an ultimatum

FredHayek wrote: And you are over-reacting.
The guy served and thinks homosexuals serving openly will hurt morale and possibly kill troops.
He takes a comic tone like a political cartoon, and because you disagree with it, you call it disgusting. I disagree with his idea but it is just an educated opinon from his service.

comic? yeah, our troops, INCLUDING our gay troops, fighting for our country and getting killed and injured, sure is funny.

FredHayek wrote: So you admit you can't find the anti-spitting stuff in a legitimate source?

I "admit" that I don't give a sh*t if you like my sources or not; and that if you want to keep changing the subject rather than admitting that you're a liar, I don't care about that either.

But just for the heckuvit:

Spitting on the Troops: Old Myth, New Rumors
By Jerry Lembcke[/b]

The largest anti-war movement in American history emerged during the weeks leading up to the attack on Iraq. Capped by massive rallies in Washington, DC on January 18 and New York City on February 15, the movement spanned generations and united diverse political interests to degrees that surprised participants and pundits alike.

As the war against Iraq commenced, however, public opinion began to shift. The surprisingly favorable coverage given protests in the weeks leading to the bombing of Baghdad on March 19 gave way to evening news reports about the growing numbers of people turning out for demonstrations and vigils to "support our troops." The nightly-news footage of parents and neighbors distraught over their loved ones' deployment to the danger zone testified to the emotional wreckage left on the homefront when troops ship off to war. At the same time, whatever the intent and stated purpose of the public musterings for the troops, the reality was that they were viewed with skepticism by many observers as thinly-veiled pep rallies for the war policy of the Bush administration.

There is still another layer to the pro-troop rhetoric that has escaped commentary, however. Implicit in it is the assumption that someone doesn't support the men and women in uniform. Behind that supposition lurk the myths and legends of homefront betrayal that have bedeviled American political culture since the Vietnam War, and which have been resuscitated recently by rumors of hostility toward military personnel.

By early April, stories were circulating in several US cities about uniformed military personnel being spat on or otherwise mistreated. In Asheville, North Carolina, two Marines were rumored to have been spat upon, while in Spokane, Washington, a threat to "spit on the troops when they return from Iraq" was reportedly issued. In Burlington, Vermont, a leader of the state National Guard told local television, "We've had some spitting incidents," and then claimed one of his Guardswomen had been stoned by anti-war teenagers.

Upon further investigation, none of the stories panned out — the Spokane "threat" stemmed from the misreading of a letter in the local paper promising that opponents of the war would not spit on returning soldiers — and yet, in each case the rumors were used to stoke pro-war rallies.

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men — some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=350

"The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) ...... <

---

"Legitimate Source"...(whether you like it or not...)

And did I mention that I STILL don't give a sh*t if you like my sources or not; and that if you want to keep changing the subject rather than admitting that you're a liar, I don't care about that either.