As usual, it's BUSH'S FAULT

>>you've already told us that you use your sexual orientation

>as

>>an excuse not to serve your country.

>>

>>but, you still have not told us what other obligations you

>>shirk using sexual orientation as an excuse.

>

>Serving in the military in the US is an honor, a privilege,

>and a choice (all 3 denied to out gay men & lesbians), not an

>obligation. Do you deny the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of

>Mr. Nunn (D-Ga), or are you just thick?

whoa took you a little longer than i expected.

ME thick........."don't ask DON'T TELL".....if you really want to serve,you simply ....don't tell your sexual orientation...

using this as an excuse is disrepctful to the countless gay people that have died in all this countrys wars and conflicts.

one as astute as you must surely know that at one time the question for inductees, was are you a homosexual <= paraphrased, and many real patriots ,to include my uncle were not truthful in their answer.

he as a gay man served two tours as a helicopter pilot in vietnam,and according to him he shared that comittment with more than a few other gay troops

but i must say you are predictable

>ME thick........."don't ask DON'T TELL".....if you really want

>to serve,you simply ....don't tell your sexual orientation...

I don't know why you feel the need to interrupt every adult conversation about foreign policy in order to repeat this same petty, truly juvenile point over and over - and I also don't know why you insist that people answer this question multiple times even though you won't answer any questions yourself about this same topic.

But in the hope that answering more clearly will stifle your future intrusions, and with what I know will be the misplaced trust that my answering this question - again - will cause you - finally - to answer the questions I have for you about this topic, here it goes again:

Unlike people who, say, do nothing and live off their parents, I have a history of quite public efforts on behalf of gay equality generally and against the gay ban in the military specifically. Put another way, I have been as openly gay as can be in a quite public way. As a result, "not telling" about my seuxal orientation in order to get into the military is not, and long has not been, an option for me.

Moreover, there are multiple ways that one can serve one's country besides enlisting in the military. The military cannot function without people to support it, to pay for its weapons and other needs, or to fuel the society which supports it.

To say that I am using my sexual orientation as an excuse is really nothing short of inane, given that I'm not Sam Nunn or Bill Clinton and therefore am not the one who implemented the odious prohibition on openly gay people serving in the military.

I think that answers your little questions about as clearly as they can be answered.

So perhaps you will be intellectually honest enough to answer the questions I have long asked you regarding your view that those who have not served in the military are somehow "cowardly" and immoral for supporting a war:

(1) I asked you why you did not enlist in the military during the time when the U.S. commenced the war to oust the Taliban. In your last post, you pretended to answer that by talking about Iraq, but the war in Iraq did not commence for more than a year AFTER the war in Afghanistan did. That gives rise to the obvious question: If you believe that a person has an obligation to fight any wars which they support, how can you justify not having enlisted in the military to fight the war in Afghanistan?

(2) There are countless Democrats - such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton - who supported the war in Iraq and yet never served in the military and did not go to fight the war in Iraq. Are they cowards and immoral chicken hawks????

(3) 90% of the country, including literally millions of Democrats, supported the war in Afghanistan even though they - LIKE YOU - never served in the military. Are they cowards and immoral chicken hawks???

(4) Bill Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths in Somalia and put troops "in harm's way" in Yugoslavia, even though he never served in the military. Tons of Democrats supported those military deployments even though they never served in the military. By your "reasoning," aren't Clinton and all of those Democrats cowards and immoral chicken hawks.

WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, TAYLOR? WHY WON'T ANYONE WHO SPEWS THE IDIOTIC INSULT OF "CHICKEN HAWK" FOR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS A WAR WITHOUT BEING IN THE MILITARY WILLING TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

>

>Unlike people who, say, do nothing and live off their parents,

>

LOL loving and caring familes don't sit well with you do they ?

and contrary to your belief...i do not "live off" my parents, i "live off"<= your term... my own money,which granted is a result of my parents planing for their only child.

>

>(1) I asked you why you did not enlist in the military during

>the time when the U.S. commenced the war to oust the Taliban.

>In your last post, you pretended to answer that by talking

>about Iraq, but the war in Iraq did not commence for more than

>a year AFTER the war in Afghanistan did. That gives rise to

>the obvious question: If you believe that a person has an

>obligation to fight any wars which they support, how can you

>justify not having enlisted in the military to fight the war

>in Afghanistan?

>

>(2) There are countless Democrats - such as John Edwards and

>Hillary Clinton - who supported the war in Iraq and yet never

>served in the military and did not go to fight the war in

>Iraq. Are they cowards and immoral chicken hawks????

>

>(3) 90% of the country, including literally millions of

>Democrats, supported the war in Afghanistan even though they -

>LIKE YOU - never served in the military. Are they cowards and

>immoral chicken hawks???

>

>(4) Bill Clinton sent soldiers to their deaths in Somalia and

>put troops "in harm's way" in Yugoslavia, even though he never

>served in the military. Tons of Democrats supported those

>military deployments even though they never served in the

>military. By your "reasoning," aren't Clinton and all of

>those Democrats cowards and immoral chicken hawks.

>

>WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, TAYLOR? WHY WON'T

>ANYONE WHO SPEWS THE IDIOTIC INSULT OF "CHICKEN HAWK" FOR

>ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS A WAR WITHOUT BEING IN THE MILITARY

>WILLING TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

well unlike you i am not the george washington of gay america,(jeeesssshhhh you are full of yourself aren't you)

i am just a simple mortal gay man who has answered your oft asked questions,sorry the answers don't fit into your little script.

>WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, TAYLOR? WHY WON'T

>ANYONE WHO SPEWS THE IDIOTIC INSULT OF "CHICKEN HAWK" FOR

>ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS A WAR WITHOUT BEING IN THE MILITARY

>WILLING TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

Because he's a pussy.

Any other questions?

Simplistically yours,

FFF

>>WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, TAYLOR? WHY WON'T

>>ANYONE WHO SPEWS THE IDIOTIC INSULT OF "CHICKEN HAWK" FOR

>>ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS A WAR WITHOUT BEING IN THE MILITARY

>>WILLING TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

>

>Because he's a pussy.

>

>Any other questions?

>

>Simplistically yours,

>

>FFF

LOL..........this from the oh so mature Famously Fickle Faggot.

>I'll ask again:

>

>So while we build smaller cars and look for oil wells in the

>U.S., what do you propose to do about those not nice Muslims

>who are trying to get biological and chemical and radiological

>weapons and use them to destroy U.S. population centers?

>Bush's plans to combat that are clear for all the world to

>see. What's the alternative?

Treat them fairly to begin with.

>>Because he's a pussy.

Wrong. Pussy is too sexual and has connotations of being. I see him more as a nothing; a void; a waste of cosmic energy; albeit occasionally humorous with his completely dumbass posts.

Later.

PS. F3 and Doug. Let's play a game. How many teeth do you think taylor is missing? I guess 4, not including molars. The usual rules will apply: bridges and posts count as gone.

A more fun game might be to guess how many brain cells trav has blown doing blow!

>A more fun game might be to guess how many brain cells trav

>has blown doing blow!

LOL or perhaps the number of STD's he's currently infected with.

>A more fun game might be to guess how many brain cells trav

>has blown doing blow!

Not bad Sparky, but "blow" is so Ed Meese.

Later.

>LOL or perhaps the number of STD's he's currently infected

>with.

"STD" is an awful adult-y term. I haven't heard anyone under 40 use that one. Are you sure you're a young 'un living in a hollow in the mountains of Appalachia and missing 4 teeth. You're sounding very troll-like.

Later.

>>So while we build smaller cars and look for oil wells in the

>>U.S., what do you propose to do about those not nice Muslims

>>who are trying to get biological and chemical and

>radiological

>>weapons and use them to destroy U.S. population centers?

>>Bush's plans to combat that are clear for all the world to

>>see. What's the alternative?

>

>Treat them fairly to begin with.

I want to thank you and congratulate you for your honesty, even if it only appeared once you were made to answer the question of what you think the U.S. should do in response to the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

Every now and then, a liberal such as yourself has a moment of great honesty where you admit that you think that 9/11 was the fault of the United States and that the solution to terrorism is to be nicer (or, to use your word, more "fair") to the terrorists. I really appreciate those moments.

Usually, those of us who point out that anti-war liberals like you blame the U.S. rather than terrorists for terrorism, or point out that anti-war liberals like you believe that the solution to terrorism is to be nicer to terrorists, are called "McCarthyites" who (gasp!) are "questioning people's patriotism!"

But then good, honest liberals like you come along and have the courage to admit that these claims are correct- that you DO blame the U.S. for 9/11 and think that the solution to terrorism is to be nicer to the terrorists.

So I, for one, am glad for the presence of people like you and for your unusual willingness to confess what you really think.

I just wish that your comrades - both here and elsewhere - would be similarly courageous - and dispense with all of that contrived, melodrmatic, quite newfound concern for the military and tough, nasty talk about Osama (which, by the way, nobody is buying) - and just come right out with the truth. But, unlike you, they care about winning elections, and so they know they have to hide what they really think. I'm glad to see that you don't engage in such deceit and are willing to express your real opinions, as vile and repulsive as most people will find them.

>>WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, TAYLOR? WHY WON'T

>>ANYONE WHO SPEWS THE IDIOTIC INSULT OF "CHICKEN HAWK" FOR

>>ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS A WAR WITHOUT BEING IN THE MILITARY

>>WILLING TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

>i am just a simple mortal gay man who has answered your oft

>asked questions,sorry the answers don't fit into your little

>script.

Now Taylor, we both know that this is simply untrue. You have never answered the questions I asked. You only answered question (1) about why you didn't serve in Afghansitan by prattling on incoherently about Iraq, but you never answered why you didn't enlist in the military at the time we commenced the war in Afghanistan. Why did you send other people to die for you in that war? Doesn't that make you a chicken hawk?

As for questions (2), (3) and (4) that I asked you above -- all of which pertain directly to the position you constantly spout here that it's immoral and cowardly to support a war unless you fight in that war -- you never, contrary to the false statement you just made, ever responded to those questions.

Every post written here is saved and easily found with search terms. I will pay you $1,000 if you can find the post you claim you wrote in response to my questions (2), (3) and (4) above. Where is it?

You recently took to lecturing other people on how they should refrain from name-calling and insults "for a few days" in light of Hooboy's death, only to then - THE VERY NEXT DAY, IN THE VERY SAME THREAD -- call another poster a "troll" and equate him to "a bad case of jock itch", and you now, the DAY AFTER THAT, are writing posts saying that another poster here has STD's.

So your experiment in being the Moral Conscience of this Board doesn't seem to be going too well. But here's another chance for you to lead by example. Just be honest. Just say:

"I admit now that I haven't answered these questions becasue these questions expose the intellectual defenseless of my position that it's immoral and cowardly to support a war unless you fight in it. I now see that I myself have supported wars without fighting in them, and that most of the Democratic politicians whom I admire have done the same thing. So as a result of thinking further about my position, I see that it was imprudent and misguided to call people who support the war in Iraq 'cowards" and "chicken hawks" simply becasue they didn't enlist."

Why not just say that? Can't you be honest? There's nothing wrong with re-evaluating your position or admitting that there were things about it that you hadn't previously considered. Why are you so afraid to do that?

>>Treat them fairly to begin with.

>

>I want to thank you and congratulate you for your honesty,

>even if it only appeared once you were made to answer the

>question of what you think the U.S. should do in response to

>the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

Cool, let's talk honesty.

In addresses to the public, Bush gave explained the

animosity against the USA by saying "they don't like

our freedom". He never mentioned the key reason:

they don't like our _policies_.

Had he told the truth--that the animosity is spurred

by our policies--that would have encouraged a debate

about what those policies are and why they have the

effects they do. But Bush didn't want that debate.

It's so rich that you brought up honesty in a discussion

of the Iraq war.

>In addresses to the public, Bush gave explained the

>animosity against the USA by saying "they don't like

>our freedom". He never mentioned the key reason:

>they don't like our _policies_

You're just wrong about his not mentioning that. In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were asking what the reasons were for this obvious and extreme animus on the part of Muslim extremists towards the United States.

ONE reason Bush gave is that "hate our freedoms," and can there really be any doubt that that's true? Osama bin Laden and his little sadistic Jordanian stooge in Iraq, al-Zaquari, both recently issued statements vigorously condemning democracy as being contrary to Islam, and insisting that Islamic-based theocracy is the only form of government acceptable to God.

So here are the Muslim radical terrorists themselves TELLING YOU that they hate our freedoms. They hate democracy and they don't want us influencing Muslim countries in the Middle East to adopt those freedoms. Given that they themselves SAY that they hate our freedoms, how can you possibly accuse Bush of lying for saying the same thing?

And how about our cultural freedoms - free speech, a free press, freedom to choose how we live our private, intimate lives. Do you actually doubt that Muslim radicals hate those freedoms, too?

Just becasue Bush says something doesn't mean you have to dispute it. When it's so obviously true - as is the case for his description that they hate our freedoms - you look silly calling him a "liar" for saying so.

As for their hatred of our "policies," I'm seriously amazed when people like you - who claim that the Muslim terrorists are motivated by hatred for our policies - aren't standing up and cheering Bush's actions the loudest.

The entire neocoservative agenda is based upon your very premise - that hatred of the U.S. in the Middle East is caused by our decades of support under both Republican and Democratic administrations for tryannical governments over there. They are repressed, and they blame the U.S. for this repression and that is what causes so much anti-American sentiment there.

THUS, a SOLUTION to this is to enable those people to live under freedom and democracy and have them see that it is the U.S. which - rather than supporting tyranny over there - is now supporting democarcy and liberty. Read some of the comments by previously anti-U.S. and anti-war leaders in the Middle East in which they talk about the inspirational and critical impact of the Iraqi elections and you'll see this solution in action.

Radical Islamic terrorists hate both our freedoms and our policies. Bush is correct to point out the former and to work to change the latter.

These are called "solutions" to the terrorist problem. They may not be perfect, they may not always be implemented flawlessly, but they are obviously quite a ways ahead of spouting anti-war platitudes and obssessing over Jeff Gannon's sexual activities in terms of solving this problem.

>As for their hatred of our "policies," I'm seriously amazed

>when people like you - who claim that the Muslim terrorists

>are motivated by hatred for our policies - aren't standing up

>and cheering Bush's actions the loudest.

You think I should cheer when the US vetoes proposed

Security Council resolutions to condemn actions by Israel,

resolutions with fairly clear international support?

Do you know how many times that happened in 2004, and what

the votes in the Council were? Such vetoes are front-page

news in foreign media but are often buried in US newspapers.

You think I should cheer about Guantanamo Bay, or about

rendering suspects to other countries to do the dirty work?

>The entire neocoservative agenda is based upon your very

>premise - that hatred of the U.S. in the Middle East is caused

>by our decades of support under both Republican and Democratic

>administrations for tryannical governments over there. They

>are repressed, and they blame the U.S. for this repression and

>that is what causes so much anti-American sentiment there.

And you think the US invasion of Iraq was a model of

sweetness and light? The US was pissed because Turkey

didn't allow operations into Iraq from their territory.

Turkey didn't allow it because they're one of the more

democratic countries in the region, and their government

was honoring the will of their people. The USA loved the

less-democratic countries who cooperated despite a lack

of support from their populations. This sort of thing

makes people skeptical that the aims of the US are as

fair and democratic-minded as you would like to believe.

>>LOL or perhaps the number of STD's he's currently infected

>>with.

>

>"STD" is an awful adult-y term. I haven't heard anyone under

>40 use that one. Are you sure you're a young 'un living in a

>hollow in the mountains of Appalachia and missing 4 teeth.

>You're sounding very troll-like.

>

>Later.

>

WHOA how cool is this..........my own private troll,i'm truly honored.

well let the show begin.....flame on tinkerbell.

RE: As usual, it's BUSH'S VAULT

Thanks for posting trav. Some guys were wondering about your well-being in another thread!

RE: As usual, it's BUSH'S VAULT

>Thanks for posting trav. Some guys were wondering about your

>well-being in another thread!

Has anyone else noticed how Lucky and taylor always post at the same time. You know what that means? Taylor lives in NYC and goes to the Gaiety quite often. This seems to happen quite a bit on this board.

Later.

>well let the show begin.....flame on tinkerbell.

"Flame on?" Definitely a pussy. Also, a term usually used by older gentlemen. You're showing your identity, Skippy.

Later.

>> Regarding specifics:

>

>It's true that these countries aren't yet perfect bastions of

>harmony, peace, and love.

>

>You point out some of the things that are still unsettled in

>these places, but how does the current situtation there

>compare to what these places were like pre-Bush?

>

>Afghanistan, for instance, may have had marginally less opium

>production in 1999, but it also had free reign for Al Qaeda to

>run their nice little terrorist camps ummolested by anything.

>Now, there's still opium, but Osama bin Laden has to hide

>under a rock and Al Qaeda can't exactly train there

>unbothered. That's a pretty good development, don't you

>think?

>

Far from being "marginally less" under the Taliban, opium production in now 20 times the amount. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4309729.stm

The Taliban crackdown on opium production was one of the reason the warlords were only too willing to be paid huge amounts of cash by the US to support the invasion.

>As for Egypt, if you don't see any changes there, it's only

>because you're not reading any newspapers. The New York Times

>(that bastion of neoconservative propaganada), just today

>published an article entitled "Unexpected Whiff of Freedom

>Proves Bracing for the Middle East," the very first paragraph

>of which reported:

>

Any delusions you have about the Bush junta being somehow opposed to the "undemocratic" Egyptian government is blown out of the water when you look at the record of the use of oppresive governments to bypass the rule of law. The CIA ships suspects to Egypt for a little "vigoreous interrogation" although to be fair to them they do not boil their prisoners alive unlike some new allies Bush has developed.

>"The leaders of about half of Egypt's rickety opposition

>parties sat down for one of their regular meetings this week

>under completely irregular circumstances. In the previous few

>days, President Hosni Mubarak opened presidential elections to

>more than one candidate, and street demonstrators helped

>topple Lebanon's government.

>

If Mubarak has truely opened up Egypt's democracy, there will be a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood, providing of course someone raises their head quickly enough before they are dragged off to a show trial.

No mention from you I note about the far bigger street demonstarations that have taken place since your post in support of Syria's presence. Nor is there any mention of the rest if the inplications of the UN resolution which means that Israel would have to leave the rest of the Lebanese territory it still occupies (If I remember correctly this area is referred to as the Sabaa Farms area). Now the Lebanese parliament has re-appointed Omar Karami as Prime Minister, 10 days after he resigned.

>The problem for liberals right now is that Bush is motivating

>true change in the Middle East. The left has no positive

>agenda for anything. You can criticize Bush and call him

>names and claim that the positive developments aren't perfect,

>but you have no alternative to the bold steps he has taken to

>change a region that had to be changed for our most vital

>security interests, and most people see that.

One of the "sucesses" Bush cliams is the rehabilitation of Libya where Ghadaffi has suddenly stopped being presented as a revolutionary communist madman. The thaw had little to do with Bush but much to do with European diplomacy and his desire to get investment into the country's decripit oil industry.

As for the rest of the region, I stongly doubt that it is "Bush" who has had any effect but rather it is his presentation of developments that were happening anyway that has changed. Jordan has had an on-going programme of (albeit slow) democratisation. Saudi Arabia is planning to allow women to vote in local elections (but not stand for office) around the end of the decade. The Palestinians were allowed to elect a new President only after Arafat died (in truth he would have won any election as he was seen as "father of the nation" and was farily immune from personal ciriticism over corruption. His "hangers on" however are not immune and have been the subject of much criticism internally.) The popularity of militant organisations like Hammas has increased because elections to the Palestian parliament have been impossible under Israeli occupation.

Maybe you would like to explain what effect Bush's bluster has has on the other countries on the southern borders of Saudi Arabia.

Well, Dougie and FFF can continue their panegyrics over their hero Bush (for whom they're trying to create a Stalin-like cult of personality handicapped by there being virtually no "there" there). However, are they exulting over the re-designation of the ousted Lebanese prime minister, or the monster demonstration in Beirut by what seems to be a reinvigorated Hezbollah? And the sudden backtracking by Bush reported in today's NY Times about now being willing to give Hezbollah (a terrorist outfit if ever there was one) a role in the "new" Lebanon?

Democracy in the Middle East would be a good thing, but with BushCo it's all about the usual smoke and mirrors. Superficial manifestations of democracy, like an occasional election, do not a democratic society make. It also takes education in democracy and a range of other important democratic institutions (like unblemished voting, independent legislative and judicial branches, freedom of speech and assembly, widespread literacy and strong popular support) that are still missing in most of the Middle East. I see virtually no evidence of BushCo providing support for the basic underpinnings of democracy in these countries. All Dubya's interested in is having a few baubles to show off to justify his invasion of Iraq and divert attention from his failure to capture Osama or eradicate al-Qaeda, or to seriously protect the U.S. from further harm by terrorists.

>Well, Dougie and FFF can continue their panegyrics over their

>hero Bush (for whom they're trying to create a Stalin-like

>cult of personality handicapped by there being virtually no

>"there" there). However, are they exulting over the

>re-designation of the ousted Lebanese prime minister, or the

>monster demonstration in Beirut by what seems to be a

>reinvigorated Hezbollah? And the sudden backtracking by Bush

>reported in today's NY Times about now being willing to give

>Hezbollah (a terrorist outfit if ever there was one) a role in

>the "new" Lebanon?

>

>Democracy in the Middle East would be a good thing, but with

>BushCo it's all about the usual smoke and mirrors.

>Superficial manifestations of democracy, like an occasional

>election, do not a democratic society make. It also takes

>education in democracy and a range of other important

>democratic institutions (like unblemished voting, independent

>legislative and judicial branches, freedom of speech and

>assembly, widespread literacy and strong popular support) that

>are still missing in most of the Middle East. I see virtually

>no evidence of BushCo providing support for the basic

>underpinnings of democracy in these countries. All Dubya's

>interested in is having a few baubles to show off to justify

>his invasion of Iraq and divert attention from his failure to

>capture Osama or eradicate al-Qaeda, or to seriously protect

>the U.S. from further harm by terrorists.

Give all the insults you want BUT it has to start somewhere. You have not said anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that would jump-start the whole problem. Yes, in the long term, your opinions are definately needed. But we need this NOW! With your reasoning it would take some 30 years to have them implemented. It may take that long to elect another Democrat. Are you willing to take that long? Probably...

>>well let the show begin.....flame on tinkerbell.

>

>"Flame on?" Definitely a pussy. Also, a term usually used by

>older gentlemen. You're showing your identity, Skippy.

>

>Later.

damn slick is this the best you can do......pretty weak.

LOL @ the tooth decay reference you made...but it's more fitting for gap tooth tweakers like you, crystal really fucks with yer gums and teeth.

get into detox now,hurry ,save the few brain cells and teeth you have left.

RE: As usual, it's BUSH'S VAULT

>>Thanks for posting trav. Some guys were wondering about

>your

>>well-being in another thread!

>

>Has anyone else noticed how Lucky and taylor always post at

>the same time. You know what that means? Taylor lives in NYC

>and goes to the Gaiety quite often. This seems to happen

>quite a bit on this board.

>

>Later.

>

>

damn ......you got us can't put nothing past your crystal clear mind.

lucky and me live in the sunny shades old folks home in the south bronx. we pool our s.s. checks and miss a couple meals a week so we can make the gaiety shows,i'm luckys 76 y/o bitch and serve my daddy right. hot diggity life is good.