# Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale



## Flaylo (Mar 2, 2010)

Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale - US News and World Report

This link touched upon some of the objections I've raised and I will posted them




> The new "nondiscrimination" law would affect all military branches and communities, including Army and Marine infantry, special operations, Navy SEALs, and submarines. *Unlike workers who return home at night, military personnel must accept living conditions that involve "forced intimacy," with little or no privacy. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to share private quarters with men&#8212;a situation that would be unacceptable to the majority of military women even if misconduct never occurred. Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them*.




As for us in the Army, how do we feel about it the possible repeal of DADT?



> In the 2008 Military Times Poll, *58 percent of 2,000 active-duty subscribers said they opposed repeal of current policy&#8212;for the fourth year in a row. Responses to a new survey question found that if Congress repealed the 1993 law, almost 10 percent would not re-enlist, and an additional 14 percent would consider ending their careers.* Many first-termers normally leave, but the loss of even a few thousand careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable would come at a crippling cost&#8212;especially when we are at war and trying to grow the Army and Marine Corps.



Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda.


Who's really getting discharged more, gays under DADT or others?



> *Honorable discharges of gays who were misled about eligibility to serve are far fewer than losses due to pregnancy or weight standard violations.* Clarify the meaning of the law, and such discharges could drop to near zero. There is no national security argument for legislation that would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in the all-volunteer force.



DADT really hurts the military more than any other people discharged, is that what that obstinate Navy fellow said earlier? Maybe he should reconsider.




> A distinguished group of retired flag and general officers recently delivered to Obama and Congress a statement supporting the 1993 law, signed by more than 1,000 retired officers, including 51 of four-star rank. Noting that it "protect good order, discipline, and morale in the unique environment of the military," the officers wrote, "As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law."





A whooping 51 retired four-stars wrote Obama to that he should support DADT, this combined with the 58% of active duty subscribers to the Army Times says a lot about what servicemembers really think, leave it to Fathertime and he will say all of these people are homophobic active duty and retired military, but is that really the case? I leave it for each and every individual to decide for themselves.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 2, 2010)

Poll: No political risk in repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'



> But other members of the joint chiefs have been more circumspect, with Marine Corps Commandant James Conway expressing some opposition. *According to a recent poll by Military Times, members of the Marine Corps remain the most opposed to repeal, with the Army also being slightly opposed. The Navy and the Air Force, however, slightly favor repeal,* according to Brendan McGarry, a reporter who helped conduct the poll.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 3, 2010)

'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?

"Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."

Oh cut the bullshit, it won't force you to do anything. You can still believe whatever you want about gays you'd just have to have some openly gay coworkers (which you may encounter IN EVERY OTHER JOB).

The rest of your post is ad populum (appeal to majority) or appeal to authority fallacies.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> 'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
> So? Oh no he/she may be fantasizing about them, this harms the fantasized person ... how?
> 
> "Count me as one of those who would end their career if forced acceptance of the one sided homosexual agenda were forced upon me, I refuse to be an advocate of anyone's agenda."
> ...



So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? You've shown that you really care about what hurts the military.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > 'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
> ...



What is there to be concerned about? If they leer or bother them then you can cite them for harassment.

And as Cold Fusion points out, would you rather have to guess who's gay in your unit or would you rather know?

Although really discharging someone from the military because their very presence makes someone uncomfortable is draconian and pretty stupid.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > 'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
> ...



I don't know about your credentials but when I was in the service it wasn't a democracy.

The bigoted dinosaurs will shape up or ship out.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...




I'd rather not be forced to know who's gay as I prefer people keeping that to themselves, what I don't know will not hurt me. I'm concerned with how the military will be affected by the DADT rescinded, I don't care about what one sided homosexual activists are interested in.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



I jonied the military in 1995 straight out of high school, I'm far from a bigot dinosaur, thats a subjective statement on your part. You are right, the military isn't a democracy so why are gays going against DADT?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.  Wake up.  Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted.  It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.  



> You are right, the military isn't a democracy so why are gays going against DADT?



What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT?  Whatever the hell that means.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.




I'm almost 33 years old, far from being a crusty old SFC. I joined the military after the implementation of DADT.



> Wake up.  Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted.  It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.



My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.





> What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT?  Whatever the hell that means.



The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran. Soldiers do not get to pick and chose to disregard/follow what they think is right or wrong. Joining the military is voluntary and is not a right.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.
> ...



33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.



> Wake up.  Your opinion or position on this issue is bigoted.  It's bigoted and it also shows a lack of faith and respect for your fellow servicemembers.





> My opinion doesn't matter, the concern of my soldiers and unit cohesion does matter and I will not support anything that will harm those two things. I am under no military obligation to support anyone's fanatical activism. I'm all about the Army business and NCO business.



"Fanatical activism" .... lol 

You realize you are making the same arguments that bigoted whites made when they intergrated units almost 70 years ago, right?

Your obligation is to the Army and the US Government.  You at least got that part right.  When the policy changed it will be your job to enforce it i.e. dicipline any morons under you who harass any gays you might be responsible for ... you know supporting unit cohesion and all.



> What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT?  Whatever the hell that means.





> The gays need to get with the program and follow military policy and leave their homosexual agenda at the door before they sign up and take that oath. They can have whatever personal feeling they like, but they do not have the right to use their activism to selfishly dictate military policy and how the military is ran. Soldiers do not get to pick and chose to disregard/follow what they think is right or wrong. Joining the military is voluntary and is not a right.


You need to get with the program and leave your oiwn anti-homosexual agenda at the door.  These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process.  And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't.  Not even close..


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> 33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.



Or maybe I'm just severely misinformed, you'll have to show me where being a 33 year old SFC is a crusty old sarge. 







> "Fanatical activism" .... lol




Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers.



> You realize you are making the same arguments that bigoted whites made when they intergrated units almost 70 years ago, right?



I'm not making that same argument, sexual orientation based on sexual acts and race and ethnicity are not the same. 



> Your obligation is to the Army and the US Government.  You at least got that part right.  When the policy changed it will be your job to enforce it i.e. dicipline any morons under you who harass any gays you might be responsible for ... you know supporting unit cohesion and all.




I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.



> What does the military not being democracy have to do with gays going against DADT?  Whatever the hell that means.






> You need to get with the program and leave your oiwn anti-homosexual agenda at the door.



I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda just because I disagree with homosexuals openly serving in the military, you gay activists can't have all your wy or its the anti/homosexual way, you need to get with the program and accept that not everyone that disagree with your one sided homosexual biased agenda is not bigoted or a homophobic person.



> These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process.




Serving in the military is not a right and plenty of soldiers have to give up a lot and sacrifice when they join the military, some more than others. Gays can do whatever they like as long as they don't openly make it known, openly stating that they are gay is of no benefit to the military and unit cohesion. I'm pro-unit cohesion and anything that will improve unit cohesion and morale and the health and welfare of soldiers and anti-anything that goes against and doesn't benefit those things. You one sided homosexual biased actvists only have the interests of homosexuals in mind.




> And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't.  Not even close..



Not everyone in the military is "equal" or treated "equally," officers get more pay and better housing than enlisted and even their own reserved parking spaces, but soldiers suck it up and drive on without complaining. Gay soldiers are treated no different than straight soldiers, you show me where the inequality lies. All people joining the military have to adapt to military life and the rules and regulations, if they can't they need to find another occupation, and I will do everything in my power to assist them. 


When they get discharged under DADT, they have it better than others who get discharged for they get discharged honorably, despite the fact that they either admitted or were caught in the act of breaking the regulation. Homosexual acts are forbidden under the UCMJ anyways so what good is rescinding DADT going to do?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > 33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.
> ...



It's a matter or perception.  I'm sure you don't feel like one but your rank and time of service says you are.



> "Fanatical activism" .... lol






> Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers.



No, it's not.  Its men and women like you and I that want to serve openly and proudly, just we did/do.  

I'm assuming that you are hetero.

You don't hide the fact that you are hetero do you?




> I'm not making that same argument, sexual orientation based on sexual acts and race and ethnicity are not the same.



You are making the same argument.  Unit cohesion, etc.  It's the same thing they tried back in the day.  They were just as wrong then as you are now.




> I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.



When DADT gets repealed YOU WILL enforce the same harassment policy you would if someone in your unit were harassing someone because they were black, or latino, or a woman.  



> I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda just because I disagree with homosexuals openly serving in the military, you gay activists can't have all your wy or its the anti/homosexual way, you need to get with the program and accept that not everyone that disagree with your one sided homosexual biased agenda is not bigoted or a homophobic person.



You are against homosexuals serving openly ... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-homosexual agenda.




> These men and women want to serve their country honoroably and not have to hide who they are in the process.






> Serving in the military is not a right and plenty of soldiers have to give up a lot and sacrifice when they join the military, some more than others. Gays can do whatever they like as long as they don't openly make it known, openly stating that they are gay is of no benefit to the military and unit cohesion. I'm pro-unit cohesion and anything that will improve unit cohesion and morale and the health and welfare of soldiers and anti-anything that goes against and doesn't benefit those things. You one sided homosexual biased actvists only have the interests of homosexuals in mind.



Straights can openly say they are straight and it doesn't effect unit cohesion.  Gays should be able to do the same.  Admittedly, we will experience some minor issues with dumbasses who take action against gays but they will weeded out.  As they should be.  Then your unit will be cohesive and anyone enlisting from the day the policy is repealed forward will be fully aware that they might have to work along side a homo ... just like they would in any civilian job they may hold.



> And don't give me some bull shit and tell me that DADT allows them to serve while still being equal to everyone else because it doesn't.  Not even close..





> Not everyone in the military is "equal" or treated "equally," officers get more pay and better housing than enlisted and even their own reserved parking spaces, but soldiers suck it up and drive on without complaining. Gay soldiers are treated no different than straight soldiers, you show me where the inequality lies. All people joining the military have to adapt to military life and the rules and regulations, if they can't they need to find another occupation, and I will do everything in my power to assist them.



Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights.  A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend.   A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend.  The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.



> When they get discharged under DADT, they have it better than others who get discharged for they get discharged honorably, despite the fact that they either admitted or were caught in the act of breaking the regulation. Homosexual acts are forbidden under the UCMJ anyways so what good is rescinding DADT going to do?



Recinding DADT would also involve tweaking Article 125, dude ....


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> It's a matter or perception.  I'm sure you don't feel like one but your rank and time of service says you are.



Thats your perception, but not the perception of my soldiers every morning during PT. A 33 year old SFC is not a crusty old sarge, if any of my soldiers told me that I'll put them in the front leaning rest position and let them rethink it.








> No, it's not.  Its men and women like you and I that want to serve openly and proudly, just we did/do.



Serving proudly is about work, discpline and professionalism, sexual orientation is not conducive to serving honorably. Serving in the military is not a right, you must remember that.



> I'm assuming that you are hetero.
> 
> You don't hide the fact that you are hetero do you?



I am heterosexual but I don't openly spill the details of my sex life for all to hear. I am not known as Heterosexual SFC __, I am known by by rank and my actions.






> You are making the same argument.  Unit cohesion, etc.  It's the same thing they tried back in the day.  They were just as wrong then as you are now.



I am not making the same argument, an orientation based on voluntary sexual acts and race-ethnicity are not the same.






> When DADT gets repealed YOU WILL enforce the same harassment policy you would if someone in your unit were harassing someone because they were black, or latino, or a woman.



If it gets repealed on my watch I will not enforce homosexual activism and homosexuality. I do enforce the military's EO program, not black, white, latino or gender based activism.





> You are against homosexuals serving openly ... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-homosexual agenda.



Your against heterosexuals who don't share your one sided homosexual agenda activism.... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-heterosexual agenda.









> Straights can openly say they are straight and it doesn't effect unit cohesion.  Gays should be able to do the same.



Straight soldiers don't wate their time and energy oopenly saying they're straight, homosexual activism wants gays to waste time talking about their homosexuality.




> Admittedly, we will experience some minor issues with dumbasses who take action against gays but they will weeded out.



So are you saying if DADT is rescinded the old problem people causing lack of unit cohesion are going to be those opposed to it? Have you ever thought that maybe the action of rescinding DADT is the problem?



> As they should be.  Then your unit will be cohesive and anyone enlisting from the day the policy is repealed forward will be fully aware that they might have to work along side a homo ... just like they would in any civilian job they may hold.



Getting rid of those who may cause physical harm to gays is not going to make all soldiers accept homosexuals openly serving in the ranks.





> Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights.  A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend.   A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend.  The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.



Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.


----------



## maineman (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > 'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
> ...



Back in the 70's, the navy outlawed beards...  against the wishes of a vast majority of sailors.  Odddly enough, the navy survived.  Oddly enough, losing our beards, although upsetting us in the short term, did not hurt our readiness in any way.  

And what about someone who admits to being a homosexual, but does not let his sexuality detract from his professionalism, makes them inherently "untrustworthy"?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Loss of beards and allowing gays to openly serve are two different things, this is an even worse comparison than blacks and gays.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

> Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.




No one in the Army is allowed to publicly discuss their sex life, especially when it involves people in their unit, that also destroys unit cohesion and its unprofessional. Whatever soldiers discuss privately among themselves is another matter.

Life in the Army is not going to be fair to some people but thats just the way it is, you either adapt and obey or move out.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

I seriously doubt that if DADT was rescinded that soldiers are going to be accepting, tolerant, understanding and willing to hear openly serving gays talk opnely about their sex lives and their man-on-man encounters in the bedroom. I seriously that if DADDT was rescinded that straight soldiers who share rooms with openly gay soldiers will be tolerant and understanding if their gay roomate were to bring someone of the same sex into their rooms and kiss and make out and or have sexual relations.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 3, 2010)

This is all academic anyway.

Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> This is all academic anyway.
> 
> Calling the living quarters of soldiers Barracks is a misnomer. They're called lodgings. They each have their own room and have to share a common restroom and cooking area. So worrying about someone leering at someone is not really a problem anymore.



Some soldiers still share barracks rooms and even if they don't share a room how do you a barracks full of alpha male soldiers are going to react to two men walking in and around the barracks holding hands and kissing?


----------



## ACG22 (Mar 3, 2010)

So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers? 

>>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism.  This is going to happen, sooner or later.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

ACG22 said:


> So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?
> 
> >>Yes, they need to get over it... just like the military had to get over its racism.  This is going to happen, sooner or later.



Gays need to get over their disagreement of DADT, nobody forced them to join the military and they have no right to join in the first place.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > This is all academic anyway.
> ...



I imagine in a negative manner.

However the same thing could happen if two soldiers of the opposite sex were to do that at work. There are Army Regs that frown on that kind of activity. The fraternization regs are pretty specific.


----------



## maineman (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



machts nichts.  they are both policies that the troops disapprove(d) of.  So what?  Since when is the military a fucking democracy.  The brass tell you what to do and you do it.  If you don't like it, leave.  There are plenty of folks who will step up and serve if you can't bring yourself to do so.  If you are so obsessively narcissistic that you simply KNOW that every gay soldier is sprouting wood just looking at you, then you probably would be better off somewhere else anyway.


----------



## ACG22 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> > So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?
> ...



Why should they be denied?  I guess some people just have to discriminate and hate.  I don't see any other explanation.  The fight against such ignorance never ends.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> > So you're in favor of disregarding and ignoring the concerns of heterosexual servicemembers who uncomfortable and untrustworthy of openly gay servicemembers?
> ...



They have the same right to join as anybody else.

Last time I checked being gay does not cause physical defects or mental incapacitation. 

As long as they do their jobs they should be allowed to serve.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 3, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



That's a confusing statement. You think that being offended at someone getting a chubby over your bare ass is grounds for removal...

I'm trying to figure out who you are attacking here.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

maineman said:


> machts nichts.  they are both policies that the troops disapprove(d) of.  So what?  Since when is the military a fucking democracy.  The brass tell you what to do and you do it.  If you don't like it, leave.  There are plenty of folks who will step up and serve if you can't bring yourself to do so.





Why can't gays follow thios logic when it comes to DADT? The military is supposed to be undemocratic to heterosexuals if DADT were lifted but democratic to gays who oppose DADT?



> If you are so obsessively narcissistic that you simply KNOW that every gay soldier is sprouting wood just looking at you, then you probably would be better off somewhere else anyway.



If gays feel that DADT is so unfair they need to look for employment elsewhere that suits them.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > ACG22 said:
> ...



Joining the military is not a right, you need to get with the program and do it real fast.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Mar 3, 2010)

If they aren't going to allow pets in the barracks, they might as well let the gays in.  It will give you something besides yourself to rub on!


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Your program is in your ass bud. 


The DADT policy confirmed that gays have the right. As long as they can meet the qualifications they have the right and the privilege to serve.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



DADT gave gays the option and privilege of serving as long as they keep their sexual life to themselves. If it gave them the right to serve why are they going against it?


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



The DADT policy only provided them a way out of the service. Many of them came out and admitted their life-style merely to get out of deployments. Now Obama is putting the kabosh on that practice. It's a good thing and a bad thing. I'm not sure what he has up his sleeve but the end result isn't exactly what people think.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Fraudulent enlistment and lying to get discharged is already a violation of the UCMJ, DADT wasn't implemented for the reason you're claiming.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > 33 years old and 15 years in ... you are crusty and in denial too it seems.
> ...






I enforce that same policy right now with DADT still in place. As long as DADT is in place there will be very little harrassment of gays, that was its sole intention when it was implemented. I will not enforce homosexual activism.


You're RIGHT there will be harrasment of PERCEIVED gays.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

al-Gayda is taking over the forum with their jihad against those of us who uphold DADT.


----------



## goldcatt (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> al-Gayda is taking over the forum with their jihad against those of us who uphold DADT.



No. People with sense are piling on another bigot.


----------



## editec (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > This is all academic anyway.
> ...


 
If they were _REALLY _ALPHA MALES, they wouldn't give a damn.

It's you boys who aren't quite sure of your own hetero instincts who are homophoboic morons.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 3, 2010)

editec said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You don't have the right to question my sexuality and I'm more than secure enough in my own heterosexual instincts. If homosexuals were really dedicated about serving their country they wouldn't put so much of an emphasis on DADT.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are still in the service then you are 15 years deep into an enlistment and a crusty old sarge by now.
> ...


Oh shut up. You like the policy so you're going to pretend no one has a right to try to change it which is just plain wrong.

The military serves the people and is funded with tax dollars so we should get to decide how it is run.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> al-Gayda is taking over the forum with their jihad against those of us who uphold DADT.



When all hope is lost, when you can't convince people you're right on your own merit, act like you're being persecuted to smear the other side and gain some pity.

You sir are pathetic.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Because you can't wish to serve your country and want to get rid of arbitrary unneeded rules.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...










OF COURSE we have the right to question your sexuality just as much as YOU have the right to question gay's MORALITY!!! So FUCK YOU you queer ass HOMOPHOBE!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Hey.......Flayed Load, get a clue........

In the Navy, there is a program called the AEF program (Advanced Electronics Field Program), which consists of a 6 year enlistment.  Once you pass A school, they send you to C school, and halfway through that, they give you a meritorious advancement to E-4 (usually happens at about the 1 year mark), and you are on shore for 2 years during school.

After that?  Forward deployed to a mobile command for the next 4 years.

How many people did I see before DADT take advantage of that program, report to their first command, and then claim to be gay?  Several.  Three from 86 to 91.  One guy reported onboard, claimed to be gay, and was out in a month.

Saw him around 6 months after that and he was driving a nice car with a beautiful girlfriend and making 50,000/yr as a defense contractor.

Yes, that is just one reason that DADT was implemented.

Try again you Army 'tard.  

By the way ground pounder, how many months have you spent outside of the United States on 6 month or longer deployments?

Me?  About 8 years.


----------



## ACG22 (Mar 3, 2010)

"Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers."

Dumbest thing I've read so far on these boards.  But it's only been a week, so the rest of you have time to do better (worse?)!


----------



## goldcatt (Mar 3, 2010)

ACG22 said:


> "Thats exactly what it is, fanatical activism by one sided homosexual activists who put their agenda over the needs and and good order and discipline of the military. Military is selfless service and homosexual one sided activism is not consistent with Army values. I live those values and impress them upon my soldiers. I will not impress homosexual activism upon my soldiers."
> 
> Dumbest thing I've read so far on these boards.  But it's only been a week, so the rest of you have time to do better (worse?)!



Stick around. If that's the dumbest thing you've read so far, you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2010)

ACG22 said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > ACG22 said:
> ...



No one has been denied. If a gay person wants to serve in the military they can do so. And no one will bother them. As long as they do it within the confines of the regulations, same as everyone else. prior to DADT we heard the same BS why can't the gays serve...Well they can now and they have been, and that should be enough, but no, now they want to come out of the closet and change the social makeup of the military during a 2 front war. The brass has told the President and the congress to slow down and not to push it. They have very valid reasons for that. I can only hope that congress actually thinks for a change.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Great, next time the XVIII Airborne Corps deploys a Brigade to Afghanistan maybe you can go along to direct them on how they are supposed to run things....


----------



## Father Time (Mar 3, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



DADT has nothing to do with war strategy. To say I never served therefore I don't get to complain about how the US military does things is an ad hominem (or close enough).


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Then allow the professionals to run their business completely. Civilians give the military a mission then get the hell out of the way. At least that is the way things should happen.


----------



## goldcatt (Mar 3, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



If your argument is the timing rather than the substance that makes some sense. What do you think is gained if repealing DADT is put off? Or are you against repealing it at all?


----------



## maineman (Mar 3, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



the framers insttituted civilian control over the military... are you saying they were wrong to do so?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2010)

goldcatt said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ACG22 said:
> ...



I was actually against DADT before it became policy. Today I am against rescinding it. Timing is only one argument. Permitting openly gay troops in our military is a huge social change for our military and one that i personally feel is wrong on many different levels.
But i'm retired now so what ever i have to say about it really doesn't matter much.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2010)

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



Yes Civilians do have control. And when they assign a mission and allow the military to do it's job then they have performed their function.


----------



## maineman (Mar 3, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



when someone is "in control", they get to define their "function".  Do you think that the military WROTE the UCMJ or do you think civilians did?

Oh... and by the way.... have YOU ever violated article 125, OLLIE?

If so, did you report yourself, Mr. "I do everything by the book"??


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 3, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a matter or perception.  I'm sure you don't feel like one but your rank and time of service says you are.
> ...



Whatever ...





> > No, it's not.  Its men and women like you and I that want to serve openly and proudly, just we did/do.
> 
> 
> 
> Serving proudly is about work, discpline and professionalism, sexual orientation is not conducive to serving honorably. Serving in the military is not a right, you must remember that.



Sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from serving honorably, either.  




> I am heterosexual but I don't openly spill the details of my sex life for all to hear. I am not known as Heterosexual SFC __, I am known by by rank and my actions.



You may not give the details but I bet everyone at least knows that you like chics and you don't go out of your way to hide it by not mentioning your girlfriend, wife, or whatever in casual converstation.




> I am not making the same argument, an orientation based on voluntary sexual acts and race-ethnicity are not the same.



You are making the same damn argument.  Replace "homosexual" with "black" or "colored" and it's the same thing.





> If it gets repealed on my watch I will not enforce homosexual activism and homosexuality. I do enforce the military's EO program, not black, white, latino or gender based activism.



You will enforce the law meaning if you see someone harassing the gay soldier for being gay you will bring it up the chain.  If you look the other way it's your ass you are risking.




> Your against heterosexuals who don't share your one sided homosexual agenda activism.... I hate to break it to ya but that's part of the anti-heterosexual agenda.



I'm a heterosexual.  I am anti-anti-homosexual bigots i.e. you.



> Straight soldiers don't wate their time and energy oopenly saying they're straight, homosexual activism wants gays to waste time talking about their homosexuality.



They don't waste time because it takes no time to show you are straight but a whole bunch of time to hide you are gay.

How often is this said around work?

"I went out to dinner with my girlfriend last night."

That troop just announced his sexuality ... OH NOES




> So are you saying if DADT is rescinded the old problem people causing lack of unit cohesion are going to be those opposed to it? Have you ever thought that maybe the action of rescinding DADT is the problem?



Your first question is incoherent.  To the second, yes, briefly then I realize no, that's retarded.



> > As they should be.  Then your unit will be cohesive and anyone enlisting from the day the policy is repealed forward will be fully aware that they might have to work along side a homo ... just like they would in any civilian job they may hold.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting rid of those who may cause physical harm to gays is not going to make all soldiers accept homosexuals openly serving in the ranks.



No, it wont but it's one hell of a deterrent.  Plus, inflicting physical harm isn't the only thing that will get them in hot water.

Things will never be perfect.  Even though I think it is the most color blind organization in the country there are still racists in the military who don't "accept" people of different race serving in their ranks.  They just don't associate with them.



> > Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights.  A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend.   A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend.  The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.



Where did I say so they could talk about their sex acts?  This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 4, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Whatever ...



Touche, I agree.







> Sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from serving honorably, either.



The military believes the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted DADT, a policy which allows gays to serve as long as they keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.






> You may not give the details but I bet everyone at least knows that you like chics and you don't go out of your way to hide it by not mentioning your girlfriend, wife, or whatever in casual converstation.



I'm professional at all times, thats the biggest part of the NCO Creed that I live by. When I'm at work I'm totally all about business, not discussing my personal life. Do you think a gay mentioning their botfriend in casual conversation is going to welcomed with open arms the same as a man casually talking about his wife? neither one of those things are essential to running the military, the military is not a talk gossip show or day camp.






> You are making the same damn argument.  Replace "homosexual" with "black" or "colored" and it's the same thing.



I'm not making the same argument and gay and black or colored are not easily interchangeable terms that can be applied to any situation.







> You will enforce the law meaning if you see someone harassing the gay soldier for being gay you will bring it up the chain.  If you look the other way it's your ass you are risking.



I will not enforce gay activism if DADT is rescinded. If the military rescinds the policy and makes acceptance of homosexuality one of its sensitivity training requirement I'm as good as out of the door, but I don't think they would take it that far considering the various religious backgrounds of servicemembers. Harrassment of anyone for any reason is wrong, but if the military upholds DADT its one less thing to worry about, assuming gays keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.






> I'm a heterosexual.  I am anti-anti-homosexual bigots i.e. you.



I disagree with DADT being possibly rescinded from the standpoint that the military is not a proving ground to see how far gay activism has come and also from military readiness standpoint, not because I have any personal bias against homosexuals. You one sided homosexual activists can call me whatever you like, but thats not not going to change my mind about what I feel about the military. Outside of the military gays can do what they want, I care only about what goes on in the military.





> They don't waste time because it takes no time to show you are straight but a whole bunch of time to hide you are gay.



This is the military, not a gay support group, the military has standards that all people must adapt to and a lot of people must quit doing certain things if they want to stay in, if the gays can't adapt or disagree they need to leave, the military is not a democracy. The military should only change things only if its going to overall improve the military, not to help people because they don't like having to keep certain details of the personal life a private matter.



> How often is this said around work?
> 
> "I went out to dinner with my girlfriend last night."
> 
> That troop just announced his sexuality ... OH NOES



Do you think the military is going to be a better military with better cohesion and morale with gays anouncing that they went out with their boyfriends lastnight? Do you think anyone would be interested in even hearing it?






> Your first question is incoherent.



It was a question you do want to answer because you know the answer. The second question is another valid question but since you're a one sided homosexual activist you're always going to blame the opposition and not yourselves and the gays because you arrogantly believe that your agendas are right without any faults and the opposition is wrong in every detail. You actvists look at things through one pair of eyes.






> No, it wont but it's one hell of a deterrent.  Plus, inflicting physical harm isn't the only thing that will get them in hot water.



You cannot get rid of soldiers for not accepting the notion of gays openly serving in the military, if they could the military would be depleted. The military cannot forcefully change people's attitudes. Rescinding DADT has no benefit for the military as a whole.

Things will never be perfect.  Even though I think it is the most color blind organization in the country there are still racists in the military who don't "accept" people of different race serving in their ranks.  They just don't associate with them.



> > Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights.  A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend.   A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend.  The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.



Where did I say so they could talk about their sex acts?  This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 4, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever ...
> ...



Well at least there's that.




> > Sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from serving honorably, either.
> 
> 
> 
> The military believes the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted DADT, a policy which allows gays to serve as long as they keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.



While the rest of the servicemembers don't have to hide it and lead a double life ...





> I'm professional at all times, thats the biggest part of the NCO Creed that I live by. When I'm at work I'm totally all about business, not discussing my personal life. Do you think a gay mentioning their botfriend in casual conversation is going to welcomed with open arms the same as a man casually talking about his wife? neither one of those things are essential to running the military, *the military is not a talk gossip show or day camp*.



What military are you in?  There's all sorts of personal life discussion going on in the military.  The whole DADT thing extends to when you aren't in uniform too.





> I'm not making the same argument and gay and black or colored are not easily interchangeable terms that can be applied to any situation.



Yes, you are.  It's the same thing.  It's a group of people being discriminated against for being who they are.  




> I will not enforce gay activism if DADT is rescinded. If the military rescinds the policy and makes acceptance of homosexuality one of its sensitivity training requirement I'm as good as out of the door, but I don't think they would take it that far considering the various religious backgrounds of servicemembers. Harrassment of anyone for any reason is wrong, but if the military upholds DADT its one less thing to worry about, assuming gays keep their homosexuality a personal and private matter.



Good.  Like I said, once the bigoted dinosaurs are gone this wont be an issue.  Since you refuse to adapt, leaving would be the correct choice of action for you.



> I disagree with DADT being possibly rescinded from the standpoint that the military is not a proving ground to see how far gay activism has come and also from military readiness standpoint, not because I have any personal bias against homosexuals. You one sided homosexual activists can call me whatever you like, but thats not not going to change my mind about what I feel about the military. Outside of the military gays can do what they want, I care only about what goes on in the military.



It isn't a proving ground.  It's time for the rest of the country to catch up with the military in this sense.   If any other employer tried to implement the military's policy on gays they would be sued in heartbeat ... because it's ILLEGAL



> This is the military, not a gay support group, the military has standards that all people must adapt to and a lot of people must quit doing certain things if they want to stay in, if the gays can't adapt or disagree they need to leave, the military is not a democracy. The military should only change things only if its going to overall improve the military, not to help people because they don't like having to keep certain details of the personal life a private matter.



More hyperbole.  Noboby is looking to make the military a gay support group just no more seperate but equal nonsense.






> Do you think the military is going to be a better military with better cohesion and morale with gays anouncing that they went out with their boyfriends lastnight? Do you think anyone would be interested in even hearing it?



As a matter of fact, yes, I do. 





> It was a question you do want to answer because you know the answer. The second question is another valid question but since you're a one sided homosexual activist you're always going to blame the opposition and not yourselves and the gays because you arrogantly believe that your agendas are right without any faults and the opposition is wrong in every detail. You actvists look at things through one pair of eyes.



The first question was incoherent.  If you clarify it I will gladly answer it as I haven't ducked a single point you have tried to make.





> You cannot get rid of soldiers for not accepting the notion of gays openly serving in the military, if they could the military would be depleted. The military cannot forcefully change people's attitudes. Rescinding DADT has no benefit for the military as a whole.



Yes, you can.  The military forcfully changes people's racists attitudes with it's laws then it can forcefully change people's attitudes on homosexuals with it's laws.  And unless you can put forward some hard figures that shows how many men and women the military would lose in comparison to the number they would gain from recinding the policy your statement here is based on nothing.



> Things will never be perfect.  Even though I think it is the most color blind organization in the country there are still racists in the military who don't "accept" people of different race serving in their ranks.  They just don't associate with them.





> > Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights.  A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend.   A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend.  The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought that people don't want to hear about their gay sex acts? Do you think the heterosexual soldiers are going to be accepting of that kind of talk over time? Thats a weak reason to rescind DADT, just so a gay can openly talk about screwing his boyfriend.



Where did I say so they could talk about their sex acts?  This kind of hyperbole is just silly.

I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.

"WHat did you do this weekend"

"My girlfriend and I visited some friends and saw a movie."

It's about not forcing people to live a double life because somebody else can't get over their own predjudices.

^  Bears repeating.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 4, 2010)

That's all they have is hyperbole (well that and claims of being persecuted)

Wanting to mention that you're gay to soldiers who get to mention that they're straight =homosexual activism, gay support group, flaunting it/shoving it into people's faces etc. etc. Strange this never applies to straights.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 4, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> While the rest of the servicemembers don't have to hide it and lead a double life ...



They're not living double lives, nobody is asking then to live as straights, they're being told to serve and keep their sexual lives a personal and private matter.







> What military are you in?  There's all sorts of personal life discussion going on in the military.  The whole DADT thing extends to when you aren't in uniform too.



I'm in the real Army, unlike you. The Army for disciplines professionals. If it isn't work related it isn't necessary.







> Yes, you are.  It's the same thing.  It's a group of people being discriminated against for being who they are.



Two people of same sex having sexual intercourse is not the same as being black or white.  






> Good.  Like I said, once the bigoted dinosaurs are gone this wont be an issue.  Since you refuse to adapt, leaving would be the correct choice of action for you.



Its the gays that need to adpat, not me, I have no problem with DADT and the things I disagree with I have adpated to, why can't gays do the same? Don't demand for me to do adapt and not demand gays adapt.





> It isn't a proving ground.  It's time for the rest of the country to catch up with the military in this sense.   If any other employer tried to implement the military's policy on gays they would be sued in heartbeat ... because it's ILLEGAL



The rest of the country is not open arms with homosexuals. If the behavior and presence of gays in a workplace disrupts an operation employers do have the right to dismiss, especially if the goals and aims of that workplace and homosexuality are incompatible.





> More hyperbole.  Noboby is looking to make the military a gay support group just no more seperate but equal nonsense.



Yes you are, anybody that disgarees with you and stands fast to their opinion you label a homophobe. The military is not a support group for anyone's activist agendas.








> As a matter of fact, yes, I do.



Then you don't have a clue about the Army, I'm in the Army and I've also had the opportunity to be on the trail as a drill sergeant and I can tell you with 100% certainy that you are wrong. No soldiers that I'm aware of are interested in hearing about the love life and personal lives of what gays do with other gays. If they do exist they are very few in number. Don't tell me you know my fellow soldiers better than me.







> The first question was incoherent.  If you clarify it I will gladly answer it as I haven't ducked a single point you have tried to make.



The question was straightforward, I'm a professional with high standards, I don't dumb things down for anyone.







> Yes, you can.  The military forcfully changes people's racists attitudes with it's laws then it can forcefully change people's attitudes on homosexuals with it's laws.  And unless you can put forward some hard figures that shows how many men and women the military would lose in comparison to the number they would gain from recinding the policy your statement here is based on nothing.



Show me some evidence that people's attitudes can be forcefully changed by military policies, just because someone follows policy don't mean they agree with it and accept it with open arms. It hasn't worked for stopping racism and it will not work homosexuality, attitudes simply shift from overt to covert and cause people uneeded stress.




> > > id I say so they could talk about their sex acts?  This kind of hyperbole is just silly.
> > >
> > > I'm talking about regular everyday conversation.
> > >
> > ...


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 4, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > While the rest of the servicemembers don't have to hide it and lead a double life ...
> ...




While heteros aren't.  That's discrimination.





> > What military are you in?  There's all sorts of personal life discussion going on in the military.  The whole DADT thing extends to when you aren't in uniform too.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the real Army, unlike you. The Army for disciplines professionals. If it isn't work related it isn't necessary.




That works in theory.  Reality doesn't jive with that and you know it.




> Two people of same sex having sexual intercourse is not the same as being black or white.



No, it isn't but the arguments you are using against the gays are the exact same ones used against the blacks.  Try some history for a change.




> Its the gays that need to adpat, not me, I have no problem with DADT and the things I disagree with I have adpated to, why can't gays do the same? Don't demand for me to do adapt and not demand gays adapt.



Wrong.  You are demanding they hide who they are while you don't have to.  You are the one making the demand, not vice versa.  Weak.




> The rest of the country is not open arms with homosexuals. If the behavior and presence of gays in a workplace disrupts an operation employers do have the right to dismiss, especially if the goals and aims of that workplace and homosexuality are incompatible.



False.  Go talk to the kid who worked at a shop at Logan Airport and tried to get his lesbian coworker fired for talking about her girlfriend.  

But lol at the "aims of the workplace and homosexuality are incompatible" ... that's some funny stuff right there.




> Yes you are, anybody that disgarees with you and stands fast to their opinion you label a homophobe. The military is not a support group for anyone's activist agendas.



Your own words make you a homophobe ... making sweeping generalizations about what "everybody" thinks about them.




> Then you don't have a clue about the Army, I'm in the Army and I've also had the opportunity to be on the trail as a drill sergeant and I can tell you with 100% certainy that you are wrong. No soldiers that I'm aware of are interested in hearing about the love life and personal lives of what gays do with other gays. If they do exist they are very few in number. Don't tell me you know my fellow soldiers better than me.


 

I know plenty about the Army.  I was stationed at Pope for 3 years and worked hand in hand with the Army on numerous occasions both CONUS and in the AOR.  What you are saying here is unsubstantiated nonsense.




> The question was straightforward, I'm a professional with high standards, I don't dumb things down for anyone.



Then you get no answer.



> Show me some evidence that people's attitudes can be forcefully changed by military policies, just because someone follows policy don't mean they agree with it and accept it with open arms. It hasn't worked for stopping racism and it will not work homosexuality, attitudes simply shift from overt to covert and cause people uneeded stress.



It hasn't worked to stop racism?  



The United States military is the most color blind organization in the country. 




> No one wants to hear about homosexuals private lives whether it be sexual or about having dinner with a boyfriend. I guarantee that if DADT is rescinded and gays start discussing those things in the workplace and the environment becomes hostile and disruptive one sided homosexual actvists like you are going to blame these flare ups of homophobia because you only see things from one side and don't look at the bigger picture on the military is affected.



Speak for yourself.  

If there is a flare up I will absolutly blame it on homophobia because that's exactly what it is.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 4, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> While heteros aren't.  That's discrimination.



Heterosexuals are imbued with the ability to procreate, homosexuals cannot, would you call discrimination by nature?

Actually all servicemembers are told to keep the details of their personal lives a private matter, so there is no discrimination, if it isn't about work it isn't needed. DADT shouldn't rescinded just so gays can talk about their boyfriends, it benefits the Army is no way. If it bothers gays that much about not being able to talk about it they should leave the military or don't enlist at all. The military is a voluntary organization so gays can voluntarily leave and voluntarily don't enlist. No one wants to involuntarily hear about their relationships and sex acts.








> That works in theory.  Reality doesn't jive with that and you know it.



It works just fine in the Army when people enforce it.






> No, it isn't but the arguments you are using against the gays are the exact same ones used against the blacks.  Try some history for a change.



I'm not using the same arguments used against blacks, you are using those same arguments. You're trying to make a case for gays by using blacks. They're not the same.






> Wrong.  You are demanding they hide who they are while you don't have to.  You are the one making the demand, not vice versa.  Weak.



Wrong I'm demanding they keep personal and private matters of that nature to themselves, if gays can't manage that they need to leave the military or not enlist at all.






> False.  Go talk to the kid who worked at a shop at Logan Airport and tried to get his lesbian coworker fired for talking about her girlfriend.



He handled it wrong, he should have said that such things are offensive to him in the workplace and disrupts him from doing his job, his boss would have handled the matter much better.








> Your own words make you a homophobe ... making sweeping generalizations about what "everybody" thinks about them.



Only in your words am I a homophobe, but thats only your subjective view which I can care less about about, unless I support 







> I know plenty about the Army.  I was stationed at Pope for 3 years and worked hand in hand with the Army on numerous occasions both CONUS and in the AOR.  What you are saying here is unsubstantiated nonsense.



You were a civilian working with the Army, not in the Army, two different standards, I know more of what I'm talking about because I've trained incoming IET soldiers and I deal with soldiers in permanent party units. Most soldiers to the upmost are not interested in and do not want to hear about the relationship lives of homosexuals.




Then you get no answer.








> If there is a flare up I will absolutly blame it on homophobia because that's exactly what it is.



Of course because this will always be the case beforehand right?


----------



## Father Time (Mar 4, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > While heteros aren't.  That's discrimination.
> ...



We have egg and sperm donors and straight people can be infertile. Any other excuses?



Flaylo said:


> Actually all servicemembers are told to keep the details of their personal lives a private matter, so there is no discrimination



Are straights discharged for talking about their sex lives? No? Then it's discrimination.




Flaylo said:


> if it isn't about work it isn't needed. DADT shouldn't rescinded just so gays can talk about their boyfriends, it benefits the Army is no way.



We've been over this, less troops discharged for stupid reasons.



Flaylo said:


> If it bothers gays that much about not being able to talk about it they should leave the military or don't enlist at all.


Why the hell is trying to change it not a viable option in your mind? The military works for us.



Flaylo said:


> The military is a voluntary organization so gays can voluntarily leave and voluntarily don't enlist. No one wants to involuntarily hear about their relationships and sex acts.



And I don't want my tax dollars (which I pay involuntarily), to support a discriminatory policy.



Flaylo said:


> Wrong I'm demanding they keep personal and private matters of that nature to themselves, if gays can't manage that they need to leave the military or not enlist at all.


They can't be on duty 24/7 so when they aren't what difference does it make?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 4, 2010)

A squad gets in their vehicle to go on patrol.  One of the servicemembers is gay, but is serving honorably under DADT.  They've got a significant other that they've been living with for over 10 years.  

The patrol is hit by an IED, resulting in death or serious injury of the gay servicemember.

Now.......since their partner lived with them for over 10 years, they've accrued quite a bit of property together.  They also have a house together.

Are you telling me that the gay partner of the servicemember who was hit by an IED shouldn't be allowed to visit them in the hospital?  Remember........only immediate family members are allowed to be transported at government expense to the member's location.

Then........there is also the death benefits, as well as all the other benefits and payments that would go to the person's family.

Now.......what if that member who was just injured or killed can't get their partner covered for travel or benefits?  Are you people who support DADT such heartless pricks that you would deny the benefits that hetero couples get just because the member is gay?

And..........this is directed toward Flaylo and Ollie.......exactly how many months OUTCONUS deployment do each of you have?  I'd bet not more than maybe a month or two between the both of you.

Yeah......tell us again about the "real Army" if you've never been outside the US.


----------



## rdean (Mar 4, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > 'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
> ...



Straights don't have to be worried about the gays.  It's they gays who need to be careful around "morons" like you.  What if you only "suspected" someone of being gay?  Someone like you would make their life hell.  Gawd you're dumb.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 4, 2010)

Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.

Know what took him down?  Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay.  They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.

He was a mid-level officer, an O-3. 

Yeah......tell me again how they don't witch hunt gays.  And.......being under investigation in the middle of a war zone or in a firefight can not only get the gay service member killed, but could also result in the death or injury of several others.

Why?  Their head isn't in the game, because they're worried about being kicked out.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 4, 2010)

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Actually that would be none of your business. I will admit that I did receive one Article 15 as a young dumb troop. And deserved it. Never claimed to be perfect.


----------



## Father Time (Mar 4, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.
> 
> Know what took him down?  Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay.  They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.
> 
> ...



Well ABS if he didn't openly flaunt his sex life he would've ... wait he didn't

But ABS DADT only gets rid of a few troops. Sure it's for stupid reasons but it's only a few.

Besides we need it around because err a few other troops may feel uncomfortable around gays, that's it so we need to get rid of them, because causing discomfort should be a dischargable offense.

Wait what am I saying we all know that finding out a coworker is gay immediately causes huge tension in the workplace which is why nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life.

That and we should never alter military policy ... not sure why.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 4, 2010)

Father Time said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.
> ...



The regulations are what they are for a reason. If they get changed then and only then will we see if it is for the good of the military and the country. Still if it ain't broke.....And it's not.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 4, 2010)

Father Time said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.
> ...



"nearly all civilian jobs mandate gays never mention their sex life"
Stating you are gay is not mentioning your sex life. That is telling the truth.
No civilian job mandates anything like that. You are uninformed.


----------



## maineman (Mar 4, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



yet you can accuse ME of violating MY oath?  Yet you will not just come out and say that you follow the UCMJ to the letter?  why not?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 4, 2010)

Who cares if some gay stated he had dinner with a boyfriend?
You are an officer and that bothers you? A little thin skinned there for an officer. 
If your environment becomes hostile in any situation then your leadership skills as an officer need to be in place.
Blaming that on the gays is not your solution as an officer. You know that. The soldiers being hostile are your problem, not the gay.
Knowing what your problems are and disciplining those that are the problems are your first priority. You know that also.
How are you going to explain to your superiors that the gays stating they had dinner are the problem when it was the others that show the hostilities?
We both know that will not fly so quit the BS. We both know your superiors will also call that BS. 
Deal with it. You are  a trained professional. How can you expect your superiors to have faith in you when you state you can not do your job and handle your own troops because of a gay stating he had dinner with another gay?


----------



## Father Time (Mar 4, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



That was sarcasm/satire as was most of my comment.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 5, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Saying you're gay is mentioning your sex life because the only proof of homosexuality are homosexual sex acts, there is no proof people are born gay or that being gay is just what somebody is, being gay is what somebody does. Its not necessary that people in the workplace have to know someone's sexual orientation, if it has nothing to do with the job it needs to be kept to one's self.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 5, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Saw on the news yesterday on MSNBC yet another member who had served for over 10 years under DADT.
> 
> Know what took him down?  Someone read his e-mail from home and thought he was gay.  They then did a 6 month investigation (based solely on his e-mails), which resulted in a discharge.
> 
> ...



Whoever read his email violated his privacy and sahould have been appropiately disciplined, but face reality, most gays discharged under DADT are not outed in this manner.


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



so....you are saying that it is impossible for someone who is a virgin with regards to sexual contact with others, to be anything but heterosexual?  Are you saying that you cannot imagine that there could be men who, while having no attraction for women, also have no burning need to have anal sex with men either, but just prefer the company of men?  You don't think that men can be effeminate, asexual, prefer the company of men, and can still be productive members of the military?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Mar 5, 2010)

without DADT homosexual soldiers no longer need beards.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 5, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



They can be in the military under DADT and keep it to themselves so that it doesn't cause a disruption.


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



yet their totally heterosexual, sexually active squad members are free to discuss THEIR dates and living conditions without a care.

and they STILL have noncoms like you who are willing to persecute them for what you PERCEIVE as their "homosexuality" even if the only orgasm they've ever had was a wet dream.  How patriotic of you.... how brave.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 5, 2010)

maineman said:


> yet their totally heterosexual, sexually active squad members are free to discuss THEIR dates and living conditions without a care.



Tough luck, a homosexual and heterosexual are not the same based on sex acts. No one is free to discuss their dates in the workplace, its inappropiate and not allowed in the workplace, I've said this many of times. No one in the workplace wants to hear about the dates and living arrangements of homosexuals anyways..



> and they STILL have noncoms like you who are willing to persecute them for what you PERCEIVE as their "homosexuality" even if the only orgasm they've ever had was a wet dream.  How patriotic of you.... how brave.




I don't prosecute anyone for anything, I only report and make and recommendations based on credible evidence, not hearsay and perception. When I was a drill sergeant on the trail it was my job to weed out those who were unfit to be in the Army and to motivate and train those who were fits and wanted to be in, so I have quite a bit of experience when dealing with information that is or isn't credible. If a soldiers says he's homosexual, gets caught engaging in homosexual acts or is witnessed by credible sources engaging in homosexual acts and it becomes a distraction to the unit I will initiate action. Thats my job.


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

So... if a soldier is a virgin, and does not actually admit to another service member that he is, in fact, a homosexual, he cannot be discharged under DADT?  Even if he is seen, on liberty, holding hands and going out to dinner with another man?  

YOu would not begin to "investigate" him?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 5, 2010)

maineman said:


> So... if a soldier is a virgin, and does not actually admit to another service member that he is, in fact, a homosexual, he cannot be discharged under DADT?  Even if he is seen, on liberty, holding hands and going out to dinner with another man?
> 
> YOu would not begin to "investigate" him?



That constitutes a homosexual act and would spark an investigation because the two soldiers would be displaying homosexual behavior. If I saw two male soldiers holding hands I would without a doubt be on their case doing an on the spot correction.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 5, 2010)

rdean said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



A homosexual servicemember doesn't have to worry about a straight soldier ogling him, a straight does have to worry because gays are attracted to and have sex with people of the same gender. Plenty of gays are attracted to men they know to be heterosexual so how could a straight soldier 100% trust that a homosexual soldier isn't ogling him in a sexual suggestive manner?


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > So... if a soldier is a virgin, and does not actually admit to another service member that he is, in fact, a homosexual, he cannot be discharged under DADT?  Even if he is seen, on liberty, holding hands and going out to dinner with another man?
> ...



holding hands is a "homosexual act"?

going out to dinner is a "homosexual act"?

wow.


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



are you uncomfortable being ogled only when showering?  If not, are you 100% certain that female soldiers aren't secretly ogling you during the work day?  I mean, really....doesn't the Army have more important things to worry about?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > So... if a soldier is a virgin, and does not actually admit to another service member that he is, in fact, a homosexual, he cannot be discharged under DADT?  Even if he is seen, on liberty, holding hands and going out to dinner with another man?
> ...



Really Failed Load?  

Have you REALLY been over in the ME?  Because if so, when walking down the streets of places like Jiddah Saudi Arabia, or Dubai, UAE, you will see 2 men, walking down the street, holding hands.

It's a gesture of friendship between 2 people.

Bet you've never been to the Naval War College up in Newport RI either.  Why?  You would see that same behavior when you would see 2 soldiers from that area walking together.

I know I did.

Try again Failed Load...........you're just demonstrating yet more ignorance.

Incidentally, there is currently a bill, working its way through Congress for a 1 year study of DADT.

During that time?  No discharges for reason of homosexuality will be processed.  Why?  Well according to Barry Levin (the new Ways and Means chair), if it is being studied for repeal, discharging anyone during that time would be unfair.

Guess you're gonna have to get used to hearing stories about Roger and Steve, eh?


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > So... if a soldier is a virgin, and does not actually admit to another service member that he is, in fact, a homosexual, he cannot be discharged under DADT?  Even if he is seen, on liberty, holding hands and going out to dinner with another man?
> ...



and just so that I can fully understand your position, do you have a link to the text of any Army policy that says, while on liberty, a soldier may not hold hands with anyone of his or her same gender?  And do you have a link to the text of any policy that says, while on liberty, a soldier may not go out to dinner with anyone of his or her same gender?  If so.... please post it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 5, 2010)

HOLY SHIT SIR!!!!  Does that mean that everytime all the guys on the ship get together for a steel beach picnic (remember, it's a whole bunch of half naked men, sweating, playing with each other, and eating together), the whole ship turns gay?

I guess the times that I went out with my shipmates on the beach for dinner and a movie makes it a date eh?

Glad I wasn't investigated by someone like the Failed Load.


----------



## maineman (Mar 5, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> HOLY SHIT SIR!!!!  Does that mean that everytime all the guys on the ship get together for a steel beach picnic (remember, it's a whole bunch of half naked men, sweating, playing with each other, and eating together), the whole ship turns gay?
> 
> I guess the times that I went out with my shipmates on the beach for dinner and a movie makes it a date eh?
> 
> Glad I wasn't investigated by someone like the Failed Load.



 I agree... but we both know what would happen to someone like that onboard... 

blanket party.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 7, 2010)

maineman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > HOLY SHIT SIR!!!!  Does that mean that everytime all the guys on the ship get together for a steel beach picnic (remember, it's a whole bunch of half naked men, sweating, playing with each other, and eating together), the whole ship turns gay?
> ...



Either that, or send them swimming in the middle of the Atlantic or Med.

Failed Load should be float tested..........


----------



## rdean (Mar 7, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > So... if a soldier is a virgin, and does not actually admit to another service member that he is, in fact, a homosexual, he cannot be discharged under DADT?  Even if he is seen, on liberty, holding hands and going out to dinner with another man?
> ...









I'm sorry, what were you saying?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 7, 2010)

rdean said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Hey, Failed Load, you realize that Bush was Commander in Chief of the military, right?  And, as such, he's supposed to follow the regs as well.

So, since Bush Jr. was holding hands with a Saudi (you know, the ones that financed 9/11), does this mean that Bush Jr, as Commander in Chief was gay for the Saudis?

Oh yeah......he was.......that's why we got fucked and no oil.

I guess by Liz Cheney's logic, he's a terrorist as well.

No wonder the Iraq war was such a fuck up.


----------



## rdean (Mar 7, 2010)

Americans for Truth  Gay Military Porn Bust Reminds Us of Some Inconvenient Truths Regarding Homosexuality and the Military

Now here's a funny one.  This guy wants gays to be allowed in the military.  That way, he thinks he could identify who has been ogling him in the shower.  If the gays are out, it will be much easier for him to identify who they are and he will be able to "take steps" to keep from being "ogled".  As it stands, he has to suspect "everyone".  

Couldn't ya just die?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 8, 2010)

Two open homosexuals holding hands and kissing is not the same as an person from a country where it is a custom for non-homosexual men to kiss and hold hands, the average American heterosexual would find that to be weird at the least and revolting at the extreme. Bush was doing an official visit and isn't gay. Heterosexual men holding hands and kissing is not a normal occurence in America, most would think that it was gay and chances are they would be right.


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Two open homosexuals holding hands and kissing is not the same as an person from a country where it is a custom for non-homosexual men to kiss and hold hands, the average American heterosexual would find that to weird at the least and revolting at the extreme. Bush was doing an official visit and isn't gay. Heterosexual men holding hands and kissing in not a normal occurence in America, most would think that it was gay and chances are they would be right.



you are the one who claimed that holding hands and going out to dinner were "homosexual acts".  Eiother produce an official directive which supports that allegation, or retract it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 8, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Two open homosexuals holding hands and kissing is not the same as an person from a country where it is a custom for non-homosexual men to kiss and hold hands, the average American heterosexual would find that to weird at the least and revolting at the extreme. Bush was doing an official visit and isn't gay. Heterosexual men holding hands and kissing in not a normal occurence in America, most would think that it was gay and chances are they would be right.



Wrong answer yet again Failure Loaded........you stated that if you saw what YOU would consider to be a homosexual act, you would immediately launch an investigation.

You also stated you would follow it until you knew.

Where is your investigation of Bush Jr.?  He was holding hands with another male, and you stated that 2 same gender people holding hands was an act that bore investigation.

You really ain't too bright, are ya?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 8, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Two open homosexuals holding hands and kissing is not the same as an person from a country where it is a custom for non-homosexual men to kiss and hold hands, the average American heterosexual would find that to weird at the least and revolting at the extreme. Bush was doing an official visit and isn't gay. Heterosexual men holding hands and kissing in not a normal occurence in America, most would think that it was gay and chances are they would be right.
> ...




You and Bikerfaggot are retarded, using Arabs, to say that men holding hands is not gay. Heterosexual men in America don't hold hands, not only in America but in the entire western world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/weekinreview/01basics.html


_When President Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met in Crawford, Tex., last week, they did something very un-Texan: they walked hand in hand.

*Americans may raise an eyebrow at men holding hands, but in the Arab world, affection among men is common, and without sexual connotation*._

You jackasses are really damn pathetic, men in the military do not walk holding hands together so whats the point of bringing this up? You idiots have failed again.


----------



## publicprotector (Mar 8, 2010)

What the hell has a persons sexuality got to do with being in the forces, absolutely nothing. And it would impact on morale would it, what a load of bollcoks. No what impacts on morale is fighting illegal wars, not being suported by your Government, not being equiped properly, not being properly led in battle and many other things but not being Gay.

I can just imagine a squadie who has just had is leg blown off saying I don't want that gay medic to treat me, yeah thats really going to happen, absolute crap all of it. And right now the US needs everyman and women they can lay their hands on the way things are going.

You may or may not agree with a persons sexuality but we are human beings first and foremost and thats what counts.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 8, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



You're right.  We don't do that in America.

Nor, do we allow women to go topless on our beaches.

We don't allow a lot of things.  Know why?  Because of our start as a nation.  We were first settled by a bunch of idiots who were so full of what was right or wrong, they got kicked out of England.

We also slaughtered the native people.......you know......Native Americans?

We also went after our own people in the form of the Salem Witch Trials.

Know what Bass Hole?  Might wanna drop your fucking bias.  Your logic is flawed.  Just because you're scared of something, doesn't mean that it's gonna hurt you.

Might fuck with your preconceived notions however.........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2010)

publicprotector said:


> What the hell has a persons sexuality got to do with being in the forces, absolutely nothing. And it would impact on morale would it, what a load of bollcoks. No what impacts on morale is fighting illegal wars, not being suported by your Government, not being equiped properly, not being properly led in battle and many other things but not being Gay.
> 
> I can just imagine a squadie who has just had is leg blown off saying I don't want that gay medic to treat me, yeah thats really going to happen, absolute crap all of it. And right now the US needs everyman and women they can lay their hands on the way things are going.
> 
> You may or may not agree with a persons sexuality but we are human beings first and foremost and thats what counts.



Squadie? Give me a fucking break.

And the US Military is not hurting for personel, they nearly have a waiting list of people trying to enlist.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 8, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> publicprotector said:
> 
> 
> > What the hell has a persons sexuality got to do with being in the forces, absolutely nothing. And it would impact on morale would it, what a load of bollcoks. No what impacts on morale is fighting illegal wars, not being suported by your Government, not being equiped properly, not being properly led in battle and many other things but not being Gay.
> ...



Personnel is spelled with 2 n's Oliver Missed.  Might wanna check a dictionary or something (wait........forgot........you're never wrong...........).

We've got a  waiting list?  Really?  I worked in recruiting as a MEPS Classifier from 1999 until 2002.

We don't really have a waiting list.  Why?  Most aren't qualified under current standards.

Try again ya fucking bag lady 'tard.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 9, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Two open homosexuals holding hands and kissing is not the same as an person from a country where it is a custom for non-homosexual men to kiss and hold hands, the average American heterosexual would find that to weird at the least and revolting at the extreme. Bush was doing an official visit and isn't gay. Heterosexual men holding hands and kissing in not a normal occurence in America, most would think that it was gay and chances are they would be right.
> ...



It was the right answer under the circumstances, if the soldiers holding hands were Arab Americans or descended from Arabs I would be less likely to approach and be suspicious, since most soldiers are not it would be seen as gay and inappropiate. One of the rules of thumb in the military to follow is if something looks inappropiate it is inappropiate, perception can be reality to a lot of people and I seen more people have their careers threatened with termination because of perception more than reality.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 9, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > publicprotector said:
> ...




The military isn't hurting for people to join because of DADT, thats the prime focus of this thread. More people are discharged from the military for reasons other than DADT which means those discharges have a greater impact, but at the same time none of the branches of the Armed Forces should drop their standards just to have more bodies.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2010)

Poll Shows Support for Repealing &#8216;Don&#8217;t Ask, Don&#8217;t Tell&#8217; - Washington Wire - WSJ

_"A majority of Americans support ending the U.S. militarys ban on gays serving in the military, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. 

Nearly six in 10, 57%, said gays should be able to serve openly in the armed forces, while 36% said they should not. An even greater margin, 66%-41%, said the current Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy is discrimination."

"Support within military households is more evenly divided on repealing the policy, 48%-47%. Democrats are more likely to support the repeal, 72%-23%, while Republicans support ending the policy 53%-40%. Independents support it 56%-37%, and women are more likely to support it than men. 

Further, 65% said ending the policy will not hurt the militarys ability to fight effectively on the battle field, and 82% said the military should not pursuing disciplinary action against those outed against their will."_

bottom line:  it really doesn't matter what active duty military "professionals"  think about repealing DADT.  It is the right thing to do, just like integrating the armed forces in 1947 was the right thing to do.  America supports it... if those "professionals" in the armed forces can't deal with it, they shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass on their way out.

good riddance, I say.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 9, 2010)

The most effective method of getting guys to admit they are gay is to institute a Policy that puts gay men in all female units.


----------



## editec (Mar 9, 2010)

Men truly sure of their own sexual identities truly could care less that other men are gay.

Why should we care?

Less competition for us.

Some of you obvious homophobes here are so obviously terrified of your own gay leanings.

If you weren't so hateful about it, I might be tempted to feel sorry for you.

But to be candid, your suffering over this non issue just delights me.

When you guys finally admit that you're gay and stop worrying so much about it, you'll be happier people.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 9, 2010)

editec said:


> Men truly sure of their own sexual identities truly could care less that other men are gay.
> 
> Why should we care?
> 
> ...



Your staunch defense of one sided homosexual activism is admirable in that you doggedly defend what you believe in, however the cause you defend is wrong and calling people closet gays makes you lose cool points, but altogether you have great determination.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 9, 2010)

maineman said:


> Poll Shows Support for Repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell - Washington Wire - WSJ
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will investigated the source of this poll as I did the other one only to get you to see the truth. Your persistance in defnding homosexual activism needs to be put in the spotlight, perhaps it says a lot about you personally. What could it be that you're hiding from us here?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 9, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Poll Shows Support for Repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell - Washington Wire - WSJ
> ...



You're impersonating a NCO you fuxxing jackass and you want to challenge the truthiness of a poll?  Rotfl!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Polls are full of shit.  Questions, asswipe? Or do I need to draw you a picture with the big, fat kindergarten crayons?

And I'm a Staff Noncomissioned officer.   What you want to put up against THAT fact?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Curveball, you're not refuting anyone you're acting like a troll with your childish insults. Polls are not good indicators because they're subject to so much sampling bias, rather than concentrate of proving your position you'd rather commence with silly jackass personal attacks, it must be a sign of your frustration with the truth.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Poll Shows Support for Repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell - Washington Wire - WSJ
> ...



now now SFC... you really don't want to go there, do you?  Quinnipiac is a pretty well regarded poll... but I guess if you don't like the results, it is your best defense to attack it, and to backhandedly besmirch me while you're at it.  I am not gay.  I am very much a heterosexual... but I have several close friends who ARE gay - one of which who came out of the closet quite late in life - and I have a great deal of sympathy for their plight.  As I said, I did serve with several sailors who I was fairly certain were gay, and they did a great job, and did not damage unit esprit de corps in any way.

And again... this debate is one that is being undertaken within the civilian command structure...  the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both consider DADT to be against the very nature of our democracy and are moving to repeal it.  

You have a choice:  either get on board and enthusiastically support your chain of command, or get the fuck out.... and like I said, either decision would be a plus for the military.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Curvelight's jackass logic: Anyone NCO in the military who doesn't agree with his pro-faggot agenda is impersonating an NCO which implies that most of the NCOs in the military or a good portion of them are homophobic NCO impersonators. Most of the NCOs need to go to jail then.


----------



## Zona (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...




I did my 20...and the ones at the beginning of my career who where bigoted, racist, homophobic etc all seemed to die off by the time I retired in 2004.  The remaining ones will be gone soon enough.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 9, 2010)

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...




You really suck at reading posts. I didn't say anything about the poll itself.  I was pointing out the irony of someone who is lying about their Service challenging the truthiness of a poll.  I fully agree polls are suspect because it's usually a very small sample and both the formation and enunciation of the questions can be designed to create a predetermined conclusion.

I also don't doubt your Service but when someone who claims to be an active duty NCO says Cavalry doesn't usually have direct contact with the enemy I have to laugh at their obvious ignorance.  I was in the 3rd ACR in Desert Storm and we were one of the first ones to engage in combat on the ground.  You gonna tell me his claims aren't suspect or are you too biased to be honest?  The last time you tried to challenge me you got pwned with one post.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Civilians using their agenda to conduct military business without consulting with commanders and NCOs is the reason this current military is a cluster fart, You don't learn from anything do you? 


Not to long before the Iraq war, it was said that former Army General Eric Shinseki told Donald Rumsfeld that the mission he(Rumsfeld) wanted in Iraq would require more troops and a long occupation to accomplish its old, but just like the micro-managing civilian jackass he was Rumsfeld ignored Shinseki and all the other experienced generals and forced them out of the military and did the exact opposite which created the quagmire in Iraq. After so many lost lives they ended using "surges" to solve the problem till it got so damn bad Rumsfeld had to go. Thats what happens when stupid civilians ignore officers and NCOs do what they feel is best with a set of crony "yessir" generals.


Don'tr sit up here and run off at the damn mouth about "civilian" authority over the military you retard, because if they don't cooperate in some way with those in uniform in doing assessments a debacle is imminent. Its rare that they act without taking into consideration what the troops say.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Curvelight's jackass logic: Anyone NCO in the military who doesn't agree with his pro-faggot agenda is impersonating an NCO which implies that most of the NCOs in the military or a good portion of them are homophobic NCO impersonators. Most of the NCOs need to go to jail then.




It's scary you are so deranged you actually believe lying will help compensate for your stoopidity.


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

In the meantime, we have to lose someone such as Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot, the first Air Force pilot in the air after the 9/11 attacks, who also earned nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion.

An anonymous person outed him to the military. He didn't out himself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...ed-gens-to-build-a-case-against-the-gays.html

Nothing like throwing out your "best" and replacing them with felons.  I finally get it.  Thanks, Republicans.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> In the meantime, we have to lose someone such as Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot, the first Air Force pilot in the air after the 9/11 attacks, who also earned nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion.
> 
> An anonymous person outed him to the military. He didn't out himself.
> 
> ...



This is a spurious claim, what facts do you to back this up? The military isn't faggots discharged under DADT with felons, don't make emotional charged , jackass claims to promote your faggot agenda, you're a liar and the Bass challenges you to back this claim up.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Curvelight's jackass logic: Anyone NCO in the military who doesn't agree with his pro-faggot agenda is impersonating an NCO which implies that most of the NCOs in the military or a good portion of them are homophobic NCO impersonators. Most of the NCOs need to go to jail then.



I'm still wondering what Reservist outfit of the Air Force was so fucked up that they took a malingering, pro racist, anti gay dipshit like you?

Did they crash all their jets and were forced to be sweepers on the runway?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...




Rumsfeld didn't ignore shinseki out of ignorance you dumbass.  He did it to fulfill the goal of justifying a long term military occupation (read: permanent bases.)


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Curvelight's jackass logic: Anyone NCO in the military who doesn't agree with his pro-faggot agenda is impersonating an NCO which implies that most of the NCOs in the military or a good portion of them are homophobic NCO impersonators. Most of the NCOs need to go to jail then.
> ...



Shut the hell up you stupid faggoty, piece of sailor trash. You've been running that same "malingering rservist" BS for the last year, find something and piss off jackass.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...




Nobody gives a damn why he did it, the point is that he messed up by not listening.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale - US News and World Report
> 
> This link touched upon some of the objections I've raised and I will posted them
> 
> ...



Goodbye.  Don't let the door hit  you on your way out.


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime, we have to lose someone such as Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot, the first Air Force pilot in the air after the 9/11 attacks, who also earned nine Air Medals, including one for valor for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion.
> ...



Army, Marines give waivers to more felons

Recruits were allowed to enlist after having been convicted of crimes including assault, burglary, drug possession and making terrorist threats.

Army, Marines give waivers to more felons - CNN.com

WASHINGTON - Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Army, Marines enlisting more felons - Military- msnbc.com

Gidding was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation, but he never served his time. Instead, he shipped out with his unit on active duty.
After arriving in Kuwait, Bob didn't even bother to hide his felony status. According to two other soldiers, he told the entire group and commanding officer about his conviction.

Local Felon Slips Past Military Regulations - cbs5.com

-------------------------------------------------------------

In the meantime, we have to lose someone such as Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot, the first Air Force pilot in the air after the 9/11 attacks, who also* earned nine Air Medals, including one for valor* for assaulting an Iraqi ambush position while under heavy anti-aircraft fire during the first days of the invasion.
An anonymous person outed him to the military. He didn't out himself.

Lt. Dan Choi, 28, who *majored in Arabic language at West Point*
"I have never, ever done anything homosexual while on duty and I never engaged in heterosexual conduct while on duty because the army is not about sexual anything," he said. "I had never had a boyfriend or girlfriend because of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.'" 

Knights Out is an organization of West Point Alumni
Our members include former West Point professors, Rhodes Scholars, decorated combat veterans from the Vietnam War, Iraq and Afghanistan, peacekeepers who served in Haiti and Bosnia, men and women from the first co-ed class (1980), an ordained minister, and many others who are coming out from their silence to serve their country in a new way.

A study group of Flag and General Officers which took a year to assess all of the evidence on "don't ask, don't tell" found that *commanders in Iraq are ignoring the policy and choosing to keep their teams together rather than firing loyal gay troops*. A recent Military Times poll confirms that many commanders know of gays and lesbians serving in their units, but choose not to discharge them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...ed-gens-to-build-a-case-against-the-gays.html

-----------------------------------------------------

*Nasty ass Bass has to kiss my........................*


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > 'Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
> ...



Women Veterans thruout the U.S. are laughing at you right now.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> > Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is statements like that that make me seriously wonder if you are really in the military.

I mean....really.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



Truth hurts eh?

Guess that's why a pussified coward such as yourself is so against gays.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 9, 2010)

By the way Bass Hole.....I hope that you have kids.  I hope you have many of them.

I also hope they all end up gay and want to join the military.

They'd probably serve with more distinction than you ever could.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Excuse the Bass but he hasn't seen any evidence of the military using felons to replace linguists and pilots, especially since both require a security clearance that they most definitely would not receive because of their felonies. Faggots aren't only the ones kicked out for breaking the rules, so you'll have to make a better case than what you've just posted.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> By the way Bass Hole.....I hope that you have kids.  I hope you have many of them.
> 
> I also hope they all end up gay and want to join the military.
> 
> They'd probably serve with more distinction than you ever could.



Wishing somebody's kids to fags is an attempted insult, you should keep your family biz to yourself instead of projecting. The lengths you're going through to defend your faggot agenda is sickening, hoping somebody's children to be faggots is not a way to promote your agenda.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Talk is cheap over the net and no one is impressed by your school boy childish insults you faggot, grow up.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > > Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.
> ...




According to him he's "all business" in the Army


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > > Homosexuals have to behave differently and are not allowed to speak of the same things publically as straights. A straight male can show up for PT one day and talk to his buddies about what he and his girlfriend or wife did that weekend. A gay male cannot do the same about his boyfriend. The policy forces these men and women to live a double life.
> ...



Its is considered highly inappropiate and disrespectful to discuss the sexual lives in the work place, mainly because it also involves talking about the partner involved without their knowledge, only someone who is not professional with no consideration of others would do that in the working place, perhaps you don't understand how the military works.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



"I went with my girlfriend to visit her parents last weekend."

A sex life has just been discussed.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Bass Hole.....I hope that you have kids.  I hope you have many of them.
> ...



I would definitely report the kids comment to a mod, that is against all the rules. But then gaybiker likes to break rules.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



*Wishing someone to have imaginary gay kids to illustrate a point isn't attacking someone's family. 
*


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



What can we say? Bikerfailure has proven himself to be the most professional paper pushing squid every to wear the Navy uniform, it reflects in how he defends his arguments. At first he uses child anal rape as an insult and now he wishes people's children to be gay, just because people disagree with his pro-sodomite agenda.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

"My wife and I are looking for a new place to live.  Our place is too crowded for us and both kids."

A sex life has just been discussed.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



So what is it then, a well wished compliment? When people support a gay agenda they let anything slide.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



We have as much right to question your  sexuality as you have questioning our right to serve.

Speaking of which...what if you ARE accused of being gay in the military.   Are you prepared to be hoisted on your own petard if someone makes such an accusation?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



*You don't like it?  Tough shit.*


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> "My wife and I are looking for a new place to live.  Our place is too crowded for us and both kids."
> 
> A sex life has just been discussed.



The thing is who actually cares what somebody and their wife did? that crap can be done on people's personal time.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Tough stuff on the Bass? Bikerfailure is the one that looks stupid with comments like that, not the Bass for calling it what it is.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



I'm very well acquainted with how the military REALLY works and your comment makes me seriously question if you do.   Inappropriate and disrespectful to discuss sexual lives?   Really?   What military have YOU served in?  The Salvation Army?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > "My wife and I are looking for a new place to live.  Our place is too crowded for us and both kids."
> ...



It's something you would typically hear around the shop, office, etc in casual conversation while in the military that reveals the sexuality of the person saying it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No, you're retarded, if someone does mention what happens in their sexual life at work to someone and that other person spreads it chances are the original story will morph into something different and could embarrass and insult the other person involved who had no choice over whether they wanted it known, you're a jackass if you can't see how this is not professional and lacks consideration of others, even those who weren't involved and overheard it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

The brains of USMB:

The Bass: DADT should not be lifted in the best interest of those serving 


Bikerfailure: I wish your kids to be gay because I disagree with you.


Article15: Tough stuff Bass!

Now who really looks stupid here?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> The brains of USMB:
> 
> The Bass: DADT should not be lifted in the best interest of those serving
> 
> ...



*You do.*


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

*Bring it up the chain if you don't like it Bass.  You are done bitching about it in this thread.*


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > The brains of USMB:
> ...



Actually you do because of this answer.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



.



Article 15 said:


> *Bring it up the chain if you don't like it Bass.  You are done bitching about it in this thread.*


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Article15 logic:

Being against the lifting of DADT is stupid.


Wishing somebody's kids to be gay because you disagree with their position is not. 


Article15 is one smart fella ain't he???



You all be the judge..oh..well...LMAO!!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> *Bring it up the chain if you don't like it Bass.  You are done bitching about it in this thread.*




Its is no concern to the Bass, his point is made.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Article15 logic:
> 
> Being against the lifting of DADT is stupid.
> 
> ...



*A mod made a ruling.

You bitched publicly.

You were told to cease and bring it up the chain.  Twice.

You just received strike three.  

Sucks for you.*


----------



## elvis (Mar 9, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Article15 logic:
> ...



nolan 15


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Article15 logic:
> 
> Being against the lifting of DADT is stupid.
> 
> ...





I agree with him...you look VERY stupid.


----------



## elvis (Mar 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Article15 logic:
> ...



especially now.


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



Well no shit Sherlock.  Because they're "FELONS".

Besides, when someone is kicked out because an "anonymous" person outed them, then he didn't break any rules.  Duh!

The Military's Moral Blinders: Criminals Preferred to Fill Ranks Over Gays - The Washington Note

But it goes beyond troops on the front line. *The military apparently has little problem putting major weapons systems into the hands of criminals while at the same time discharging Arabic-speaking linguists.*

Secretary Rice was whining about the dozens of Arabic linguists the military had lost (kicked out for being gay).  Gary Ackerman (D-NY) made the following comment:

"(I)t seems that the military has gone around and fired a whole bunch of people who speak foreign languages -- Farsi and Arabic, etc.," Ackerman said. "For some reason, the *military seems more afraid of gay people than they are (of) terrorists, *but they're very brave with the terrorists," he continued.* "If the terrorists ever got hold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad," *Ackerman said.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Seems like the OP and some others would run screaming too.


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



Screaming in voices like little girls with hands wildly waving as if they were "broken at the wrist".


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yawn! The regulations are the regulations. The law is the law. If it should change then we will see who is right or wrong. As it stands, Don't Ask and Don't tell. IMHO it would be a shame to change something that seems to work best for all concerned.


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

Seems to be working?  Except when gay haters do "witch hunts".  Or when someone sends an "anonymous message".

Why the "fear"?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean,

STFU


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 9, 2010)

*I've decided to debanninate the Bass.  While he should have listened and knows better, it isn't a good idea for me to moderate a thread I am an active participant in.*


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean,
> 
> STFU








Kiss.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

No thanks your face is in the way


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



Speaking for Gay Service members now, Ollie?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean,
> 
> STFU



Ah yes...you want to silence people when you can't control them...or else you run away with your hands over your ears.


Somewhat cowardly of you.


----------



## elvis (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > rdean,
> ...



your boyfriend know you post his picture on here, you stupid fuck?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> No thanks your face is in the way



BTW...Thank you for posting a easy to read list of those posters you are afraid of.


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

elvis said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...








Your girlfriend wearing your cock ring.


----------



## elvis (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



you made it a whole two posts without saying the word republican.  how did you did that, daft ****?


----------



## rdean (Mar 9, 2010)

elvis said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Because it was obvious I was talking to Republicans.


----------



## elvis (Mar 9, 2010)

rdean said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



two is the limit, eh daft ****?


----------



## Luissa (Mar 9, 2010)

elvis said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



YOu said ****!


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> Civilians using their agenda to conduct military business without consulting with commanders and NCOs is the reason this current military is a cluster fart, You don't learn from anything do you?
> 
> 
> Not to long before the Iraq war, it was said that former Army General Eric Shinseki told Donald Rumsfeld that the mission he(Rumsfeld) wanted in Iraq would require more troops and a long occupation to accomplish its old, but just like the micro-managing civilian jackass he was Rumsfeld ignored Shinseki and all the other experienced generals and forced them out of the military and did the exact opposite which created the quagmire in Iraq. After so many lost lives they ended using "surges" to solve the problem till it got so damn bad Rumsfeld had to go. Thats what happens when stupid civilians ignore officers and NCOs do what they feel is best with a set of crony "yessir" generals.
> ...



and you think that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn't wear the uniform?

And you are showing what a moron you are if you think that the national military command authority takes into consideration what rank and file troops have to say about possible policy changes prior to implementation.


----------



## elvis (Mar 9, 2010)

Luissa said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



so did you.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Mar 9, 2010)

How silly is it, that 5 year old tactics, of he acts gay can still be used, in the military of all places

quite a disgrace/shame in my opinion



bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Civilians using their agenda to conduct military business without consulting with commanders and NCOs is the reason this current military is a cluster fart, You don't learn from anything do you?
> ...



I believe on this matter they will listen to the rank and file. They will at least do several studies about what they think. If they don't they are being very stupid.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



they may "listen" to them, but they will not let the bigotry of the rank and file alter their beliefs, any more than Truman did in 1947.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Mar 9, 2010)

a couple of things.

If gays arent, in the service, or they are shhh, dont be gay.

do straight service members think they wont eventually (gasp) horrible screams... meet one a.k.a. a gay person.

Its only a matter of time, before you run into one, i.e. meet one.

Gays are intertwined in the community, this isnt 1968 where they are hiding anymore.

Fact is, they could be, youre boss, your co worker, your best friend, your acquaintance, oh my god  (sarcasm) they could be anywhere

i mean their not an abstract 

so what are you gonna do when you meet one?


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 9, 2010)

actsnoblemartin said:


> a couple of things.
> 
> If gays arent, in the service, or they are shhh, dont be gay.
> 
> ...



I'm going to say " HEY MARTY ! "


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

actsnoblemartin said:


> a couple of things.
> 
> If gays arent, in the service, or they are shhh, dont be gay.
> 
> ...



First off my step son is gay. Second if I would have found a gay person in the Army while I was on active duty I would have taken all the correct steps to process them out of the Army. No biggy, just follow the regulations.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Mar 9, 2010)

If i may ask,

How do you feel about your stepson being gay?



SFC Ollie said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > a couple of things.
> ...


----------



## bodecea (Mar 9, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > a couple of things.
> ...



Here comes the one single anecdote again...as if it makes him an expert or something on gays in the military.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2010)

actsnoblemartin said:


> If i may ask,
> 
> How do you feel about your stepson being gay?
> 
> ...



He's an idiot, I do not approve and he knows that. However, that did not prevent me from giving him and his partner(at the time) a room to live in when they were down and out. they lived here for about 6 months.  And we lived with him and his previous partner for about 3 weeks when I first retired from the Army. By the way he agrees that gays should not serve.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Mar 9, 2010)

well. I think that is very kind of you to have helped them

I have seen many cases of people who disapprove kicking their kids out when they came out, disowning them, etc

atleast you seem tolerant.

I can respect your views, I just dont agree

hope thats ok with you 



SFC Ollie said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > If i may ask,
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Mar 9, 2010)

personally, I think verbally attacking people who disagree with our views is counter-productive, I think its actually mean-spirited and intolerant to question peoples sexuality simply for not agreeing with us, or calling them names.

With that said, im not telling anyone what to do or how to conduct their business

just sharing a thought


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 10, 2010)

actsnoblemartin said:


> personally, I think verbally attacking people who disagree with our views is counter-productive, I think its actually mean-spirited and intolerant to question peoples sexuality simply for not agreeing with us, or calling them names.
> 
> With that said, im not telling anyone what to do or how to conduct their business
> 
> just sharing a thought



Well said!


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 10, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I don't question anyone's sexuality and sure as hell don't need to question the sexuality of those who states and or desires to state what they are. 

You're accusing me of being gay, well, you would be up for sexual harrassment charges for spreading a lie and rumor because an investigation would reveal your allegations to be baseless and false. The only people discharged under DADT are those who admit they're gay and or have credible and verifiable evidence against them, it isn't as simple as saying someone is gay and then they're discharged, he who makes the claim had better have evidence to back it up because if one of my soldiers made false allegations I would counsel them and recommend the maximum punishment allowed with a letter of reprimand. Why would I do that? I've seen plenty of soldiers have their name soiled and their careers nearly derailed because of false accusations and such things disrupt unit cohesion and create hostile work environments.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 10, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



I am all business and thats whats lacking in the Army and in the military today, being professional and being about business. When I was a Drill Sergeant on the trail it was my job to train and acclimate joes to the Army on the basics of how the Army works. In order to teach it I have to be the example because the Drill Sergeant is first real authorative figure IET soldiers are going to encounter. If we don't train them right according to the standards we're simply passing on undisciplined soldiers on to NCOs in permanent party units who are going to turn out to be problem soldiers. I became a Drill Sergeant for this reason, to properly weed out those who don't belong discharging them or breaking them down and building them up and to mold good soldiers out of those that do belong. Thats not an easy duty.


Most Drill Sergeants, current and former, are all about business have some of the highest standards od any soldiers.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



I am?    Where?  Where?



> > , you would be up for sexual harrassment charges for spreading a lie and rumor because an investigation would reveal your allegations to be baseless and false. The only people discharged under DADT are those who admit they're gay and or have credible and verifiable evidence against them,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It used to be.



> he who makes the claim had better have evidence to back it up because if one of my soldiers made false allegations I would counsel them and recommend the maximum punishment allowed with a letter of reprimand. Why would I do that? I've seen plenty of soldiers have their name soiled and their careers nearly derailed because of false accusations and such things disrupt unit cohesion and create hostile work environments.



In a perfect environment...however, when it comes to the military and investigations, it is not a perfect world...far from it.

Again...look up the USS Norton Sound incident.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Uh Huh.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 10, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So very true. My last duty station I was the Operations Sergeant for a training company and the Senior instructor at one of the Signal courses. I had 6 Drills working for me at the company. And they were all business and all professional, one had just finished (4 years I believe) at the old guard, walking the walk. I had the utmost respect for that Sergeant. I plan on going to Arlington later this summer to sort of do a pilgrimage.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Some of the posters in here don't know anything about the Army. Most soldiers when they see a Drill Sergeant badge on a uniform know they're dealing with an NCO who has high standards and a lot of professionalism because its impossible for a NCO to even into Drill Sergeant school without those high standards and professionalism. Most of us Drills take the "hard but fair" approach with our soldiers. In 82nd we lived those standards, it wasn't until I left 82nd that I saw an entirely different Army that I had to adapt to.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 10, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...




You don't know a thing about Drill Sergeants, whatever you see on TV is not what we're about. Smoking soldiers with push-ups and grass drills(Front.....Back.....GO!!!) is a waste of time and we only do just enough of that stuff to get those IET soldiers online and dress-right-dress with teamwork. If I was still on the trail and I just might go back come to think of it, I'd do the same things all over again.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 10, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You're hard of hearing. Discharging someone for violating DADT is not simple and easy, the claims and allegations have to be substantiated, its not as easy as someone making the accusation against another and the person gets discharged, I'm not going to waste any more time telling you this because you're not in the military and don't understand how the system works. Every allegation of being gay is investigated because a lot of those claims are either rumors or some soldiers use it to get out of the Army when they're not really gay. The process is complicated.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



  You're right...I'm not in the military....any more.

I'm RETIRED Military and during my TWENTY ONE YEAR career I was a Personnel Officer, Admin Officer,  Maintenance Officer, LEGAL Officer, Tactical Operations Officer, Command and Control Officer, Executive Officer, Officer in Charge.....all while being a Naval Aviator.


Of course.....I know nothing about the military.....

If....and "if"...you were a drill instructor, you would have called me "Ma'am".


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2010)

The process is complicated?

Depends.............how bad did you piss off the chain of command?  They can have your ass streetside in a month if they want, a couple of weeks if they really don't like you.

Generally, it takes a screening, thoughts of the chain of command, an interview with a shrink and then it's sent to BUPERS.

BUPERS then reads it and generally goes with the findings of the CO.

Like I said.......depends on if you pissed off the upper echelon or not.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> The process is complicated?
> 
> Depends.............how bad did you piss off the chain of command?  They can have your ass streetside in a month if they want, a couple of weeks if they really don't like you.
> 
> ...



It used to be 48 hours...pre-DADT.  I know of several unhappy, yet straight sailors who declared themselves to be gay in order to get out as fast as they could.   I had one female YN2 declare herself to be a lesbian and 48 hours later show up to get her discharge papers with her boyfriend.   She declared she was going to frame that page in the BUPERS manual that helped her get out so quickly.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 10, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Another squid? Damn. Were you gay and serving on active duty?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2010)

Hey Bodeca, remember when the messages came out to get rid of all the shitbirds?  We had one that was right on the verge, and when the Skipper got word that he would be allowed 1 more, we had only 6 hours to get them paid and out.

He'd been busted for drugs several times before (this was in '83, just as the piss tests were starting).

BTW M'am, what was your rank?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Proudly.  You can call me "Ma'am" too.  Oh, btw...thanks for the tax money going to my retirement paycheck.  'preciate it.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Bodeca, remember when the messages came out to get rid of all the shitbirds?  We had one that was right on the verge, and when the Skipper got word that he would be allowed 1 more, we had only 6 hours to get them paid and out.
> 
> He'd been busted for drugs several times before (this was in '83, just as the piss tests were starting).
> 
> BTW M'am, what was your rank?



Remember them...I was Legal AND Admin at that time....I had to jump thru all the frickin' hoops to get Operation Golden Flow up and running.

And I retired as an O-5.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Bodeca, remember when the messages came out to get rid of all the shitbirds?  We had one that was right on the verge, and when the Skipper got word that he would be allowed 1 more, we had only 6 hours to get them paid and out.
> ...



East or west coast ma'am?  I retired as an E-6 (CREO group SUCKED as a PN).


----------



## Zona (Mar 10, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> The process is complicated?
> 
> Depends.............how bad did you piss off the chain of command?  They can have your ass streetside in a month if they want, a couple of weeks if they really don't like you.
> 
> ...



Remember Tail hook?  All you have to do to piss off the upper crust is embarrass the Navy.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



All West Coast...and I was a Personnel Officer as an Ensign when we used to keep all records at the Squadron level.   Fun, that.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 10, 2010)

Zona said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The process is complicated?
> ...



Yeah...that was quite a mess....some serious self-inflicted career wounds on that one.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 10, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



Fudge fuxxing nuggets you are one dumb bitch.  He didn't mess up.  He did exactly what he wanted to do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 10, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale - US News and World Report
> 
> This link touched upon some of the objections I've raised and I will posted them
> 
> ...




Im glad I never thought seriously about joining the military during the Clinton administration.Thanks to old Willy thats what america has now though.I assume Bush went along with it and Obama has as well?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 10, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > Allowing Gays in the Military Would Be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale - US News and World Report
> ...





The entire country is thankful that you never went into the military.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 10, 2010)

However Ollie Pissed.......we kinda wish that you didn't.

Your archaic views, along with your bigotry of yours and those that think like yours will make the military much more able and flexible, as well as stronger, when biases like yours are gone.

Too bad you're so much of a cowardly ostrich tucking their head in the sand...........you've got me on ignore.

Pussy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



says brainwashed Gomer Pyle here.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Mar 11, 2010)

I'm proud of you ma'am



bodecea said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Bodeca, remember when the messages came out to get rid of all the shitbirds?  We had one that was right on the verge, and when the Skipper got word that he would be allowed 1 more, we had only 6 hours to get them paid and out.
> ...


----------



## bodecea (Mar 11, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> However Ollie Pissed.......we kinda wish that you didn't.
> 
> Your archaic views, along with your bigotry of yours and those that think like yours will make the military much more able and flexible, as well as stronger, when biases like yours are gone.
> 
> ...




I remember, in OCS, taking an Engineering class from a Mustang LT...he flat out said to a class of men AND women officer candidates that the day the Navy put those little white boxes in the Ship Heads (he was referring to tampon/pad dispensers), that would be the day he retired.

I picture SFC Ollie and others of his ilk being like that Mustang LT.


BTW, a month later, our class was the first to select women to go to SWOS and be the first on Navy ships.....wonder if he really retired.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 11, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > However Ollie Pissed.......we kinda wish that you didn't.
> ...



I remember those days.  Was stationed with VFA-131 onboard USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER when it happened. 

Freaking pilots were spazzing out all over the place, because now their good old boys club was gonna get broke into.  

I also remember Tailhook.  

But, you're right CDR, Ollie the Pissed and his friend Failed Load sound just like that Mustang LT.  Scared of anything that is new and may work better, because then they'd have to perform.

Me personally?  Never had a problem, just look at the rank and decide from there.  Color, gender and sexual orientation shouldn't figure into it.

What counts is when you can "flip" for it and know you will win.


----------



## rdean (Mar 11, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



So many reasons to allow the gays including the fact they are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their families.  The only reasons against them are "they might PEEK at me in the shower".

Pretty pathetic, even for those on the right.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2010)

rdean said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



There is so much more to living and working together in close quarters than you will ever understand, Why don't you just go back to your little corner of the world. They know you there and will change your diaper on a regular basis.


----------



## maineman (Mar 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> There is so much more to living and working together in close quarters than you will ever understand, Why don't you just go back to your little corner of the world. They know you there and will change your diaper on a regular basis.



you need to accept the fact that there are people who have lived in quarters every bit as close as you have lived, and have different opinions as to this subject.  I would imagine that bunking in the troop quarters of an LSD for a westpac deployment is more confined for longer continuous periods of time than ANYTHING you have experienced.  You do not have the corner on the market when it comes to military experience.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2010)

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > There is so much more to living and working together in close quarters than you will ever understand, Why don't you just go back to your little corner of the world. They know you there and will change your diaper on a regular basis.
> ...



Never made any such claim, And I have been in some pretty tight quarters. But look at who my comment was directed at. Unless I'm mistaken rdean has not experienced anything even close.


----------



## maineman (Mar 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



so.... you are saying that only veterans are allowed to express their opinions about repealing DADT?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



But  I have experienced that....unfortunately, you are too afraid of hearing my experience and have put me on Ignore.


----------



## rdean (Mar 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



That is just so much bullshit.  I served in the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division.  I shared a room in Baumholder, Germany with 4 other guys and I know for a fact, one of those guys was gay and black.  Everyone in the room knew.  Nobody cared.  In fact, everyone in the battery knew and only one guy was "bothered" over it.  He was a white guy and he couldn't stop trying to pick on "Slim".  Slim kicked his butt and the guy left him alone. He never got a chance to "get even" because it turned out he was a "barracks thief".  Funny that the only guy bothered was a thief.  Somehow, that is not a surprise.  There is always something wrong with the "phobes", always.

And this was back in 1975.

Anyone scared of the gays is a "sissy". Period!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2010)

Have any of you morons looked at the title of this thread/
"Allowing Gays in the Military"
Dumbasses: there are tens of thousands of gays in the military NOW.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2010)

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Didn't say that, or didn't mean to imply it. But it is fact that only those who have been there can understand it as someone who was there can. Anyone can express an opinion. How much weight I allow that opinion is my own decision.


----------



## maineman (Mar 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



it seems to be that you don't allow much weight at all to any opinion on this subject that is different than yours, regardless of the experiences of the poster.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2010)

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



Obviously I don't believe that DADT should be repealed, However I have also stated many times that the heads of the different branches have all told congress to slow down. And i have said that we shall see. I believe I have also stated that I could be wrong...


----------



## ski87 (Mar 11, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Have any of you morons looked at the title of this thread/
> "Allowing Gays in the Military"
> Dumbasses: there are tens of thousands of gays in the military NOW.



Yeah, gee thanks for the insight.  However, I think that the issue is somewhat more complex than your false dichotomy.  What are the actual provisions of the policy change ?  how will they be administered ?  what will be the social impact as well mission impact as openly gay men serve next to straight men.  

SAILOR: Sir, I think that my bunkmate is gay.

CAPT: Why do you think that Sailor ?

SAILOR: Sir, because his dick tastes like shit.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> However Ollie Pissed.......we kinda wish that you didn't.
> 
> Your archaic views, along with your bigotry of yours and those that think like yours will make the military much more able and flexible, as well as stronger, when biases like yours are gone.
> 
> ...




Squid stick a sock in it, we don't all share your one sided homosexual agenda. Gays openly serving is not going to make the Army I serve in more flexible and stronger.


----------



## rdean (Mar 12, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > However Ollie Pissed.......we kinda wish that you didn't.
> ...



It's not going to hurt it either.  Guys who are "afraid" of the gays are sissies.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Paper pushing desk rangers, you call 21 years of doing that an honorable career?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 12, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



All successful service is Honorable you jackass.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...




You apparently can't read.  But I can understand...you army types aren't capable of multi-tasking.  So, were you one of the outstanding soldiers whose MOS was to change tires for your whole career?


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



do you even know what the term "naval avaitor" means?  Do you know what they do?  Do you know what any of those positions she describes entails?  

Referring to a retired (still commissioned) naval officer as a "paper pushing desk ranger" is profoundly unprofessional and causes me to question your actual status as an active duty noncom.  That level of disrespect would have cost you at least one stripe every time you exhibited it under MY command. 

Suggesting that anyone who served for 21 years and retired did not do so honorably has lost you my respect.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 12, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > However Ollie Pissed.......we kinda wish that you didn't.
> ...



LOL Gayboybiker still talks to me, even knowing he is on my ignore list for stupidity. Gotta love the gift that keeps giving. Does he still brag about pushing his desk?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 12, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Now now, someone has to control the desk jobs. But to brag about it is something different.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Every gay soldier and sailor I've ever known is head and shoulders above Ollie in the courage department.   He can't even stick with internet debates without running away with his hands over his ears.


----------



## prinx (Mar 12, 2010)

This topic is rediculous. You people have no idea what you are talking about. For starters all gay people are born gay (do you think gay people would chose this lifestyle? that would be the same as heterosexuals saying they chose their lifestyle)... The proof for people being born gay is in the medical journals and the psychiatric journals. BEING A HOMOSEXUAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS ALL ABOUT SEX.  Before posting such rediculous garbage on this site, do your research.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




And I bet  your Army MOS for your entire career was changing oil in the motor pool.     We all know Army types can't multi-task.   And if you are any indicator, they may be cowards too.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Know what the really funny thing is?  As my job left lots of time to do other things, I was allowed to be part of the PRP team with VFA-131 (loading weapons on FA-18's), I was allowed to be part of the Security Force teams, and I've also been to 26 different countries as well as have many other collateral qualifications.

I didn't join the Army specifically for 2 reasons.........what their job was is what they did for the rest of their career, and there was very little variety in the narrowness of the fields offered.  And, camping while fun as a hobby would suck as a lifestyle.

Want to know why I joined the Navy?  2 reasons........travel and the fact that there are only 24 jobs in the Navy, but a whole butt ton of collateral qualifications and duties you could do, and that meant I'd be better equipped with more qualifications than with just one.

I became a Personnelman because it was one of the 13 jobs allowed in SEALS, and, because it was also the one job in the Navy that could be stationed ANYWHERE.  Eyesight kept me out of SEALS, but the ability to go anywhere worked well when I went on an MSC vessel for my final sea tour.

Ollie was just a UPS man for the Army.  He was a courier.

And, the really fucked up thing about  it is that he retired in 1994, which means that his view is the old 48 hour discharge rule.

He's even stated that he was happy to get out when DADT was implemented.

What could he POSSIBLY contribute to the discussion other than old antiquated ideals?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



He was a Courier?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 12, 2010)

Yeah........and an Army courier is about 25 percent of a PC.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



I was a Cobra Crew Chief in the Army.  Your broadbrushing here is bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah........and an Army courier is about 25 percent of a PC.



He still served for over 20 years. No matter how much you disagree with his views no amount of disagreement can negate his Service.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 12, 2010)

Hey........not my fault the fucker was too stupid to get a real job in the military.

Unlike most, I wanted usable skills after I got out.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What else did you do?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I was the Guidon Bearer, NBC NCO, and had a successful part time job in relocating special products from Mexico into the US.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey........not my fault the fucker was too stupid to get a real job in the military.
> 
> Unlike most, I wanted usable skills after I got out.




I think he's one of the biggest Nationalistic retards on this board b
ut none of what you or I think can compromise the fact he had a successful military career.  All jobs in the service make valuable contributions to helping everyone in the military.  Your MOS highhorse is just dumb.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Besides that.   What was your collaterial job (or actually, flying was your collateral job) What was it you did on days or hours you were not flying?


----------



## rdean (Mar 12, 2010)

I knew a guy from work who had been in the Navy.  I asked him if it got lonely out there on the ocean for six months at a time.  He said yes.  I asked him if the guys ever gave each other a "helping hand"?  He said, "You mean, like a "special" friend"?  I said, "Yea, a special friend.  What was the name of your special friend?"  Then he laughed and realized I have been pulling his leg.

Then he said that even though he never had a "special friend", a lot of the guys did.

I guess as long as they don't "kiss", it's not "gay".


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Guidon Bearer........so you carried the flag of your company when you marched.  I did that in boot camp.

NBC NCO........Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare specialist.  Did that on my first ship as a boot and was so good at it, they made it permanent on my collateral duties list.

Then......when I made some rank, I was working on the PRP team, which is responsible for  the weapons that cause NBC NCO's to be required.

Not impressed.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



And those are all just collateral jobs...I usually, as well as my flying billet, had at least one ground job.  For a while, I was Admin, Personnel, Legal, PAO, CACO, and Ombudsman....all at the same time.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Hey.........Failed Load..........might wanna look up what a "Line Officer" is in the Navy.  They are the ones that fill any and all billets, no matter what and are qualified to do almost anything as they are required to fill a space, not a job, on the ship.

That space filler thing means they will learn the requirements for the job and be able to do it in 6 months, or be sent to a shitbird job.

You may wanna read her quals again.  She wasn't "just flying a desk", or do you not know what a Tactical Operations Officer is to a ship?

They're the ones that do the firing solutions for the things that wanna hurt the ship.  They also push buttons that make things go boom a long ways away.

So, you've proved that you can type, now look up Naval Line Officer.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



To be fair, I wasn't on a ship...I was an ASW Tactical Officer...briefing and debriefing ASW crews...the Base CO, the Admiral if need be.


----------



## ski87 (Mar 12, 2010)

Openly gays serving in the military would be far too disruptive to the operational tempo of an organization.  Should never be allowed.  In a civilian environment, fine, should be debated.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2010)

ski87 said:


> Openly gays serving in the military would be far too disruptive to the operational tempo of an organization.  Should never be allowed.  In a civilian environment, fine, should be debated.



we live in a representative democracy...we vote for members of congress and for president and we give THEM the authority to make decisions on our behalf.  The debate you spoke of was held in November of 2008.  sorry.


----------



## ski87 (Mar 12, 2010)

maineman said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > Openly gays serving in the military would be far too disruptive to the operational tempo of an organization.  Should never be allowed.  In a civilian environment, fine, should be debated.
> ...




Wow, thanks for the HS History lesson, I was speaking from an operations standpoint.  My guys dont want fags around!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 12, 2010)

ski87 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



Most active duty people are against repealing DADT, and i support them. But unless something happens soon (like in November 2010), you may find that the regulations get changed anyway, And that I believe will be a big mistake.


----------



## ski87 (Mar 12, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...




agreed.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 12, 2010)

ski87 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



Got a question for the stupid brothers.........

Do you think it's fair for a closeted gay soldier to be hit by an IED, put in a hospital, and not allow the partner who has been with them for 5 or more years to show up at the bedside of their partner?

Or receive the flag if they die?

Personally?  I think that's criminal to not allow the people you love, whom you got injured or died for in defense of this country, to not be acknowledged by their nation and be told that the country was grateful for their service.

You want to keep DADT in place, just because you don't want to feel uncomfortable.

A bunch of soulless bastards, both you dumbSKI87 and Ollie the Pissed.


----------



## ski87 (Mar 12, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Personally, I dont give a shit if they get their feelings hurt because they cant have their life partner by their bedside, its a volunteer force, dipshit.  One thing civilians dont understand is that you cannot upset the operations tempo or disrupt the mission environment when deployed, when that happens, people get hurt or worse..killed.  Having openly gay soldiers around would upset what is already a strenuous and demanding environment, we dont need that shit.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 12, 2010)

ski87 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



Agreed, and don't mind gaybikerboy too much, he's still not gotten over that i placed him on ignore for stupidity.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

ski87 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



I'm willing to bet that they tell you that because they have picked up that that is what you want them to say.....


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

ski87 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



That pretty much says it right there.   Karma being what it is....let us hope that the Fates aren't paying close attention to your post.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Let's play a game....how many times in the next week will Ollie let us all know (besides his signature) that he has put someone on Ignore?


I'm gonna say 20 times.


----------



## ski87 (Mar 12, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...




They've actually expressed this to me without even knowing my viewpoint, we're all in agreement that having openly gay soldiers in theater would be an unnecessary mission detractor and make life in close quarters extremely awkward.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 13, 2010)

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I wasn't a pilot.  A Crew Chief is a mechanic.  I was responsible for the pilot's lives everytime they flew.  If you knew anything about maintenance log books on a combat helicopter you would know it's not an easy job.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 13, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I'm so sad.  My entire life has been dedicated to hoping I could impress you.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 13, 2010)

ski87 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...




What does a voluntary military have to do with discrimination?


----------



## ski87 (Mar 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



There is no draft, if they feel that there will be discrimination based upon their sexual orientation, they could elect NOT to enlist.....after all, the world needs flower arrangers too.

anymore brainbusters for me?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Ok, in the Navy, to use the word "crew" means you are in the flight crew...like pilot, co-pilot, navigatior, tactical, loadmaster, flight engineer, etc.  

We're set up differently.   We have a Maintenance Dept. with different divisions such as the AMS/AMH which is Airframes.  AD which is engines, AO (b b counters) which is ordnance, AE which is electrical, AT which was electronics, black boxes, etc.  No one had one plane/helo assigned to them.  We had a Maintenance Control and QA to control maintenance and quality assurance on any maintenance.  And each Division/ Branch would have an Officer assigned but they were also pilots/navs.  No one stays with one Division/Branch forever...as you moved up, you might go elsewhere...senior maintenance might go to Maintenance Control, QA, or even Troubleshooters (jack of all trades)  And if you were a Petty Officer, you would have other collateral duties also every day.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 13, 2010)

ski87 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



If you upset operations tempo or disrupt the mission, you get killed or hurt.

Absolutely right.  But, what do you do when one of your men gets a letter from his old lady stating that she's gonna leave him and take the kids?  

You realize that his head is not in the game because of the situation back home.  You then offer encouragement and support to keep the person's head on a swivel, watching out for each of you, because if you're thinking about home, you might miss the terrorist taking a bead on your vehicle.

Absolutely true......you've got to keep your head in the game.

Now.......what if someone who is gay, and operating under DADT gets the same kind of letter?  They're part of your squad, they are part of every deployment you do off base.

Under DADT, that person has to keep it all inside, and wouldn't be able to talk about what's troubling them, which could result in their head not being in the game.

See why DADT doesn't work, or are you gonna remain weapons grade stupid?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

ski87 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



Since the squids think its fine to have openly serving gays maybe they should recruit and take them in, but not the Army. Most soldiers have already stated they don't want DADT repealed.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



They best better adapt to the military and come up with a plan, heterosexual soldiers do the same thing, no one gets anything special.


----------



## maineman (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



since when was the military a democracy?  who gives a shit what "most soldiers" state they want?  

bottom line:  in the not too distant future, you will be given an order to implement the repeal of DADT... either salute and follow orders like the professional that you CLAIM to be, or get the fuck out.

Like I said earlier:  either one of those decisions would be good for the Army.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 15, 2010)

ski87 said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...




Too bad you don't live in America or have ever read the Constitution.  If you did you would understand we were built on the principles of equality and that discrimination is not condoned nor justified by voluntarily working for the government.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




We had a similar set up but the crew chief was responsible for choppers from top to bottom.  We had to call in avionics, armament, etc for certain jobs.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are set up as separate squadrons or units, right?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...




I'll be out of the Army by that time, all I have left is 5 years. The military isn't a democracy, for anyone-including gays thats why they must follow the rules.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ski87 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




The majority of Dems, Reps, and Indies support repealing the law.  
Http://www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/cnn-poll-69-ok-with-gays-in-the-military/

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the "majority" wants either in or out of the military. Equal Rights is not founded on the "majority" by definition.  

Your hypocrisy on this is ridiculous.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




The Squadron was the AirCav for 3rd ACR.  From the Squadron level it was broken down to Line Troops and a Maintenance Platoon.


----------



## maineman (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...


if DADT is repealed in the next two years, will you get out before you qualify for retirement?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > ski87 said:
> ...



No they do not, they're very cautious if anything amd they are not in uniform so it shouldn't be up to them to impose something that will violate the privacy servicemembers.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



I'll go back to another hardcore grunt unit, at least there will not be any gays there if they did repeal DADT, I'm not worried either way because Article 125 will not be changed, I cannot see the military legalizing gay sex.


----------



## del (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



and yet it is.

tough break for you, skippy.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

del said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



It will not make it through the House which means it has no chance of going to the Senate. I'm not worried because it will be harder to repeal it than what everyone thinks.


----------



## del (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



oh, good, because i wouldn't want you to be up nights worrying about those scary homos, mary.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



   What a lovely fantasy world you live in, FISTer.


----------



## del (Mar 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



yeah, no gays have ever served in combat.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...




Have you ever read even one word out of the UCMJ you dumbfuk?  

What is the "no they do not" referencing? I just linked a poll showing the majority of americans support repealing dadt.  You're probably so fuxxing dumm you didn't even click the link to read that military households also support repealing DADT.  No no, I'm not psychic.  It's just easy to predict what people like you will do.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

del said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I wouldn't have a problem with it so much if I wouldn't have to be forced to give special attention to openly serving gays, thats independent of my personal feelings about homosexuality.


----------



## del (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



what about openly serving heteros?

do you have to give them special attention?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





The majority of Americans don't support repealing DADT, no poll can be representative of 225 million Americans. Have you read the polls conducted by the Armytimes where a overwhelming majority of soldiers were against it? As a Senior NCO I know the UCMJ very well like the back of my hand.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

del said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Nobody gets special attention from me and I'm not going to wipe the noses of crying openly gay soldiers who whine and complain about getting teased about their homosexuality.


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...




Even if they repeal DADT you will not find any openly serving gays in combats arms units and lets not exagerrate the numbers of gays, they don't form any sizable percentage of the military, let alone combat arms.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 15, 2010)

If the straight soldiers are teasing and hassling the gays, isn't it YOUR job as a senior NCO to restore good order and discipline?

Thought you said you were a professional.  Guess not.

Thanks for playing Failed Load Fister.


----------



## maineman (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



did the military legalize blowjobs?  do you process your troops for discharge if they violate art. 125 with their girlfriends or spouses?

and when DADT is repealed, gays can serve in any unit and will.... you won't be able to hide from them... you'll have to either lead them or quit.  

what will it be?


----------



## Flaylo (Mar 15, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> If the straight soldiers are teasing and hassling the gays, isn't it YOUR job as a senior NCO to restore good order and discipline?
> 
> Thought you said you were a professional.  Guess not.
> 
> Thanks for playing Failed Load Fister.



If it isn't physical assault or disclosing someone's personal sex life what should I do, hold their hands for them? They shouldn't go into combat arms where alpha males rule, I'm not going to rosy up Combat arms for anyone.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 15, 2010)

It affects good order and discipline dipshit.

You're not a professional, you're a punk.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...


So, you will be supporting harassers.   How are you about those who harass women in your command?


Wait.....I think I can guess.  You like being part of the problem...less challenging.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If the straight soldiers are teasing and hassling the gays, isn't it YOUR job as a senior NCO to restore good order and discipline?
> ...



Have you ANY IDEA how many Alpha Males are gay?   It's practically a gay sub-group.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Mar 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



To you faggots are everywhere, but you're wrong, there are hardly any faggots here in Mississippi.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 15, 2010)

Charlie Bass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Flaylo said:
> ...



Or Iran either, I hear.


----------



## ski87 (Mar 15, 2010)

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If the straight soldiers are teasing and hassling the gays, isn't it YOUR job as a senior NCO to restore good order and discipline?
> ...



Good, and you shouldn't.  One dynamic that hasn't been considered is if it will even be enforced, especially in the IN units, I can tell you, there will be some ruffled feathers in those units.


----------



## maineman (Mar 17, 2010)

So...when General Petraeus testified yesterday that it was time to consider repealing DADT, I suppose that HE has no idea about how that would impact the military either?


----------

