advertisement

Today's question: What do you think about the proposed 'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal?

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 | 10:17 a.m. CDT

A few days after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama threw the country another zinger: He called for the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a 1993 law that allows people who are gay to serve in the military as long as they don't publicly disclose their sexual orientation.

Pressure to overturn the law has increased in recent years. House Armed Services Committee Chair Ike Skelton, D-Mo., called for hearings on the issue in June, in part because of urging from his fellow Democrats.

Obama did not set a timetable for ending the 16-year-old policy, and it would require action from Congress, who might be hesitant to take on another contentious issue in the middle of the health care debate.

What do you think about the proposed repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell"?


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Charles Dudley Jr October 14, 2009 | 5:41 p.m.

My question is what is their basis for repealing this?

Has there been a huge amount of abuse in the military? Has it effected troop moral? Has it caused unneeded hardships for some non gays or even heterosexuals? Has it been discovered that our enemies are fighting even harder or creating more brutalities against P.O.W.s due to they know there are Gays in our military and that is against their own beliefs.

There must have been some kind of investigation into this issue for a repeal to be called unless it is just some radical religious wingnutz who want to get their hands dirty and stir up derision amongst the population and the troops themselves.

This issue needs to be looked at carefully and I do agree it should not be brought up until we get the present issue on the table settled or at least farther down the line.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 14, 2009 | 7:54 p.m.

Maybe gay soldiers can do just as well defending America as straight soldiers? What a shocking concept, Chuck.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 15, 2009 | 4:31 a.m.

Well John Schultz do you have some factual data and a graph chart to back up your conjectures on that statement?

I just asked some basic simple questions that anybody looking at the issue would commonly ask and you want to start the snarkfest.

How typical.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 15, 2009 | 6:14 a.m.

We have no idea how many homosexuals served honorably in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. It seems patently obvious that some did serve. Those wars, unlike later engagements, all had a military draft, meaning that troops weren't necessarily there because they wished to be.

Of far greater concern to me would be accepting known felons and/or drug addicts into the armed services. Criminals are mainly cowards and untrustworthy and could easily be the first to run in a tight situation, or even shoot their officers and NCOs in their backs.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 15, 2009 | 10:15 a.m.

You're a funny guy Chuck. If I came up with a graph chart showing that posting to the Missourian lowered your quality of life, would you stop?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 15, 2009 | 12:35 p.m.

John Schultz so your conjectures are just that conjectures only with nothing to back them up?

Typical.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 15, 2009 | 1:10 p.m.

Chuck, you're the numero uno person here for pulling conjectures out of their back pocket and other areas close to it. Go back to your original post on this article and see if you can find anything to back up your conjectures, I doubt you can (if you even try instead of railing on me to divert the issue).

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 15, 2009 | 5:10 p.m.

John Schultz keep diverting from the issue John Schultz as we all know it takes constantly being on you to make you present any point of a conjecture you blabber on here.

"Common Sense" teaches us through society itself as well as history of the past and present what I have posted in my original post to be politically correct while your comments John Schultz are only meant to throw this issue off track and to keep it off track.

I asked honest in your face questions John Schultz and all you can respond with once again is snarky conjectures to once again dilute the issue while providing no factual basis for your posts.

I on the other hand provide you history past and present of this issue as my presentation. The questions were and are honest questions any inquisitor or Devil's Advocate if you will would be asking themselves while investigating this issue to gain an honest opinion on this or any issue.

What do you provide or present but a one sided view once again.

Typical.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 15, 2009 | 5:34 p.m.

How do I divert from the issue when I ask you to back up the statements in your original comment? Maybe you should post the report from the Clinton administration that justified don't ask, don't tell in the first place and we can pick that apart? Is see no "factual basis" in your comments on this question, nor can I see you claim that I present "a one-sided view" without laughing and pointing at your similar posts.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 16, 2009 | 4:22 a.m.

John Schultz you still fail to answer my questions in my first post. Instead you toss out your usual form of one sided snarkieness as usual.

Typical and keep ignoring my original questions you are really good at that too.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 16, 2009 | 9:46 a.m.

Why should I answer your questions when you can't even yourself?

"My question is what is their basis for repealing this?

Has there been a huge amount of abuse in the military? Has it effected troop moral? Has it caused unneeded hardships for some non gays or even heterosexuals? Has it been discovered that our enemies are fighting even harder or creating more brutalities against P.O.W.s due to they know there are Gays in our military and that is against their own beliefs."

Do I need to find some graft charts to argue my opinions? No Chuckles, I do not.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 16, 2009 | 3:29 p.m.

5 simple questions you cannot answer but you sure can toss out the snarky commentary.

You really are a piece of cake aren't ya.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 16, 2009 | 10:43 p.m.

And can you answer those questions?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 17, 2009 | 4:46 a.m.

John Schultz I already did and it is not my fault your reading ability is limited by your need to emotionally respond to my posts.

>>> I on the other hand provide you history past and present of this issue as my presentation. <<<

I stand by my posts above.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 17, 2009 | 8:52 a.m.

Well, I'm just a simple-minded Boone County boy Chuck, so please do kindly paste your previous answers to these questions that you claim to have answered:

Has there been a huge amount of abuse in the military? Has it effected troop moral? Has it caused unneeded hardships for some non gays or even heterosexuals? Has it been discovered that our enemies are fighting even harder or creating more brutalities against P.O.W.s due to they know there are Gays in our military and that is against their own beliefs.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 17, 2009 | 9:00 a.m.

>>> Well, I'm just a simple-minded Boone County boy Chuck <<<

At least you finally admit something we all have known for quite some time. Congratulations at coming out of the wood shed at last.

Have a nice day.

PS: My answer was in the post above your last but once again obviously you need to put on your reading glasses to be able to see it.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 17, 2009 | 9:09 a.m.

Maybe we should treat some of these "discussions" as if they were football or basketball games at put time limits on them. NO OVERTIME!

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr October 17, 2009 | 1:26 p.m.

Ellis Smith great idea and close posting after ten posts but then you get the problem of "racing style posting" to see who can get in the last word.

I'm totally in favor of a ten post/reply cut off.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 17, 2009 | 2:13 p.m.

Just as there may be a thin line between genius and insanity, I believe that on the Internet there may be an even thinner line between information and garbage.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 17, 2009 | 8:33 p.m.

I'm sure Chuck, but for a simple country boy I read pretty well and don't see you answering the questions you originally posed, unless it was with one of your typical platitudes that doesn't say a thing.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements