Comments

  1. Daya says

    Ready to leave the armed forces?
    And go where? Do what? Get a job doing what? Collecting unemployment.. oops can’t do that because the REPUBLICANS want to squeeze the little people some more.
    To much noise…I keep hoping…sigh…
    I think the right thing to do is just keep dancing…

  2. Steve says

    Doesn’t he know that people can’t just leave whenever they want? Only officers who completed their service obligations can resign more or less at will. And even that takes time to process.

    The “statistics” in other countries were actually far worse. Only a handful of people – literally less than five – actually left.

  3. BobN says

    Something similar happened in the UK. Anti-gay forces claimed thousands would leave the service. Surveys confirmed the number. A couple years later, something like a dozen men had left the service citing the inclusion of gay soldiers as their reason.

  4. Pointed says

    He’s a worthless hack who has to spew in order to get attention. Instead of insinuating his opinion on anti-gay rhetoric, he should focus on keeping the heterosexual families together before lambasting those falling outside his acceptance meter.

  5. TANK says

    It’s not baffling when you understand that maddow, oreilly, hannity, olberman, beck, and matthews–entertainment news–are more interested in ratings than credibility and facts. These social issues attract viewership–largely older people…it gets ’em wet. Admittedly, maddow, oberlman and even matthews are on a superior side than the faux news ministers of propaganda, but it’s the same business doing the same thing…and it all comes down to market share and ratings.

  6. peterparker says

    Dan Savage had it right when he told CNN last week that they were part of the problem by continuing to have people like Tony Perkins on their show to provide an “alternate view” on GLBT issues. I say we start a letter writing campaign to the major news outlets to demand they stop giving time to people like Tony Perkins who belong to designated hate groups. Anyone have an idea who we should be writing to? The producer? The programming director?

  7. TANK says

    Now take rupert murdoch as an example. If fox got a greater viewership with a liberal ideology, he’d have a new cast of pundits filling airtime before you could bat an eyelash. Does that make him a bad guy? Yes. But you’d do the same thing if given the opportunity, and if not you, someone else would fill the void of entertaining the great uneducated unwashed swath of americana that is a part of the game.

  8. BobN says

    “If fox got a greater viewership with a liberal ideology, he’d have a new cast of pundits filling airtime before you could bat an eyelash.”

    No he wouldn’t. A liberal viewership would not deliver the tax breaks and pro-corporate environment he needs.

  9. TANK says

    If he could make more money propping up a liberal news outlet, he would do it. The message is irrelevant to revenue, which is more important to murdoch and most people (yes, you too) than anything else, practically speaking.

    People who are worth hundreds of millions and billions of dollars aren’t good…despite what you may believe, they’re not good folks. Not inherently bad, of course…but they’ve done horrible, horrible things to acquire that money–and if not them, the ones that actually generated it (whether directly or, as is mostly the case, indirectly). Further, there is no good that they actually do to counterbalance the harm caused by acquiring and holding that much wealth. But this isn’t a screed against capitalism (though a screed, nonetheless), as shades of capitalism are, to invoke a cliche, the best game going at present. There are ways to miss the point, and you’ve provided an example of one of them, bobn.

  10. Craig says

    Wonder how much old Tony Perkins fantasizes about showering with gays in the military? Must be a LOT. I’ve never seen anybody – gay or straight – this obsessed about showers and anal sex.

  11. ichabod says

    Sent the following message to MSNBC:

    I am writing to ask why MSNBC is engaging known hate groups like The Family Research Council to speak on LGBT issues on your news programs? Would MSNBC invite the Grand Wizard of the KKK to discuss African American issues or leaders from Stormfront to discuss abortion or issues in the Jewish community?

    To attempt a credible debate on an issue is one thing, but if the best representative your producers can find to voice the other side of an issue is a hate group (such as The Family Research Council, The National Organization for Marriage or Concerned Women for America) then there is no other side of the issue. These organizations do nothing more than spread lies and cite fraudulent findings in an attempt to harm the LGBT community. They have no place in any sort of civil discourse.

    Until MSNBC ceases handing a megaphone over to every hate-mongering homophobe who wants to rant on the air, they are equally complicit in their bigoted message and its harmful effects on society.

  12. Soren456 says

    @Tank (the first):

    Right. Entertainment is the operative word.

    But only Limbaugh has ever admitted it. When pressed once, he said “I’m an entertainer.” I think, for once, he spoke the truth, and it was promptly forgotten.

    Real journalism today, I suspect, has such a small niche, and is regarded with such open suspicion, that it might as well be dead.

  13. Rowan says

    Tank that is bullsh*t. Bobn is right. Come to good ol England where we don’t see the news like u guys in this country and Murdoch has been trying hid hardest to make all the news like you guys.

    Thank god a 6 digit number of us lobbied to stop this.

  14. TANK says

    uh huh, uh huh–murdoch isn’t a businessman first…he’s a true believer, rowan. It’s all “principle” (commitment to conservatism or whatever) with that guy. Whatever you say, chuckles.

  15. Jesus says

    @peterparker just check msnbcs contact page. I sent an email after seeing perkins on hardball when behe was on recently with someone from the SPLC and he cited that rubbish data Matthews is talking about in this vid. I got a sneaking suspicion that MSNBC knows these people will discredit themselves given the chance, but giving them airtime for their ugly hate speech is just, I dunno. The ends dont seem to justify the means here

Leave A Reply