flowers on the Bitburg memorial to Waffen-SS soldiers way back in the 1980s was a major-league warning-bell … which the corporate media (the same corporate media who’d recently morphed him from a scary far-right-fringe Hollyweird headcase pushing Voodoo Economics into a warm anecdote-spinning comforting alpha-male Ur-Daddy) focused on for almost an entire three minutes.

    The swing to the right after Reagan just went on & on & on – even under allegedly “moderate” Democratic administrations. Both parties have also institutionally accelerated that swing – ain’t bipartisanship grand?

    Thus you now have a shiny new renaissance of barbarian nativist justice, & you’re suddenly missing a few little arcane things like freedom of assembly & habeas corpus. Keep it up & chances are the next things you lose will be of the kind you can never get back.

    If you stay crazy enough to keep it up, that is.

    TL;DR- “We’re sorry, we cannot accept this data

    “Sing Daisy for me, HAL.”
    LOL INTERWEBZ

    PS – Copying your snark nuggets before you try to fling them across the Submit Comment event-horizon can help reduce the FYWP Blues.

    Or the FYHƒ (Fick Ye, Hæloƒcanne) Blues … or the FY(your personal Evil Big Boss of comment-box wares goes here) Blues.

  90. gocart mozart said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:25

    http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/02/13/opinion/466579.txt
    The gays, like the jihadist, even promote their agenda by dying for the cause.

    “A question of bias: Relatives of general managers of professional sports teams die all the time, but if their passing is noted at all, it’s with brief notices on obituary pages. So it must be asked: Did the news media provide saturation coverage of the death and funeral of Brendan Burke of Canton, Mass., because he was the son of Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke or because he was the homosexual son of Mr. Burke?”

  91. Substance McGravitas said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:25

    If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest.

    Also:

    Swimming: OFF LIMITS.
    School: OFF LIMITS.
    Catholic school: YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT’S OFF LIMITS

  92. tigrismus said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:35

    Saturation coverage of who what now?

  93. gocart mozart said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:46

    Tig, (shrugs shoulders), welcome to my local morning fish wrap. I have no idea who this Burke guy is but apperently he has gotten an undue amount of sympathetic coverage just for dying while being all faggity, fag, fag. Bigots wouldn’t get that kind of coverage which makes the gays and the media the real bigots and poop also or something.

  94. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:53

    Matt P said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:18 (kill)

    Slut.

  95. Lesley said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:53

    Good thing they don’t let Gays play football cuz

  96. Lesley said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:54

    they might get the wrong idea.

  97. jasdye said,

    February 13, 2010 at 21:57

    so far behind the times, friends.

    already disemvoweled the AFA: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=ts&gid=293096388262

  98. PeeJ said,

    February 13, 2010 at 22:02

    Saturation coverage of who what now?

    He was notable because he was an OUT hockey player who was publically praised by his pro team coach father. See this article from last year for more info.

  99. Microprocessor-Stockpile the Extroverted Shadow bat said,

    February 13, 2010 at 22:57

    I’m sorry, if some cat offers you a blowjob in the showers down at the ol’ barracks, and you’re a great big soldier with combat training, a living weapon of war, I’ll bet you can say “no” in a convincing manner. Or “no, thanks,” if you’re the polite type.

    What scares these idiots is the idea that some burly trooper crammed chock-full of red corpuscles and fighting spirit will say “gosh, sounds awesome,” and accept the offer.

    What could be more terrifying than a sexually liberated military? Hello sailor, indeed.

  100. Microprocessor-Stockpile the Extroverted Shadow bat said,

    February 13, 2010 at 23:03

    #

    St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    “And I was concerned that he might fall down, what with his pants around his ankles, so I grabbed him by his firm, manly buttocks. To prevent him from falling down of course. But then, then he put his tongue in my mouth, and I thought “Well, goodness, this is not what I had in mind, sir.” But I didn’t want to be inconsiderate…”

    GO on… Jesus, don’t stop there. MILITARY SLASHFIC!

  101. Bill S said,

    February 13, 2010 at 23:06

    Everybody’s already said what I would have on this topic, so I’d like to address something in D. Sidhe’s comment:
    Your mom thinks you’re schizophrenic just to piss her off? Really?
    Is she stupider than a pile of rocks, a colosal narcissist, or both?

  102. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    February 13, 2010 at 23:31

    GO on… Jesus, don’t stop there. MILITARY SLASHFIC!

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to tar the entire armed forces with a layman’s opinion, but everything I learned about gays in the military I learned from watching Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy.

    “You charge in there and fuck ‘em, and we’ll sit here and masturbate.”

  103. vacuumslayer said,

    February 13, 2010 at 23:34

    I wish I had gotten in on the earlier convo about gheys in the military. I really, really wanted to play my “I’m married to a Lt. Col.” card with the unbelievably obnoxious and clearly channeling Peggy Noonan “Esther.” As usual, I was just lurking on my mobile and I loath texting in responses.

    Anyhoo, I find it fascinating that these people go straight to shower talk. I don’t think there’s any way to get around the fact that they are just straight-up obsessed with gay sex. Which I find…interesting. If it weren’t for the fact their bigotry actually hurts people I’d find this little show an extremely amusing–even hilarious–character study. I would like to say to them, respectfully, that we will not wait for them to work out their psychosexual issues. They need to grow up, get a grip, or just get the fuck out of the way.

  104. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    February 14, 2010 at 0:06

    Well, don’t these people know that the typical heavy cruiser in the U.S. Navy has a complement of forty fathoms of phallus?

  105. Arky said,

    February 14, 2010 at 0:37

    pssst…..arky… Alan Turing

    D’oh!

    Sorry, all this hawt shower action talk has gotten me all distracted.

  106. chimpevil said,

    February 14, 2010 at 2:05

    I’m neither an attractive nor a particularly young man, so I reckon that if I was able to score five then there must be a whole lot more with higher standards.

    Dad, is that you?

  107. chimpevil said,

    February 14, 2010 at 2:16

    Oh also too, Arky, teh homo is most definitely banned in the military–it’s just that the law said they can’t ask you about it like they could before,so we can stay in as long as we don’t say stuff like, “‘k, sgt blanche, I’ll snap right to that as soon as my nails dry baby!”

  108. Bitter Scribe said,

    February 14, 2010 at 2:42

    These guys must think taking showers is all there is to military life. Pandagon ran a selection of Free Republic quotes that used the word half a dozen times.

  109. Smut Clyde said,

    February 14, 2010 at 3:17

    The NZ armed forces dealt with the whole question by replacing the showers with Friday night nude jelly wrestling.

  110. Xecky Gilchrist said,

    February 14, 2010 at 3:29

    I shower every weekday at the gym, and just by the numbers I must have showered next to a whole bunch of gay men. Somehow, it just doesn’t bother me at all. The only guy I’ve been around in there that creeped me out was a gent, sixtyish, who was chattering about Mormon scripture to some other guy during the entire time I was within earshot, about 10 minutes including showering, dressing, etc. Whether he was gay or not I do not know.

    Plus am I supposed to be glad or pissed off that none of the showering gay men have hit on me or even popped a rod? Wingnut-think doesn’t make any sense.

  111. Tom M said,

    February 14, 2010 at 3:55

    Wiki’s a bit off on their VFW membership, at least according to the VFW:
    The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, with its Auxiliaries, includes 2.2 million members in approximately 8,100 Posts worldwide.
    which means the AFA only added 1.8 million to the membership to make their claim. Liars still.

    I was on 2 Med cruises in the late 60s and early 70s on an AE, with the first lasting from Feb-Nov. Somehow, despite berthing with 106 close friends and acquaintances, I made it out unscathed. Of course, a lot of us were refugees from the draft and thus not true volunteers so perhaps less typical than today’s Navy. The ship also made a lot of ports and, well, you know….

  112. Chris said,

    February 14, 2010 at 5:02

    “What scares these idiots is the idea that some burly trooper crammed chock-full of red corpuscles and fighting spirit will say “gosh, sounds awesome,” and accept the offer. What could be more terrifying than a sexually liberated military? Hello sailor, indeed.”

    Absolutely. The military by far is the institution most worshipped and idolized in the conservative movement. Imagine their reaction if their heroes started disagreeing with them and championing the notion of an America where gay people can be tolerated, accepted and even viewed as part of the patriotic landscape!

    Going back a little, I think Truman’s decision to desegregate the military was one of the key things that got the ball rolling on civil rights. Today’s social conservatives desperately want to avoid the same thing happening, because they know that if they lose the military, they’re over and done for.

  113. justme said,

    February 14, 2010 at 7:05

    From the disemvoweling link…

    heh

  114. Consumer Unit 5012 said,

    February 14, 2010 at 10:20

    As usual, The Onion sums it all up:
    “Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat” says General.

    ——–

    Absolutely. The military by far is the institution most worshipped and idolized in the conservative movement.

    Yep.

    Which is kind of funny, seeing how they claim to believe The Government is 100% evil, stupid, and incompetent at absolutely everything that DOESN’T involve converting foreigners into Spam(tm) fragments.

  115. Arky said,

    February 14, 2010 at 15:19

    Absolutely. The military by far is the institution most worshiped and idolized in the conservative movement.

    So much so that many cons deem themselves unworthy of joining.

    Imagine their reaction if their heroes started disagreeing with them

    We already know how that works. Any soldier who disagrees with their world view is a TRAITOR and a PHONY SOLDIER.

  116. jon said,

    February 14, 2010 at 16:17

    Will the branches of the military hire sketch artists to catch the shower-stall invaders? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFpsRr0WjDE

  117. Tommykey said,

    February 14, 2010 at 17:36

    Given the hatred these people have for gays, you would think they’d want gays to serve in the military. Put them in elite units that carry out the most dangerous missions so that more of them get killed in action.

  118. Tommykey said,

    February 14, 2010 at 17:38

    Now that I think about it, I wish I could say that to one of those wingnut spokespeople when they are giving a press conference.

  119. kingubu said,

    February 14, 2010 at 17:39

    Fox News Poll Finds Majority Supports Gays in the Military

    Which is nice, and all, but that really isn’t the question since there are already gay people in the military. The question is: are we’re going to continue to make them lie about it to keep their jobs.

  120. par4 said,

    February 14, 2010 at 17:41

    What’s next? Rum,Buggery and the Lash?

  121. stryx said,

    February 14, 2010 at 18:29

    The military by far is the institution most worshiped and idolized in the conservative movement.

    Which is what helped Jimmy Dale Guckert make a living.

  122. actor212 said,

    February 14, 2010 at 19:53

    Any soldier who disagrees with their world view is a TRAITOR and a PHONY SOLDIER.

    Except Pat Tillman, cuz he was totally not a liberal who disagreed with the war, but was merely boning up so he could run on a patriotic platform of more guns and less talk, and wanted to read Chomsky and Thoreau to totally kick some lib Dem’s ass in a debate.

  123. A concerned citizen said,

    February 14, 2010 at 21:34

    In the three years I’ve lived within driving distance of an Army base I’ve managed to make teh buttsecks with at least five active-duty soldiers, two of them on post

    A .400 On-Base Percentage. Impressive.

  124. Damien Omentu said,

    February 15, 2010 at 21:52

    Yes, the thing worth discussing about Obama’s attacks on Pakistan and Haiti is how gay his soldiers are.

  125. Robert said,

    February 15, 2010 at 22:50

    I get the impression some of these people (wingnuts) think about gay sex more than _I_ do, and I’ve been out since Carter was in the White House. The creepy thing is that it seems to me that they’re not imagining wild-eyed bungholery sessions in the showers – what they’re thinking is that Imaginary Gay Soldier X might look at Imagiinary Straight Soldier Y’s pristine heterosexual body _with lust_.

    And this will make Baby Jesus cry, so it must be prevented.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()