John McCain has been a privileged punk and bully since he took his first steps. When will his past finally be exposed by the timid and irresponsible media?

http://videosift.com/video/John-McCains-POW-story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v10CPZp5e_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT0AOs_7KDQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syTDUDjAzEk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqgLKrzCdw&NR=1
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message503422/pg1

I agree...there is MORE than enough VERIFIABLE brutal truth flat facts in these and other videos from Vietnam Veterans Families wanting releases of POW DOD documents that McCAin SINGLY blockes....in the SAME way he is blocking DADT. I wonder if THIS show will pay attention and REPORT, PLAY these old videos that PROVE, along with this article in his OWN words I iweeted to Keith:

@KeithOlbermann McCain said he was traitor in OWN words+videos verify this : http://ow.ly/1H2MG Are YOU being 'fair' by NOT reporting this?

Well...how much longer you going to let this self-admited traitor dictate military and social policy... McConnell isn't any better either.

Why don't Democrats have ANY 'spines' ???

Bob

It probably won't, George Patton. This man is a piece of work that because he was a POW gets away with pretty much anything. His argument seems to be that 'if we study it long enough, then hold hearings, folk will forget', or at least something along that line.

Ali Davis, there was a time that I, too, could have voted for Senator McCain, but that was at a time that he really was more moderate in his views. He has turned about face now and is against everything he use to be for and I wonder if he sleeps well at night. He covets his position so much that he looks and acts like a traitor to his own beliefs. It's a sad way to end his career.

He shouldn't expect to run again in 6 years. Of course, there was Sen. Byrd, but at some point it should be enough.

He would have 6 years not to care for reelection and do what's right.

Don't feel sorry. When I found out McCain won the election at the Republican convention I joined his campaigned and for the very beginning of his campaign actually worked with him to try to get the vote out for McCain. That was until he picked Palin. Then I quit, realizing just how willing he was to sell everything he believed in, in order to win.

McCain was so obviously leaving his principles behind to pander to the far right before the election it was embarrassing. Seems like every now and then a politician will take a stand and block things like this just to stay in the limelight. Joe Lieberman comes to mind.

I suspect that McCain hasn't changed his position on this at all. Remember that back in the '90s, when this policy was implemented, he credited his support of it to (if I remember correctly) Colin Powell. More broadly, he said that his support was conditional on the military's support and he claimed during the 2008 election that he would support repeal if the military did. But then Powell came out against DADT. So did the civilian and most of the military leadership at the Pentagon and McCain started making these increasingly lame excuses why he still won't support repeal. I think that he has always been gung-ho for the policy and only, in effect, blamed Powell and the rest of the military for his support only as a means to give himself cover. I think McCain really is a hard-right politician but one who saw value once upon a time in playing to the center and to the center-left because of his presidential aspirations. But as he's lost more and more of his cover, and has completely lost his reason for playing to anyone outside the right, his true colors are becoming more apparent.

In my snarky opinion, anyway.

I think he is a homophobe. He's not pandering to anybody.

I agree. His apparent willingness to be flexible on the issue in the past was the pandering, I suspect.

Maybe its because he served in the military rum dumbs. Have you? Things are going to get real screwy once DADT gets the axe.

And you're basing this on...? Remember anecdotal evidence is not valid unless it's backed with empirical evidence. Also remember that gays are currently serving.

You are right- gay are currently entitled to serve in the military and thats fine. So why change anything? The the mission of the military is to protect and defend this country. A huge degree of discipline and focus is required to accomplish this. This social engineering controversy, especially in light two ongoing wars severely distracts from this mission. DADT is the best compromise available and it works just fine.

Let's at least make this a fair compromise. How about extending don't ask, don't tell to include heterosexual soldiers. This would mean that if a soldier presented themselves as a sexual person at all, they would be immediately removed from the military. Of course, this would mean abolishing all heterosexual marriages in the military, limited access to books and entertainment that may display a heterosexual preference and they would sure have to watch themselves when on leave. At least it would be fair.

Of course that would set up an easy standard to humiliate heterosexual soldiers out of the military and not to mention present an easy way for commanding officers to boot out anyone they didn't like. Still though, it's not like our soldiers deserve to have families or to live lives that are anywhere close to the lives that civilians get to live. Why should they have the right to have sex at all or even be allowed to relax into their own lives when they get time off duty? Some may think that this is a little harsh but I prefer to think of it as a more conservative military.

@About Face- and again you provided no evidence to support the idea that allowing the already serving gays to serve openly would cause problems. Either back up your claim or shut up.

Well, if we are to believe About Face, the US military is made up of a bunch of whiny folks who are so terrified of gay people that they can't even do their jobs if one is around. Apparently that is just a problem with Americans, because Israelis and Europeans have had openly gay soldiers for years. The Israelis in particular are a very good fighting force, EVEN WITH GAY SOLDIERS. I guess they must be tougher than us wimpy Americans.

DADT is the best compromise available and it works just fine.

It 'works' to the extent that it has forced out and continues to force out a large number of highly trained individuals only because of what they are alleged to do with their naughty bits outside office hours. And those who are not forced out have to hide who they are on a daily basis in order to not be given the boot. So how happy would you be if you were forced to chose between living an underground existence or face ruination over something that was nobody's freaking business?

And anybody who uses the words 'social engineering' with such careless abandon needs to be stuffed into a coyote suit and injected into every Road Runner cartoon ever made.

I'm confused! So, why are females and males separated in the barracks? I'm just saying....

Lol at the last comment @Monk. Here's the deal- gays are already serving in the military and it's not a problem. There's no evidence to suggest that gays serving openly will be a problem. We are a country that pushes for equality, freedom, liberty- you know, all those things our men and women in uniform are fighting for. If there is no reason to not remove DADT, then why don't we do it? That would adhere to our standards of morality as a country. It would adhere to what our men and women are fighting for and it would honor those who have fallen and those who have been injured. Also, if gays serving works well already then DADT is a pointless law and we're just removing an archaic form of legislation. If the legislation is obsolete then we don't need to keep it in the books anymore. Put aside your personal feelings about gays and look at it from a completely analytical perspective- there is no logical reason to abstain from removing DADT. And if there is no reason to abstain from removing it then this really honestly should not be a debate.

Right. Why not do it. The other side only has excuses. McCain seems determined to prove that.

So, the 14th "equal protection of the laws" was necessary even AFTER this existed in the 9th?

Article. XIV.

[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh, I see .... we had to say all PEOPLE are PEOPLE, since there used to be fractions of a person.

Under the DADT and all other discriminatory LAWS, we have to admit there is a UNEQUAL designation given to LGBTQ PEOPLE written into the law...

Katy, there have been LGBTQ there the whole time

Because the Dem running against him barely campaigned at all, and had pissed off the liberals in the state.

I sure as heck did NOT for this old establishment fool. He should retire while he can still say "goofbye" without the drooling and go sit in one of his.. what is it? seven homes! I'm still sick daily that AZ folks voted in that witch Brewer. The only sane person in our AZ government of G. Giffords (in my part of the state.)

Because the alternative was a loony tunes Tea Party radio host in the mold of Glenn Beck.

Yes, it could have been worse.

I voted for the Democrat.

McCain is pulling this crap out of a rear orifice and he is such a two face. He is so full of you know what and is a disgrace to politicians everywhere. It is so frustrating to think some can keep equal rights away from others and justify this. This is a scary man with warped two-faced approach to keep him looking good with whomever it is needing support no matter how discriminating that support might be. He wants the military elite to decide what most all servicemen say is not an issue.

They do in the military, too... it's just that some of them have to keep a major part of their being a secret in order to continue coexisting and doing their jobs.

So if the study said that it does effect battle readiness to have gays and straits serving together, will all the strait military leave?

If the study says that it would affect battle readiness, my first response would be to say "what the heck is wrong with the US military that we shower hundreds of billions of dollars upon each year?" The Israeli military has allowed gays to serve openly for many years, and I don't think anyone here or in our military would dare call them slouches. A great many European militaries also allow openly gay members in their organization, with no deleterious effects. So what is wrong with us? Are our military leaders a bunch of unthinking homophobes? If so, they need to be replaced. If not, then DADT needs to go.

If our enemies think that just tossing a few gays at our forces will cause them to collapse from diminished battle readiness, expect them to field large all-gay armies to defeat us. I guess the sight of all those gay soldiers will immediately cause our guys to run away in terror, or drop their weapons in confusion? C'mon Senator McCain, you've held some pretty goofy positions in the past, (perhaps a side effect of all the planes you crashed in your Navy days), but this has to be one of the very worst.

@Revsharky--and having to hide their identity in the military leaves them open to being blackmailed, too. If they were allowed to serve openly, that threat is neutralized. I don't understand the flap over this. Let our people serve their country!

Yes, but to they have to shower together? I'm just saying....

Only about 3% of the entire population is gay, anyway. Why such big deal about a few gay guys Does anyone have an idea (verifiable) of how many gay people we re talking about in the armed forces?

Yes, but to they have to shower together? I'm just saying....

A. This is only true in certain circumstances (otherwise the showering situation is actually about as private as what you have at a college dormitory...not necessarily the most private it could be, but neither are people always standing there watching each other bathe)
B. Since gays are already serving in the military this is already occurring. If this were going to be a problem it would have already presented itself as one. If you have statistics showing that closeted gays who shower with straight people are a problem then I'd be happy to change my position.
C. Although this is a red herring argument (the one presented by Katy, I mean), I'd just like to add: not sure where you're getting your statistics from- would love a reference- the latest survey I read said roughly 6% of men are gay and roughly 8% of women are lesbian. It would be interesting to compare statistics though.
D. It's a logical fallacy to say that only 3% (or whatever the number is) of citizens are gay therefor it shouldn't be an issue. Even if only one gay person were ever discharged under DADT it would still be a problem. The point is we, as a country and a general populous, do not want our soldiers being discharged if they can fight. A person being gay, at least from everything I've heard (please if you have statistics to the contrary, share them) does not affect the military's capability to fight. Just like a person being black or female doesn't. Just like a person being a legal citizen prior to joining doesn't. Just like a person being 5 feet or 6 feet tall doesn't. If people can fight they should be able to join. If they can't fight they shouldn't be able to join. If they are at risk then they should be approved into the military on an individual basis per a higher official's recommendations. It's as simple as that.

The number of gays in the United States is not actually verifiable. I have read statistics that range from 1% to 8%, and most of the statistics acknowledge that 8% is the high number with the assumption that many don't report themselves, but that actual reporting is more like 1 to 3%. The point is it is a small percentage. I assume even smaller for the military.

You really can't compare sex and gender or height. That is ridiculous. Naturally when in tight quarters, we separate females from males for obvious reasons. Those reasons are related to sexuality. Please don't be silly.

Knowing when the same sex, sleeping and showering next to you, sexually appreciates your body makes it uncomfortable to the majority. Why should they have to deal with that? And, don't give me that balony that just because someone is gay, don't mean they are attracted to everyone. Gay men, are very promiscuous and the HIV numbers support that, just as men in general are more promiscuous. They separate males and females to help eliminate problems.

I say repeal DADT and then eliminate gays from situations, where there presence, would infringe upon the majority of our military servicemen and women.

A. You haven't backed up any of your claims
B. I thought you were talking about the general population, not just the US military. No one knows exactly how many are serving and that is probably right that it's a lower than the national average percentage. That matters exactly for what reason...?
C. The numbers you gave about HIV aren't actually accurate, the number is 43% and remember that has to do with male-to-male sexual conduct which includes bi-sexuals and straight men, not just homosexual men. You're also continuing the fallacy you made earlier which is that men who engage in sex with other men know that they need to wear protection while they are engaged in such activities- which they do not. But that is besides the point.
D. So it's about making the straight person happy? I am Asian and I think white people smell funny. I shouldn't have to serve with white people because they smell like corn syrup and it makes me gag. Why should I have to deal with that problem? Because racism within the military isn't tolerated and if I carry that attitude I will be discharged. Why in the hell should it be different for gays? It's okay to discriminate against gays, but not race?
E. We want people serving based on their ability to serve. I did not make a comparison to being gay being like being short. Although even if I did, you're aware that argument has been made how many times by your Republican leadership? What I said is that we, as a populous, do not like restrictions on service in the military that do not assist in military readiness- such as height, background, or sexuality. We want our military to be at it's best and that means everyone who is capable of service should be able to serve. Reading comprehension #fail.
F. Do you have statistics to back up that it makes the majority uncomfortable? Do you have statistics to back up that all gay men lust after all other men? Do you have evidence to suggest that all lesbians lust after straight women? Do you have evidence to suggest that the majority would be bothered by that idea? The reality is in most situations you have some security. In the case of bedding you usually have bunk mates or people who sleep in a cot next to you. Not to get crude here, but that person will even masturbate in front of you. Does it really matter if that person is looking at a same sex magazine versus an opposite sex magazine? Really? If he says "I'm masturbating to you" guess what that's a form of harassment and the military already has a protocol in place to deal with it. And since gays are already serving this would already be a problem. Since it's not then it stands to reason that close quarters doesn't affect jack. Also as a side note, by making the close quarters argument you're aware that I can use your exact same logic to conclude that this is why the military should be all straight females, correct? Or all straight, white, females. Or all straight, white, married, mothers.
G. How do you know that gays serving openly would infringe on our service members? How did you come to the conclusion that revoking DADT and revoking gays from the military is a better answer? How do you know this? Where is your evidence?

I didn't say revoke gays from the military, I said don't allow them in situations where they cannot be accomodated. For instance do we have disabled people in a combat situation? No, we bring them home. We can't accomodate them. What? Should all barracks or tents in the desert have to have facilities to accomodate the disabilities act? Come'on. Is that discrimination or just common sense.

So answer this, why don't we allow the girls and boys to shower and go to the bathroom in the same area if preventable?

Homosexuality isn't a disability. Restricting the hiring of gays and allowing their firing once discovered is discrimination.

Arguing for discrimination based on bathroom organization is a ridiculous argument. You're pointing out that the situation will require some practical thought on the part of the military devoted to handling such specifics. You can expect the need for practical thought regarding every policy change.

You can't really expect people to consider bathroom organization against the right of patriotic Americans to serve and protect their nation. I may as well argue for abolishing organized religion to improve traffic flow in congested cities.

And again, I ask why is it that the militaries of many other countries, such as Israel, can manage to allow gays to serve openly, but ours seemingly can't, if you believe the DADT supporters? Are our people that inherently homophobic that they can't do something that so many others can do?

As to the ridiculous assertion that you can't shower with someone that you think may be lusting after you........really? There are and have always been gay people in the military, already showering with straight soldiers, and (shudder).....lusting after them! If you are so incredibly homophobic that this thought occurs to you every time you take a shower or you are in close proximity to someone, then wouldn't the repeal of DADT be exactly what you want? That way you'd know exactly who was gay, and might be secretly lusting after you. Then you could adjust your showering routine to avoid being in the shower at the same time with those folks.

Or are you afraid that one of those gays might actually rape another soldier? If so, why is that any worse than the numerous cases of female military members being raped by male military members? That happens far too often, and of course has happened a number of times with contractors like Blackwater.

The idea that gay persons lust after each and every person of their same gender is ludicrous on its face. Throughout my life, I have been in plenty of same-gender showers and locker rooms, so I do have the experience to speak from, as well as many gay friends who would say the same.

No all of us gay people lust after everyone of the same gender. It's true, don't lie. We're animals. That's why we should all be put into jail or sent off to camps to be re-oriented. Because we can't help ourselves we just can't. Everything we touch turns gay and we have to touch everything. I mean c'mon that's why so many of us are pedophiles! The fact that I have no evidence to support any of my words matters not. It's just a simple fact-fact. Like truthiness only factiness. Yes.

In some ways, DADT opponents are imputing to gays the same motivations that muslims seem to impute to all men. We can't have gays in the military because they will be lusting after everyone of the same sex. Women must be covered up because men lust after all women. Apparently the far right is in the same state of mind as their supposed muslim adversaries.

Do they honestly believe that gays have less professionalism, less control, less propriety than straight folks? Most straight people do not lust after every single member of the opposite sex.

Sounds like Katy and others do not want any law that makes THEM feel weird and allows for any acceptance of what THEY THINK people should NOT act like.

Does the military have codes of conduct? YES. Should it be the same for all PEOPLE? YES.

There was once a time where people of different races were segregated based on the possibility that they might harbor bad feelings about the other race or they were inferior or bad for cohesion. Do we have racists in the military? YES. Does the military allow racist behavior? NO. The orders must be followed, or face consequences. If someone of one race does not want to be in the same barracks or shower with the other race, will they get their way? NO.

This fact is not getting through the barrier: LGBTQ are currently showering and sharing barracks in the U.S. military if they keep silent AND other countries' military if are NOT silent.

The argument of male/female is not going to work. We have females in Iraq that have to interact (bathroom/barrack)(sometimes NOT segregated from each other) with males and vice versa. What if a straight female saw an attractive male with his shirt off or peeing out in the desert? There should not be the Exception being the way we make policies, the "what if" could go on forever, so why bother arguing it? Repeal the law to follow Constitution, follow military code of conduct to be made equal for all, separate is not equal. After all, military is supposed to work as a unit and they do, whether they "like each other" to start with or not.

END DADT!

But if we end DADT then the gays will be allowed to be gay in front of people. With DADT in place the gays have to be straight in front of people. Or the straights have to be gay in front of people. I'm not sure how it works I just know lesbians are icky. But if you're a straight woman and would like to compliment my legs, please go right ahead.

Skip this one if you don't like the Bible. Some folks will not listen if they sense something conflicts with their staunch beliefs. Perhaps the Bible can crack the wall that is put up to prevent listening or considering another view.

Katy. I perceive you feel you have the sole position that could possibly be allowed based on the Bible teaching.

I am not a stranger to the words in that book. Sermon on the Mount CONTRADICTS some of the old Testament and the TRADITIONAL teachings by temple leaders were called hypocrisy. Eye for an Eye, forgiving your brother, divorce, do to others as you would like done to yourself is the LAW.

He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

I have one last thing for Katy:

All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

From the book of Matthew in red letters.

I understand that there will be attempts to give the meaning, but it seems pretty clear to me that there is something there that is there for some people to understand and some people will not understand its meaning. Which is right?

Sounds like Katy and others do not want any law that makes THEM feel weird and allows for any acceptance of what THEY THINK people should NOT act like.

Well, yeah. What else could it be? DADT and DOMA, and a lot of other things, are really at their core an expression of major wibblies by people with very small comfort zones.

In a way we shouldn't be too judgmental because we're really talking about a basic survival tool. Fear and wariness of the strange or unexpected are part of our makeup so that we can react to a rustling in the bushes before the tiger leaps out rather than after. But the instinct goes wrong if a person still feels fear even when it turns out there's really no danger; and it goes completely off the rails when a person is so fearful they are compelled to invent insane stories to justify their emotional state (like all those idiotic anecdotes about the dangers gays pose to the military) and invent scapegoats to blame for their terror.

So it's pretty natural for those of us who aren't always knotted up inside with irrational, baseless fears to want to knock together the heads of those who do until they either see sense or stars. I get pretty frustrated with it all, too, and I'm sure it shows. A lot, probably. But maybe it's useful step back a little and recognize that, in a lot of ways, people on the right are the victims of out-of-control instincts and try to feel a little sympathy despite the fact that they so often act like perfect little oiks who don't deserve any.

Whatever guys----

Some of my best friends are gay, so me challenging you on your position is not bothersome to me. Distractions are a problem in combat situations. I personally say, LET THEM TELL. I actually could care less.

Katy264 said, "Some of my best friends are gay,"

Archie Bunker used to say "Some of my best friends are black"

Odds are that one or more were/are. Insert Seinfeld quip here.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!!"

I can't imagine what use Satan would have for damaged goods. He must have some standards.

I think the senator is getting a little senile - he's just confused. That must explain all the waffling he's been doing over the last bunch of years on EVERYTHING.

The minute old McCain referred to Palin as his 'soul mate,' Cindy should have cut off his allowance right then and there. Life without her money might make him have to move into that so called Chritian apt building

Here, here. You sum it up completely, fairly and clearly.

I, for one, wouldn't want to be in a situation where I knew someone of the same sex was potentially lusting after me in the shower! Come'on guys. Why do we separate the sexes in the first place. Why don't they just have everyone sleeping and showering together? We separate females and males when at all possible. It stands to reason that we cannot do that for gays because those accomodations are just not available in that situation. That is no disrespect for the gays serving. Certainly they are just as honorable. But it is matter of being practical...

Terms are supposed to be limited by the people, not an end-around. The people need to get informed, ask better questions & have a real basis for "voting the bums out". Tea party is not an answer for the common good. Neither is term limits. Both miss the informed vigilance of the citizenry.

Term-limits are the lazy way to ensure turn over in political office. At best, anyway. In the case of the Nebraska unicameral, I suspect the long campaign for term-limiting state senators was largely driven by a desire to get rid of Ernie Chambers. So even though I don't care for McCain, personal and political dislike are still not valid reasons to take the people's choice of who will represent them out of their hands.

And in that American we will be riding unicorns to work instead of cars!

But really, this country is screwed because every two years we go and vote for different people and they always do the same thing... NOTHING!

You need to go to the website "what the heck has obama done" to get some insight you obviously have been listening to Fox.

Lots of people feel like David004, on this matter it seems he hasn't done anything. The Pres' explanation at the MTV Town Hall seems legit.

"But is it true that Obama has to wait for Congress to act? Most legal experts agree that a president cannot simply change a law by fiat. “Obama is correct in the most general terms,” says Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches law at the University of Florida. “Federal law can go away in one of two ways: Congress can repeal it or a court can find it unconstitutional.” And it would seem hypocritical for liberals, who complained during the Bush administration that the executive branch was arrogating too much power to itself, to decide suddenly that they like the unitary executive when their side controls it."

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html