Comments on: People who need to be kicked in the nuts

By: Evil Abraham Lincoln

Evil Abraham Lincoln — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:16:12 +0000

I was complimented on my genitalia and BMT-honed physique a week after I went to tech school, with the compliment coming from one of my flightmates. I didn’t burst into flame, I didn’t kill him in a rage and I didn’t run into the bushes (or any other convenient ares) with him for a frenetic bout of dirty homoghey assfucking. If they’re going to repeal it, then it’s fine with me. Besides, the amount of “not really gay, but they’re fucking gay!” people in the military would make that moron’s head spin. The only difference between DADT and no-DADT is the fact that I’d have more people around me doing their jobs on a regular basis, instead of having to wait for FY20** to begin so that we can be assigned more personnel.

By: Lamashtar

Lamashtar — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:27:05 +0000

There’s plenty in the military who would have the problems the GOP expects from ‘intimacy’ with an openly gay brother soldier. But those are the same bottomfeeders that cause problems in the first place, that the military eventually gets rid of.

By: Burke

Burke — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:25:44 +0000

Okay, I’ll admit, I’ve never been in any branch of the armed services, but everything I hear leads me to believe that one of the goals of basic training is to instill a measure of self-discipline in the troops. Does this guy not believe in Army discipline? Why doesn’t he support the troops?

By: Jason Barnett

Jason Barnett — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:04:12 +0000

Marionette- you said you didn’t want to shut him up. But if you want to tell someone to shut up and don’t then isn’t that violating your freedom of speech.

By: That Guy

That Guy — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:40:36 +0000

Where is Spider Jerusalem with the chiar leg of truth when we need him?

By: FreeJaffa

FreeJaffa — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:38:56 +0000

I like an observation Chris Rock made on this issue several years ago: “I say let ‘em fight, ’cause I ain’t fightin’”.

By: Marionette

Marionette — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:33:38 +0000

Shooter, did you even read what I wrote? I agreed that he deserved a smack for spouting his hate speech. How is that letting him off the consequences of his words?

If you want to go off all ranty you might try it on someone who disagrees with you. Preferably someone bound by the laws you are getting all caps about.

By: NCallahan

NCallahan — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:11:24 +0000

It’s unfortunately not mystery why they want to keep gays out of the military and I don’t think it has to do with any inherent fanaticism on their part. The Republicans depend on reactionary stances to get voters to the polls. One of the tricks in their bag is holding up the soldier as the model of a good citizen and promising to maintain the soldier’s integrity. Once you get stuck in a position of admitting that the very group some of your constituents are reacting to can be good citizens, you lose talking points.

By: Andre

Andre — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:09:57 +0000

Also, point for Matthews doing this interview right. He got the guy to actually admit his view, and just lets us at home make the call as to whether Sprigg’s an ass-hat or not.

By: Andre

Andre — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:00:47 +0000

Punchable face, I’d say. Ellis would agree with me.

By: Shooter McCray

Shooter McCray — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:04:47 +0000

Marionette and other idiots who repeat this line, listen (well, read) closely: FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY GUARANTEES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS. YOU ARE NOT FREE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR SPEECH BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. You want to say bigoted, hateful, stupid garbage? Fine. You think you can scream “I HAEV FWEEDUM UV SPEACH!!!!1″ to avoid the consequences? Sorry, no dice.

Funny how the so-called “freedom advocates” out there don’t even know what they’re advocating.

By: Marionette

Marionette — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:26:04 +0000

I’m all for giving this guy a good kicking, but shutting him up afterwards? Sorry, but I hold freedom of speech higher than one hate-spewing asshole.

By: Skemono

Skemono — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:35:18 +0000

And I've also heard homosexuals called security risks, which I guess means they think gay people would be quite happy to sleep with the enemy.

I've heard that justified with the bullshit notion that "since homosexuals violate one social norm, they are likely to also violate military rules."

By: solid snake

solid snake — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:39:21 +0000

On the one thing that Sprigg did get right was the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was yes homosexual sex is in fact illegal. However he failed to mention the fact that UCMJ states that any position other than missionary can get you arrested. No I’m not joking, and I know this due to serving in the U.S. Army in the late nineties.
For the record, he’s still a douchebag, and I wear cleats while kicking him. Then I would punch him in the trachea (don’t want to miss his girlish yelps of pain) hard enough so he would never speak again.

By: William George

William George — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:26:08 +0000

Gays in the army? Sheesh, I think the Village People proved back in the 70s that the navy was more welcoming.