The military has traditionally been a refuge for "straight-acting" gay men to escape the confines of their backgrounds.

Sure, I can see that. But as far as such refuges go, the military has to be the worst choice. One can move to a gay-friendly place like SF and get that, with the added benefit of not routinely getting shot at.

Gay men are, first and foremost, MEN. The military looks like fun if you don't dwell on the death and killing part.

That's like saying "being a sewage worker is fun, if you don't dwell on the fact that you're wading around in shit." I understand where you're going with this reasoning, but I just don't understand how significant numbers of people would go along with it.

Why do gays want to be in the military in any significant numbers anyway? It seems like a pretty homophobic culture. The job duties are horrific. And it's relatively thankless. What on earth is the attraction? Oh, I can see a handful of people being into that. But I really don't understand why there are sufficient number of gays who want to be in the military, to make this into a real controversy.

Don't get me wrong: if gays want to be in the military, then I'm up for repealing DADT. I just don't get why they would.

Why do you have to be such a douche? "Toothless hillbillies"? Seriously?

Sorry, but I use these terms as shorthand for the forces that seek to keep America back in the 50s. I offer no apologies. I want these people out of my country, or in a position where they're no longer hamstringing our development.

And why exactly do you care if those who need health care cross a state line to get it? If you support a public option, why do you seek to limit who benefits from it?

You aren't grasping a crucial fact: if a lot of people are taking advantage of a system that only a subset are actually supporting materially, then it's not fair and is ultimately unsustainable. Look at the problems the NHS in Britain has with "medical tourism" of people from all over the world. Can the British afford to provide healthcare for the rest of the world? It's like if you sit down at a restaurant with a group of people, and some of them say "I'm not eating any of this food." So you all order, and when the food comes, suddenly they're hungry but still aren't paying for anything.

I don't just want a public option so I can say I've got a public option. I want one that is sustainable. And if some states choose to forgo it, then their residents miss out. Those are the consequences of living in a backward part of the world. If they want to change that, they can always move. That's how it works.

If the federal government pinpointed my demographic and said that I was ineligible to serve in the military (assuming I was still draftable age, which I'm not), I would be overjoyed. Lacking a real necessary war, such as we haven't seen since WW2, I always considered military enlistment was the government's way of helping out with natural selection.

Other than denying their citizens the choice to buy into the public plan what do states that opt-out gain?

I'm guessing that residents of opt-out states would get a federal tax deduction for living among imbeciles.

I like this idea for a few reasons. Some of them are obvious: it doesn't force red states to join us. This is great for the rest of us too. We don't have to keep footing the bill for those toothless hillbillies.

This will put republican governors in a tough position. Opt out of health care, and turn a blind eye to your own uninsured while they die without care. Or opt in to health care, and piss off every authoritarian in your red state. I expect that to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I also think this could serve as a future dividing line for partitioning up the nation.

One important thing, though: state residency must be proven in order to receive health care services. Otherwise, every rube who gets sick will suddenly drive over the border to enjoy the liberal health care.

groundzero, while we've hardly seen eye to eye in the past, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts today about Afghanistan, which are pretty much in line with mine. However, your screed about Muslims went very wide of the mark.

The Taliban and Al-Qaida have already won the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide.

What nonsense!! They haven't even won the hearts and minds of Afghans, let alone Muslims from other countries. Do you really think the Afghans relish the return of the Taliban?

My in-laws are Pakistani Muslims who immigrated to the UK in the 60s. They belong to a large community there. I've met a ton of them, as well as many of the relatives still living in Pakistan. To suggest that they support AQ or the Taliban is like saying "Oh, all Christians support Glenn Beck."

It's precisely this "Islamophobia" that enables us to remain in places like Afghanistan, creating more enemies for the future. Do try and address that.

If you don't mind, please substantiate your assertion that Glenn "accuse[s] everybody else of being retarded".

I keep up with Glenn's posts pretty well, and don't remember him using the term.

I assume what rtf100 meant is that Glenn makes him feel retarded. Which is completely understandable.