Stop, Obama time.

[Heartless Angel]

Rare instances? I don't know where you're from, but I see it a lot.

You see it alot everywhere from both sides. Welcome to politics mate lol.

"Specifically"? Homosexuals were just people who wanted to serve in the military. They were denied once they were asked about their sexual orientation, so the Clinton Administration came up with DADT. Liberals didn't "spout" anything until the military denied homosexuals.

I can see how Christians would feel, though, since the Bible forbids homosexual behavior. But as long as gays do what they're told in the military -- this goes for every servicemember, actually --isn't it enough to make everyone happy? I'm a Christian, but there's men out there possibly in love with other men who are protecting us. Protecting you and me. Why would I be mad at someone who's risking his life everyday just so we could be safe? The Bible says a lot of things, like "Love thy neighbor". Why deny someone who wants to fight for us?

I can't claim to understand myself, since I'm not at all religious, but I'd iamgine one feels rather uncomfortable sharing barracks with something they feel is a living breathing violation of their beliefs.

Tolerant beliefs aren't objectively better than intolerant ones, so you can't ignore the positions of those who don't accept everybody.

Knowing each others sexual orientations just gives soldiers extra crap to think about, which doesn't help anybody. Asking Gays and hardcore religious people to work together in that setting and ignore their differences is like asking a PETA member to trust the neighborhood butcher/hunting enthusiat with his life. He's not going to feel too confident in that, whether he has good reason to or not, and that lack of faith in each other weakens a group as a whole.

Now that isn't to say DADT was a perfect solution, but there was a reason for it.

I discussed this in another website. I've heard that the fetus is not alive during the first half of pregnancy. If that's the case, it would be okay to have an abortion, especially if it was unwanted or if it came from rape.

Using a definition of "alive" tailor made to justify abortion, yes. I'm not really anti abortion myself (least not in all cases, I certainly don't think any slut who gets knocked up should be able to walk in and kill off their mistake to avoid taking responsibility), but it's still completely wrong to say it isn't alive.

Whether it's true or not, though, I don't think it should be up to the government to decide whether or not a woman should have her baby. I can't just tell some random girl in the street to have her baby, whether she wants to or not.

Again, to some extent I agree, but overall not really. For cases of rape, faulty birth control, preganacies that endanger the mother, etcetera, I'm fine with abortion. What I'm NOT fine with is some random whores getting knocked up due to irresponsible sex, and brushing off responsibility by terminating the life they're in the process of creating.

I agree that people should just keep their legs closed if they don't want babies, but their business is their business. And even if those against abortion get their way -- even if abortion becomes illegal -- if a woman still doesn't want a baby, they'll just try to get it out by any means necessary. They won't care about the law if they become miserable by their choices.

There are tons of people who mind their own business until some pesky law interfers with it. If they still want to go on with their business, they ignore the law and do as they please. We call these people criminals. The fact that people break laws is not a reason not to have them.

They may not affect you, but that doesn't mean they don't affect everybody else. One of his accomplishments was to create jobs. Perhaps the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create, oh let's say, 10 million jobs, but it still created a lot of jobs, saving a lot of people from unemployment. I never said the list had big accomplishments, but it's something.

The problem is that they affect everybody. Unfortunately that doesn't mean they HELP everybody. Every president has "something" they've done right... or at least tolerably decent. That doesn't make you a good president, nor is it deserving of praise.

I may not be a combat soldier, but even if I were I'd still tolerate homosexuals. But that's just me. I tolerate just about anybody....that doesn't pick on me.

You may. Again, your beliefs. Because they work for you, does not mean they work for the Army as a whole. Your beliefs are not inherently superior to anyone else's just because they're nicer.

Plus, not all homosexuals feel they have to proclaim their sexual orientation to everyone they meet. I don't think most of them would say anything unless they were asked.

And this is pretty much the point of DADT. You don't go around telling people you're gay, and don't make it obvious, you can get into the military just fine. And it even went so far a to say nobody could come out and interrogate you to see if you were gay just for the hell of it. Again, it doesn't work perfectly, but that was the very idea behind it.

Maybe you didn't read the sentence after the one where I said that Bush got blamed for only a year. I meant to say, Bush got blamed for only a year, and once Obama became President, people started pinning the blame on him. Which is why I believe lots of people have short-term memory. They don't listen to what the media says about Bush.

I don't blame Bush entirely for the recession. I just blame him for making things worse.

People started pinning the blame on him, because he's been activiely endeavoring to make the problem worse for most of us to help the very bottom percentage of society. His policies have put us further into debt, so we blame the further debt on him. However, like all politicians, Obama denies all responsibility for anything bad and passes the blame to the most recent leader of an opposing party. Isn't it funny how politicians like to claim any negatives of a leader's term seem to come from and last however long it's been since the opposing party last left power, yet any positive changes were the result of something that happened during the current leader's term? That's not how it actually works, it's just another political blame game for public support.

He could accomplish "nothing" as you call it because Republicans in Congress have opposed just about every idea Obama had proposed. And now that they occupy the majority of the House, don't expect much done.

Yes, it's obviously the Republican's fault nothing is acomplished, because since Obama's election, they've held a suffiecient majority in the house and senate to contro- oh wait... no, they haven't. The Democratic party has (until recently) had the ability to force pretty much anything they wanted through if they wanted it badly enough.

Remind me why spending money for our health is a bad move. That's all I'll ask for from this particular point.

Becuase it's not spending THEIR money for OUR health, as in every one of us. It's spending OUR money for a very small percentage of people's health, at the cost of downgrading our own AND higher prices for it. It's also costing jobs, hurting businesses, and downgrading the overall quality of medical care in the country. Those of us who actually pay for this shit aren't getting a damned thing out of it. Our health is not the government's business in the first place.