# The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.



## yota5

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.  

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.  

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished* his fourth *sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



Why Four?   We didn't have that many on Sexual Harassment after Tailhook.

Oh, btw....did your son tell you that all military are tested for HIV EVERY YEAR during their physical?


----------



## RDD_1210

How many active soldiers are HIV positive?

Straight soldiers can't have HIV?


----------



## bodecea

RDD_1210 said:


> How many active soldiers are HIV positive?
> 
> Straight soldiers can't have HIV?



I guess they don't go to Thailand anymore.


----------



## spectrumc01

As prior military with combat time, I don't remember anyone comming around to ask my opinion, on anything.  The order came down you carried it out, wether you liked it or not.  Why now are we seeing how the soldier feels about gays in the military.  They didn't give a shit how any one felt when blacks were mixed in with the regular army (as they should have from the start).  They shouldn't care now with the gays.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



So you feel that you or your son can speak for "the troops"? 

How is the risk of HIV infection affected by removing the DADT policy? 

HIV affects ALL sexual orientations equally. Anyone having unprotected sex is at risk for HIV.

Soldiers are tested for HIV prior to deployment and then on a regular basis after that. The gay men I know get tested even more frequently.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



I will give you the fact that this openly gay service thing is stupid. It wouldn't be an issue if everyone would mind there own business. Now, from my experience in our armed forces HIV would be a non issue since they have dealt with it since about 1983 or so. Instead, they would be more worried about beatings and harassment or offending somebody's PC tendencies. Our fighting men have more chance of being exposed to HIV at a whore house in a port of call as they do on a battle field anywhere in the world. Also, In the Military I served in, Doc would do what ever it took to save one of his soldiers, Gay straight or what ever. He would not hesitate for a second. You are just full of shit.


----------



## blu

no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

blu said:


> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.



No, you have them confused with the average collage student.


----------



## kaz

blu said:


> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.


----------



## spectrumc01

If gays in the military is a huge deal, within the next few years we should see the retention rate fall dramatically as straight soldiers surely will not re-enlist and serve with gays.  The enlistment rates should fall away dramatically because surely straight soldiers will not en-list and serve side by side with a gay soldier.  This is how we will see wether it is a good idea or not.  My money is on it not being a big deal, and ten years from now no one will care and won't be able to see why it was such a bad idea.


----------



## Douger

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward in The Final Days, 1976


----------



## rightwinger

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that you or your son can speak for "the troops"?
> 
> How is the risk of HIV infection affected by removing the DADT policy?
> 
> HIV affects ALL sexual orientations equally. Anyone having unprotected sex is at risk for HIV.
> 
> Soldiers are tested for HIV prior to deployment and then on a regular basis after that. The gay men I know get tested even more frequently.
Click to expand...



There were gays in the military before the repeal of DADT. If they had AIDS then, nothing has changed. Soldiers have been tested for HIV for decades, why are you afraid now?

Tell your son to stop being such a pussy


----------



## blu

Momanohedhunter said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have them confused with the average collage student.
Click to expand...


the average college student goes to foreign countries to die to protect haliburtn and BPs profits? I must have missed that


----------



## blu

kaz said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.
Click to expand...


truth hurts...


----------



## kaz

blu said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> truth hurts...
Click to expand...


Yep, you got me.  I'm a business owner. In fact I own two businesses.  I oppress people by giving them jobs and paying them benefits and that sort of thing.  The sheep are over there fighting for me and my greed.  Ka-ching.

I am curious though, why are you here if that's all this country is about?


----------



## yota5

Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.  

By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.


----------



## sinister59

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



they were concerned about black serving along side whites at one time 
when woman started serving in combat roles they said they'd rape the women , 

seems like troops are not as professional as they should be .


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.
> 
> By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.



10 years served. And HIV was discussed, as well as all the other blood borne pathogens. We stupid unlisted men were even taught universal precautions and how to use them. HIV/AIDS is not anymore an issue after DADT then it was before. The fact that you are saying that a Corpsmen or medic will hesitate giving treatment because of the risk of HIV/AIDS is just stupid.


----------



## kaz

sinister59 said:


> seems like troops are not as professional as they should be



I agree, some find it necessary to join the military and then tell other people what their sexual orientation is.  Sounds like a political objective rather then a defending your country objective.  Not at all professional in that profession.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.
> 
> By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.



Then why is he afraid of a few homosexuals?

Your son has been tested for AIDS. So has everyone around him


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.
> 
> By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is he afraid of a few homosexuals?
Click to expand...


I hate fucking homos.  Of course I hate straights too so it doesn't really mean anything...


----------



## yota5

It is interesting seeing responses from people who've never put their butts on the line.  I'll say this again HIV testing occurs every 12  months.   A lot of nefarious activity can happen in that time.  You should be aware that HIV testing isn't a cure.  If a homo, engages in unprotected sex subsequent to HIV testing the threat of HIV isn't diminished.  If you doubt what I say ask your doctor.  The fear of  HIV isn't a component that you want to introduce to the equation when the troops are on the battle field with blood and gore flying all over.  I know that is a hard scenario to fathom when your sitting smugly and safely behind your key board.  Then again REMFS have always had that problem.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> It is interesting seeing responses from people who've never put their butts on the line.  I'll say this again HIV testing occurs every 12  months.   A lot of nefarious activity can happen in that time.  You should be aware that HIV testing isn't a cure.  If a homo, engages in unprotected sex subsequent to HIV testing the threat of HIV isn't diminished.  If you doubt what I say ask your doctor.  The fear of  HIV isn't a component that you want to introduce to the equation when the troops are on the battle field with blood and gore flying all over.  I know that is a hard scenario to fathom when your sitting smugly and safely behind your key board.  Then again REMFS have always had that problem.



Your son serves with heterosexual men who visit prostitutes  The percentage of HIV infected prostitutes is higher than in gay men. He needs to be more afraid of them than gays. You should tell him so he won't be such a big pussy about gays


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> It is interesting seeing responses from people who've never put their butts on the line.  I'll say this again HIV testing occurs every 12  months.   A lot of nefarious activity can happen in that time.  You should be aware that HIV testing isn't a cure.  If a homo, engages in unprotected sex subsequent to HIV testing the threat of HIV isn't diminished.  If you doubt what I say ask your doctor.  The fear of  HIV isn't a component that you want to introduce to the equation when the troops are on the battle field with blood and gore flying all over.  I know that is a hard scenario to fathom when your sitting smugly and safely behind your key board.  Then again REMFS have always had that problem.



So then the queers that were in before DADT were not having butt sex then ? And a person who has not served can not be called a REMF because they were never part of the echelon you fucktard. Go read another war book and watch platoon one more time before you pretend to know what you are talking about.


----------



## yota5

After your most recent reply I think that I'm getting a clear idea over what kind of meat that you're talking about eating rightwinger.  That puts your reply into the proper prospective.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> It is interesting seeing responses from people who've never put their butts on the line.  I'll say this again HIV testing occurs every 12  months.   A lot of nefarious activity can happen in that time.  You should be aware that HIV testing isn't a cure.  If a homo, engages in unprotected sex subsequent to HIV testing the threat of HIV isn't diminished.  If you doubt what I say ask your doctor.  The fear of  HIV isn't a component that you want to introduce to the equation when the troops are on the battle field with blood and gore flying all over.  I know that is a hard scenario to fathom when your sitting smugly and safely behind your key board.  Then again REMFS have always had that problem.



Anyone who has unprotected sex is at risk for contracting HIV, period.

You didn't answer how the repeal of DADT has any affect on the potential for HIV positive soldiers? How does it change when you KNOW there are gay soldiers?


----------



## yota5

Awe come on momanalhedhunter, don't yank a knot in your shorts.  I don't want you to break anything.  If you want me to respect your homosexual point of view then you must give equal respect to my point of view.  *Deviants do not belong in the military.  *  One last thing.  If it thinks like REMF, and it writes like a REMF, then it's a REMF.  By the way I did serve.


----------



## blu

kaz said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truth hurts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you got me.  I'm a business owner. In fact I own two businesses.  I oppress people by giving them jobs and paying them benefits and that sort of thing.  The sheep are over there fighting for me and my greed.  Ka-ching.
> 
> I am curious though, why are you here if that's all this country is about?
Click to expand...


do you use the tax-payer funded american military to secure your raw materials and other interests in the areas you do business?


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Awe come on momanalhedhunter, don't yank a knot in your shorts.  I don't want you to break anything.  If you want me to respect your homosexual point of view then you must give equal respect to my point of view.  *Deviants do not belong in the military.  *  One last thing.  If it thinks like REMF, and it writes like a REMF, then it's a REMF.  By the way I did serve.



The "deviance" of gays and lesbians are your *opinion* and one, likely, based on your religious and moral beliefs. Are you advocating legislating your moral beliefs in the military? 

I personally think that people who pick and flick are "deviant", but I don't think they should be discharged from the military as a result.


----------



## rdean

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.


----------



## Granny

blu said:


> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.





Douger said:


> "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward in The Final Days, 1976



Wrong on both counts.

Many people do care what the troops think - their parents, siblings, spouses and children and other family members, friends, veterans, the service men and women themselves - their lives, injuries, illnesses, dreams, goals, seeing their face and feeling their touch again, career tracks in or after they are out of the military.  The military can shut their mouths, but it can't control their thoughts.

When they signed their lives over to protect our corporate profits, they also signed their lives over to protect the rights of the people to spit on them, revile them and hate them; 

the people's right to burn the American flag; 

the people's right to riot and destroy property over something they are against;

the people's right to the freedom to just get in their vehicle and go wherever they please;

the people's choice to follow an area of study of their own choice - not what the government says they will study as in the old USSR and the right to follow the career path of their choosing;

the people's right to eat, drink, dress, and think as they please for better or worse;

the people's right to rail against their government whether they are right, wrong, or too stupid to know whether they are either;

the people's right to .....


Kissinger said a lot of things and Woodward wouldn't dream of writing an expose on Barack Obama or any other less than perfect Democrat even if the situation jumped up and bit him in the ass.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we saw war on American soil - but I think the pussies who wouldn't think of joining the military will be squealing loudest for the military to protect them.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> After your most recent reply I think that I'm getting a clear idea over what kind of meat that you're talking about eating rightwinger.  That puts your reply into the proper prospective.



When it comes to serving in combat, your son may be as brave as they come. When it comes to interacting with homosexuals, he is a big pussy. Next time he whines to mommy and daddy about having to serve with gays, you need to slap him and tell him he is a big pussy and that his attitudes towards gays were dismissed in the 1980s
You will do him and the country a great service


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> Awe come on momanalhedhunter, don't yank a knot in your shorts.  I don't want you to break anything.  If you want me to respect your homosexual point of view then you must give equal respect to my point of view.  *Deviants do not belong in the military.  *  One last thing.  If it thinks like REMF, and it writes like a REMF, then it's a REMF.  By the way I did serve.



Yeah, I bet you served with distinction in the 101st Arm Chair Division at Fort Loving Room.


----------



## yota5

You're right seawytch.   The deviance of gays (what could possibly be gay about this?), and lesbians is my opinion.  It is based on my religious, and moral believes.  It is bolstered by my experiences in uniformed service.   I stand by my opinion. * "Deviants do not belong in the military." * (yota5)


----------



## sinister59

Momanohedhunter said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.
> 
> By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years served. And HIV was discussed, as well as all the other blood borne pathogens. We stupid unlisted men were even taught universal precautions and how to use them. HIV/AIDS is not anymore an issue after DADT then it was before. The fact that you are saying that a Corpsmen or medic will hesitate giving treatment because of the risk of HIV/AIDS is just stupid.
Click to expand...


and va hospitals gave HIV to vet long with hepatitis through no cleaning of instrument . so you point is ?


----------



## Momanohedhunter

sinister59 said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.
> 
> By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years served. And HIV was discussed, as well as all the other blood borne pathogens. We stupid unlisted men were even taught universal precautions and how to use them. HIV/AIDS is not anymore an issue after DADT then it was before. The fact that you are saying that a Corpsmen or medic will hesitate giving treatment because of the risk of HIV/AIDS is just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and va hospitals gave HIV to vet long with hepatitis through no cleaning of instrument . so you point is ?
Click to expand...


I forgot about that one.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> You're right seawytch.   The deviance of gays (what could possibly be gay about this?), and lesbians is my opinion.  It is based on my religious, and moral believes.  It is bolstered by my experiences in uniformed service.   I stand by my opinion. * "Deviants do not belong in the military." * (yota5)



How is it "bolstered" by your military service? I know you served with gays and lesbians, but did you know you did? 

Are you truly advocating legislating your moral beliefs? That sounds kinda Sharia Law-like to me...

You seem to be advocating discharging all gays and lesbians from the military altogether, never mind allowing them to serve honestly. Well, sorry, but your views have fallen directly out of a few decades ago and are not supported by a majority of Americans. (or even a majority of those serving...or did you miss the Pentagon survey entirely?)


----------



## yota5

*Yeah, I bet you served with distinction in the 101st Arm Chair Division at Fort Loving Room. * (momanalhedhunter)

No, but my son was in Mozul, Iraq with 101st. ABN/ Air Assault, in 2003.  I was in the 1/73rd Arty/ 1/23 INF/ 1/38 INF/ 1/22 Arty.  How about you?


----------



## kaz

blu said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth hurts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you got me.  I'm a business owner. In fact I own two businesses.  I oppress people by giving them jobs and paying them benefits and that sort of thing.  The sheep are over there fighting for me and my greed.  Ka-ching.
> 
> I am curious though, why are you here if that's all this country is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you use the tax-payer funded american military to secure your raw materials and other interests in the areas you do business?
Click to expand...


We are alike in our view the US is in the middle east because of oil and it's wrong

We're different in that I don't boil down my entire view of my country to be one issue


----------



## sinister59

yota5 said:


> You're right seawytch.   The deviance of gays (what could possibly be gay about this?), and lesbians is my opinion.  It is based on my religious, and moral believes.  It is bolstered by my experiences in uniformed service.   I stand by my opinion. * "Deviants do not belong in the military." * (yota5)



LOL christian where the biggest deviants I served with , old guys screwing girls young enough to be their grand daughter , the killing in the name of jesus , and you want to call gays deviants ? 
Christianity is a deviant religion . and black people were also considered deviants , 

you have no moral beliefs . 
 you would whine if a soldier saved you fat ass because they are gay / better to let you die . 

I only knew of one gay in service and he did his job better then I did mine . 

your a bigot , but think of this , a guy lives with his mother at the age of 36 , no girl friend , hangs around other guys drinking , some quit their jobs left their wives and kids . 

that today's definition of a bum . say a prayer to him ass hole .


----------



## rightwinger

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After your most recent reply I think that I'm getting a clear idea over what kind of meat that you're talking about eating rightwinger.  That puts your reply into the proper prospective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to serving in combat, your son may be as brave as they come. When it comes to interacting with homosexuals, he is a big pussy. Next time he whines to mommy and daddy about having to serve with gays, you need to slap him and tell him he is a big pussy and that his attitudes towards gays were dismissed in the 1980s
> You will do him and the country a great service
Click to expand...


In fairness to you son, I do not really think he is a pussy. I think you are using your sons service to the country as a platform to pass on your own outdated anti-gay biases
As an active member of the military, your son would be privy to the latest information on AIDS and other blood transmitted diseases. He would not be regurgitating Reagan era AIDS fears. 
You, however, have a different agenda that you are trying to pass of as that of our armed services


----------



## sinister59

yota5 said:


> *Yeah, I bet you served with distinction in the 101st Arm Chair Division at Fort Loving Room. * (momanalhedhunter)
> 
> No, but my son was in Mozul, Iraq with 101st. ABN/ Air Assault, in 2003.  I was in the 1/73rd Arty/ 1/23 INF/ 1/38 INF/ 1/22 Arty.  How about you?



if your  sons life was saved by a gay soldier you would still bitch . 
 you must be a baptist , do you protest military funerals too


----------



## blu

kaz said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you got me.  I'm a business owner. In fact I own two businesses.  I oppress people by giving them jobs and paying them benefits and that sort of thing.  The sheep are over there fighting for me and my greed.  Ka-ching.
> 
> I am curious though, why are you here if that's all this country is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you use the tax-payer funded american military to secure your raw materials and other interests in the areas you do business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are alike in our view the US is in the middle east because of oil and it's wrong
> 
> We're different in that I don't boil down my entire view of my country to be one issue
Click to expand...


you are insane if you think it is just oil...


----------



## kaz

blu said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you use the tax-payer funded american military to secure your raw materials and other interests in the areas you do business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are alike in our view the US is in the middle east because of oil and it's wrong
> 
> We're different in that I don't boil down my entire view of my country to be one issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are insane if you think it is just oil...
Click to expand...


You're not going to get far when this is how you argue with people who are pretty much on your side but aren't batshit insane like you are


----------



## Shogun




----------



## sinister59

rightwinger said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After your most recent reply I think that I'm getting a clear idea over what kind of meat that you're talking about eating rightwinger.  That puts your reply into the proper prospective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to serving in combat, your son may be as brave as they come. When it comes to interacting with homosexuals, he is a big pussy. Next time he whines to mommy and daddy about having to serve with gays, you need to slap him and tell him he is a big pussy and that his attitudes towards gays were dismissed in the 1980s
> You will do him and the country a great service
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fairness to you son, I do not really think he is a pussy. I think you are using your sons service to the country as a platform to pass on your own outdated anti-gay biases
> As an active member of the military, your son would be privy to the latest information on AIDS and other blood transmitted diseases. He would not be regurgitating Reagan era AIDS fears.
> You, however, have a different agenda that you are trying to pass of as that of our armed services
Click to expand...


I find the moral teaching some troops have is disgusting , to rape a women in you unit because she's a woman is deplorable and its done by "straight" guys , so how you can claim gays are immoral is just stupid unless you think a woman deserves it because of a combat role , and the majority of them are christians like yourself .


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> *Yeah, I bet you served with distinction in the 101st Arm Chair Division at Fort Loving Room. * (momanalhedhunter)
> 
> No, but my son was in Mozul, Iraq with 101st. ABN/ Air Assault, in 2003.  I was in the 1/73rd Arty/ 1/23 INF/ 1/38 INF/ 1/22 Arty.  How about you?



N.M.C.B 74. 1993 to 2002 Google it. And from 2002 to 2006 in the reserve.So he is a cannon cocker in an air assault division or something ?And an officer to? You sure he is not in the rear with the gear ? It would appear so if he has all this time to go to PC classes.


----------



## Cal

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



..Because obviously we all know that straight people aren't susceptible to AIDS..


----------



## blu

kaz said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are alike in our view the US is in the middle east because of oil and it's wrong
> 
> We're different in that I don't boil down my entire view of my country to be one issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are insane if you think it is just oil...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to get far when this is how you argue with people who are pretty much on your side but aren't batshit insane like you are
Click to expand...


if you think the military is used for anything but protecting the empire, whose profits go directly to defense contractors and whose spoils go directly to private corporations, then you aren't on my 'side'. no war since WWII has been about 'freedom' and we only entered WII after congress stopped our corporations from investing in and bankrolling the nazis.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

YoungLefty said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..Because obviously we all know that straight people aren't susceptible to AIDS..
Click to expand...


nor booty sex.


----------



## yota5

"How is it "bolstered" by your military service? I know you served with gays and lesbians, but did you know you did?"  (seawytch)

Any one who has been in a leadership position in the military knows what a profound impact that morale/ esprit de corp have on unit readiness, and wouldn't have to ask.  It sounds as though your primary interest is to give deviants access to the shower room.

What contributes to high morale/ esprit de corps?  Many things do.  None of the of the following  contributing factors have anything to do with gays serving openly in the military.  But, the following factors have everything to do with unit cohesion, and operational competence.

   *The quality of leadership, and training.
   *Having an all volunteer, competent, highly motivated force.
   *A belief in the core values the military represents, and fights for.
   *Loyalty to country, unit, and comrades in arms.
   *A sense of pride in the customs, and traditions of the Military. 
   *A profound sense of camaraderie.  (Those of you who haven't served wont understand.) 

If you go up and reread Granny's post you will find a well articulated reply that gets to the heart of this matter.  Thank you Granny.

Let me say this again. * "Deviants do not belong in the military."* (yota5)


----------



## Qball

My problem with the repeal of DADT was that the study used to gauge attitudes on openly gay soldiers didn't specifically ask whether the troops wanted to serve with gay soldiers or if they felt DADT should be repealed. I get why they don't consult troops on policy matters, but then, it looks  curiously timid to ask around the issue instead of being direct. My guess is they were just looking for cover to simply repeal it so liberals wouldn't be disappointed.


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> "How is it "bolstered" by your military service? I know you served with gays and lesbians, but did you know you did?"  (seawytch)
> 
> Any one who has been in a leadership position in the military knows what a profound impact that morale/ esprit de corp have on unit readiness, and wouldn't have to ask.  It sounds as though your primary interest is to give deviants access to the shower room.
> 
> What contributes to high morale/ esprit de corps?  Many things do.  None of the of the following  contributing factors have anything to do with gays serving openly in the military.  But, the following factors have everything to do with unit cohesion, and operational competence.
> 
> *The quality of leadership, and training.
> *Having an all volunteer, competent, highly motivated force.
> *A belief in the core values the military represents, and fights for.
> *Loyalty to country, unit, and comrades in arms.
> *A sense of pride in the customs, and traditions of the Military.
> *A profound sense of camaraderie.  (Those of you who haven't served wont understand.)
> 
> If you go up and reread Granny's post you will find a well articulated reply that gets to the heart of this matter.  Thank you Granny.
> 
> Let me say this again. * "Deviants do not belong in the military."* (yota5)



So, enlighten us if you would on who qualifies as a deviant?  It would be good to know who needs to be kicked out of and prevented from joining the military.


----------



## Political Junky

No other country has reported problems with having openly gay people in their military.


----------



## rightwinger

Political Junky said:


> No other country has reported problems with having openly gay people in their military.



Our soldiers are more sensitive than other countries


----------



## yota5

"Homosexuality is about sexuality. The esprit d'corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality. There is no reason for it to be a "gay right" to inject sexuality into that mix. If it is a need for individual homosexuals to do this, they shouldn't serve. This is as it is for heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals who cannot contain themselves, who must overtly express sexual intentions in the workplace, end up out of today's military also. The sacrifice of our youth in the service of our nation is heroic enough. Their unit cohesion depends on brotherhood and trust. That brotherhood (and, where applicable, sisterhood) depends, to a great extent, on the ability to overcome the need to make overt one's sexuality and sexual intentions. Making "gay rights" an issue by injecting sexuality into dormitories, showers, and foxholes is not in the best interests of the military.

There are many areas of life and society in which America willingly chooses to help those who are, in any way, limited by the conditions or birth or nature. We willingly place wheel chair ramps for the handicapped and provide brail for the blind in public education. We are a kind and magnanimous people. We consider the effects of poverty on educational development and seek to compensate so that the playing field is level for all. We even allow for mental disease to mitigate in our judgments of criminal offenses. However, in the military and in emergency services, ability, and only ability, should be the criteria for service. Weakness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be enshrined in the military codes as "protected" in any way."

Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve "Openly" in the Military


----------



## Toome

Interesting thread.

1.  No, I don't think the average troop is homophobic nor obsessed with what he or she is going to do when gay soldiers are allowed to be open about it.  Soldiers already know that they serve with gays, they know who they are and all they really care about is whether or not that soldier will do his or her job when the shit hits the fan.  The military will still have its rules regarding conduct.  So if there's some fear that soldiers will somehow become flamboyant and prance around the parade field, that's a pretty narrow-minded and stupid stereotype.  All troops will still have to toe the line, march straight and keep the formation aligned.

2.  There's another huge stereotype being perpetuated in here about gay soldiers.  FACTS show that those who have come out in protest to the DADT policy have been soldiers decorated for actions in combat; they've come from combat MOSes as well as non-combat MOSes.  So if you think this is a REMF-only issue, then you're being stupid and ignorant of the real world.  Zero credibility in my book.

3.  When I was stationed in Korea, I heard all about some of the venereal diseases that make HIV look like a bad cough.  And no matter how often you put the word out about sexually transmitted diseases, the troops will do what they want because the medics' schedule is still busy with cases of STDs.  However, I'll say this for the military, when it comes to taking precautions against bloodborne transfers of diseases, the military is pretty top-notch.  The likelihood of getting HIV through a blood transfusion is pretty low.  The likelihood of catching a disease because of poor personal choices, however, still remains high.  It's practically a tradition that dates back through the years and boils down to thinking straight with one head but making decisions with the other head.

4.  Deviant behavior?  One may argue that dropping a bomb over a designated target is pretty deviant when there's no sure-fire guarantee against accidentally killing an innocent non-combatant.  Getting up close and personal with a fellow human being and carving your knife up his back to get to the heart and learning how to accept that as your "duty" is pretty deviant behavior.  Sorry, spare me the lectures about what's deviant and what isn't.  I support the job our troops have to do, and I know what it is they have to do to survive.  However, I also know that they have to somehow put all of that behind them and find a way to turn it off when they come home and try to adjust to "normal" living.

Gays already serve.  Have been for years.  They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.

rltw


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other country has reported problems with having openly gay people in their military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our soldiers are more sensitive than other countries
Click to expand...


Well sure, they're gay.  Ours also pick out nicer tapestry...


----------



## kaz

Toome said:


> Gays already serve.  Have been for years.  They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.
> 
> rltw



That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy.  There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.

The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.


----------



## Montrovant

kaz said:


> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays already serve.  Have been for years.  They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.
> 
> rltw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy.  There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
Click to expand...


I don't think the issue is a need to tell.  Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse?  I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.


----------



## kaz

Montrovant said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays already serve.  Have been for years.  They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.
> 
> rltw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy.  There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the issue is a need to tell.  Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
Click to expand...

Don't ask don't tell solved that.



Montrovant said:


> Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse?  I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.



I don't shower and sleep with the women I work with.  To not be able to say, "My husband is Steve" seems like a pretty small price to pay.  You seem like you're still stuck on the need for the political statement.


----------



## yota5

Toome, I see from your unit patch that you were in the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade (Airborne.)  Let me be the first to thank you for your service to this country.  You've earned the right to your opinion.  I have earned that right too.  

You and will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this matter.  My most recent reply above address' the sexual aspect of this issue directly.  I can't think of anyone that I've served with, veterans that I've met, or current active duty personnel that agrees with the concept of gays serving actively in the military. 

I believe that unit cohesion, and esprit de corp is at risk here.  Active duty personnel have been ordered to keep their mouths shut about this matter.  You know the drill.  These suppressive measures don't make the problem go away.  It continues to fester, and the troops feel as thought they've been betrayed.  I don't see how that can lead to a positive outcome.


----------



## sinister59

Montrovant said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays already serve.  Have been for years.  They just don't want to be treated unfairly once they're found out.
> 
> rltw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy.  There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the issue is a need to tell.  Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
> Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse?  I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.
Click to expand...


I agree


----------



## kaz

sinister59 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why don't ask don't tell was a good policy.  There is no reason gays shouldn't serve and making it as it was before don't ask don't tell made it a serious security risk because of blackmail.
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the issue is a need to tell.  Instead, I think it is not having to worry that if someone is found out to be gay, they will be discharged.
> Would you describe it as needing to tell people you are a heterosexual if you discussed your spouse?  I certainly would not, yet that seems to be what you are saying when it comes to homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree
Click to expand...


You agree we should ignore that we have don't ask don't tell and continue to fight the battle that's over and won?


----------



## yota5

Gays in the Military
Obama&#8217;s social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a startling statement in congressional testimony last week. When asked if allowing open homosexuals into the U.S. military would lead to a mass exodus of troops from active service, he boldly declared that they can &#8220;find another place to work.&#8221;

Such a cavalier response to a U.S. senator&#8217;s serious inquiry may play well in the press and in the current commander-in-chief&#8217;s office, but it illuminates a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness and foreshadows serious adverse consequences for our national security. If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, we&#8217;re all in deep trouble.

At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: &#8220;The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.&#8221;

67 percent of all Marines, more than 60 percent of special-operations personnel, and 57 percent of soldiers in Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt military efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness, and retention. Overall, 35 percent of service members deployed overseas said that changing the law in current circumstances would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And, perhaps most telling, nearly one-third of all those who are now part of the best-educated, best-trained, and most-combat-experienced military in history will consider &#8220;getting out&#8221; rather than serve side by side with openly homosexual men or lesbians.

Our all-volunteer military, particularly the Marines, Army combat arms, and special-operations forces &#8212; and their families at home &#8212; are making extraordinary sacrifices to protect us from an implacable enemy. The young Americans I see on the battlefields of Mesopotamia and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush are warriors in the crucible of mortal combat. They deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obama&#8217;s radical social experiment.

&#8212; Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret.), is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, author of the New York Times&#8211;bestselling American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance. 

Gays in the Military - Oliver North - National Review Online


----------



## kaz

yota5 said:


> Gays in the Military
> Obamas social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.
> 
> Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a startling statement in congressional testimony last week. When asked if allowing open homosexuals into the U.S. military would lead to a mass exodus of troops from active service, he boldly declared that they can find another place to work.
> 
> Such a cavalier response to a U.S. senators serious inquiry may play well in the press and in the current commander-in-chiefs office, but it illuminates a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness and foreshadows serious adverse consequences for our national security. If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, were all in deep trouble.
> 
> At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
> 
> 67 percent of all Marines, more than 60 percent of special-operations personnel, and 57 percent of soldiers in Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt military efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness, and retention. Overall, 35 percent of service members deployed overseas said that changing the law in current circumstances would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And, perhaps most telling, nearly one-third of all those who are now part of the best-educated, best-trained, and most-combat-experienced military in history will consider getting out rather than serve side by side with openly homosexual men or lesbians.
> 
> Our all-volunteer military, particularly the Marines, Army combat arms, and special-operations forces  and their families at home  are making extraordinary sacrifices to protect us from an implacable enemy. The young Americans I see on the battlefields of Mesopotamia and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush are warriors in the crucible of mortal combat. They deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obamas radical social experiment.
> 
>  Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret.), is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, author of the New York Timesbestselling American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
> 
> Gays in the Military - Oliver North - National Review Online



The military's to blame for this, it's payback for their own success.  They have been so successful Democrats no longer grasp they live in a dangerous world.  In the rest of the world they recognize the threat and that the military protects them.  The left in this country's disconnect from the reality of the world we live in where they're more interested in driving their social agenda then helping the military perform it's mission.  They hysterically think our most important military issue is having gays serve openly.  This level of cluelessness could never have been achieved without such extraordinary accomplishment.  I suppose in a way it's a compliment.


----------



## Zona

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



So "the troops" are you sons words?  Great factual thread.  I appreciate you linking us to something tangible.  YOu know, your sons views on this. 

I can link you to someone saying the complete opposite of course but so what, your son said so, so it must be true.

I can tell you during my 20, most could care less if they served with gays.  Do a good job and tell everyone to stay out of your bedroom.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> "Homosexuality is about sexuality. The esprit d'corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality. There is no reason for it to be a "gay right" to inject sexuality into that mix. If it is a need for individual homosexuals to do this, they shouldn't serve. This is as it is for heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals who cannot contain themselves, who must overtly express sexual intentions in the workplace, end up out of today's military also. The sacrifice of our youth in the service of our nation is heroic enough. Their unit cohesion depends on brotherhood and trust. That brotherhood (and, where applicable, sisterhood) depends, to a great extent, on the ability to overcome the need to make overt one's sexuality and sexual intentions. Making "gay rights" an issue by injecting sexuality into dormitories, showers, and foxholes is not in the best interests of the military.
> 
> There are many areas of life and society in which America willingly chooses to help those who are, in any way, limited by the conditions or birth or nature. We willingly place wheel chair ramps for the handicapped and provide brail for the blind in public education. We are a kind and magnanimous people. We consider the effects of poverty on educational development and seek to compensate so that the playing field is level for all. We even allow for mental disease to mitigate in our judgments of criminal offenses. However, in the military and in emergency services, ability, and only ability, should be the criteria for service. Weakness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be enshrined in the military codes as "protected" in any way."
> 
> Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve "Openly" in the Military



Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military?  You are the one trying to kick them out


----------



## yota5

You keep trying to get into that shower room don't you rightwinger.  That may turn out to be a very painful experience.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> You keep trying to get into that shower room don't you rightwinger.  That may turn out to be a very painful experience.



Why are you afraid of showers?

Personal inadequacies?


----------



## yota5

Why are you afraid of showers?  Personal inadequacies?  (rightwinger)

No fear here rightwinger.  Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body.  No fear is there.  I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion.  Do you know what I mean?


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Why are you afraid of showers?  Personal inadequacies?  (rightwinger)
> 
> No fear here rightwinger.  Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body.  No fear is there.  I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion.  Do you know what I mean?



Keep your sexual fantasies off the board


----------



## Gadawg73

Qball said:


> My problem with the repeal of DADT was that the study used to gauge attitudes on openly gay soldiers didn't specifically ask whether the troops wanted to serve with gay soldiers or if they felt DADT should be repealed. I get why they don't consult troops on policy matters, but then, it looks  curiously timid to ask around the issue instead of being direct. My guess is they were just looking for cover to simply repeal it so liberals wouldn't be disappointed.



Barry Goldwater called for the repeal many, many years ago.
He wasn't a liberal and was military.


----------



## yota5

No sexual fantasies from me rightwinger.  Besides your the one who is talking about meat and pudding.  Maybe you should clean up around your own porch.


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> Gays in the Military
> Obamas social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.
> 
> Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a startling statement in congressional testimony last week. When asked if allowing open homosexuals into the U.S. military would lead to a mass exodus of troops from active service, he boldly declared that they can find another place to work.
> 
> Such a cavalier response to a U.S. senators serious inquiry may play well in the press and in the current commander-in-chiefs office, but it illuminates a deeply misguided commitment to political correctness and foreshadows serious adverse consequences for our national security. If tens of thousands of troops now serving in the finest military force the world has ever known vote with their feet in the midst of a war, were all in deep trouble.
> 
> At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
> 
> 67 percent of all Marines, more than 60 percent of special-operations personnel, and 57 percent of soldiers in Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt military efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness, and retention. Overall, 35 percent of service members deployed overseas said that changing the law in current circumstances would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And, perhaps most telling, nearly one-third of all those who are now part of the best-educated, best-trained, and most-combat-experienced military in history will consider getting out rather than serve side by side with openly homosexual men or lesbians.
> 
> Our all-volunteer military, particularly the Marines, Army combat arms, and special-operations forces  and their families at home  are making extraordinary sacrifices to protect us from an implacable enemy. The young Americans I see on the battlefields of Mesopotamia and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush are warriors in the crucible of mortal combat. They deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obamas radical social experiment.
> 
>  Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret.), is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, author of the New York Timesbestselling American Heroes in Special Operations, and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
> 
> Gays in the Military - Oliver North - National Review Online



It is not "Obama's social experiment"
The Pentagon, Gates and Mullen all advocate it.
Get over it. This is not a priority. If it was your son would be here posting that it is a priority. He isn't and no other active duty have. I also have concerns about enacting this in war time but it should have been done 30 years ago. 
Tell us with a straight face that when you served if you were pinned down by enemy fire and a tank came to blow away the enemy and you knew the commander of the tank was gay you would radio the tank "Leave me here. I do not want a deviant saving me".
Yeah, right. So quit shitting us.
That is the real world. You know it, I know it and EVERYONE knows it.
If a gay or lesbian can not do their job BOOT THEM OUT, NO special favors for anyone.
And when this is initated I want NO special treatment for anyone. NO PC BS but they should be allowed to serve openly.
We all heard the blacks were not good enough when I played in the late 60s and early 70s.
They proved they could carry their fair share.
Shouldn't that be the standard? That is the standard from now on. If they can get the job done they are allowed. 
Case closed. Move on  to something important like the deficit and debt.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> No sexual fantasies from me rightwinger.  Besides your the one who is talking about meat and pudding.  Maybe you should clean up around your own porch.



You are demonstrating your cultural illiteracy to go with your homophobic rants


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military?



I think that's what they're trying to avoid...


----------



## Gadawg73

What North is claiming in his article is that combat troops are more concerned with the sexuality of fellow soldiers than doing what they are supposed to to:
Their job.
How is knowing the sexuality of another soldier affect the combat readiness of anyone?
Not very professional if you are that way. Accordingly, if that does bother you and are so undisciplined as a soldier you need to find another job.


----------



## rightwinger

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's what they're trying to avoid...
Click to expand...


How so?

Are you claiming homosexuals are less professional than other soldiers?


----------



## yota5

Ed Norton would roll in his grave if he knew that you were using his image.


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have homosexuals inserted their sexuality into the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's what they're trying to avoid...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Are you claiming homosexuals are less professional than other soldiers?
Click to expand...


Wow, you didn't get it?


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> seems like troops are not as professional as they should be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, some find it necessary to join the military and then tell other people what their sexual orientation is.  Sounds like a political objective rather then a defending your country objective.  Not at all professional in that profession.
Click to expand...


Way to completely mischaracterize the issue.  Nobody's talking about having gay pride parades on post, or rubbing one's sexual orientation in other people's faces.  But under the DADT policy a gay service member was breaking the law simply by kissing their partner, even if in the privacy of their own home.  The UCMJ applies to service members AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL PLACES.  So if a service member went to visit his/her parents, and said "Mom and dad, I'm gay" then that service member would be violating the law, and could be subject to discharge if his/her chain of command happened to be walking past the window and overheard.  Yes, it was called "Don't ask, don't tell" but under the law as it was written any homosexual _conduct_ was explicitly prohibited as being "incompatible" with military service.  Let's stop pretending the ugly duck is going to grow up into a beautiful swan, and let's call a duck a duck.  Up until now, the military has been discriminating against gay people for no good reason.

There is nothing unprofessional about a gay service member wanting the law to allow him/her to serve his/her country without a requirement that s/he abstain from sex for the entirety of his/her term of service.  There is nothing unprofessional about a service member wanting the same rights and protections as others, and to not have those rights and protections defined based on his/her sexual orientation.  I realize that your irrational hatred for homosexuality creates a force of emotion inside you that makes you feel like it MUST be wrong for SOME reason.  But the truth is that you are, based on your own demonstration, completely ignorant on the issue and how it plays out in the real world.  And probably a little too personally involved to make a meaningful opinion, since you seem to be driven by an insecurity over your own sexual orientation.


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> Awe come on momanalhedhunter, don't yank a knot in your shorts.  I don't want you to break anything.  If you want me to respect your homosexual point of view then you must give equal respect to my point of view.  *Deviants do not belong in the military.  *  One last thing.  If it thinks like REMF, and it writes like a REMF, then it's a REMF.  By the way I did serve.



Gays aren't deviants.  But I'll tell you who doesn't belong in the military:  Your son.  If he is so prejudice toward his fellow American, unwilling to risk his life to save a fellow brother or sister in arms, and is so detached from a love for protecting people's equal rights and freedoms, then he has no place in the military.  He is a disgrace to his uniform.  I served with people who were gay.  I knew it, pretty much everyone knew it.  We didn't care.  We did not fear them.  We protected them from discover from the chain of command.  We saw them as human beings and fellow soldiers.  It has been my honor to know them.


----------



## Grace

The guy next to you watching your back is the guy watching your back. And your son should be watching his. If one falls, the other picks him up. And vice versa. Period.


----------



## Grace

yota5 said:


> Why are you afraid of showers?  Personal inadequacies?  (rightwinger)
> 
> No fear here rightwinger.  Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body.  No fear is there.  I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion.  Do you know what I mean?



I truly hope your son makes it home safe and sound and if he is sent back, he stays safe and sound. I also hope if he falls, the guys shielding him with their own bodies from further harm dont have the mindset of your son because those guys happen to be gay.


----------



## yota5

IIMERU, thank you for the kind words about my son.  They are appreciated.  However, on this issue we will have to continue to disagree.  When I served I trusted my battle buddies with my life.  In turn they trusted me.  I didn't trust gays back then.  I don't trust them today.  I can't remember one active duty soldier that I've talked to recently that feels any differently.  You may not agree with that, but that is just the way it is.  Unfortunately, your opinions wont change that view point to any measurable degree.  That is why a lot of very good people have indicated that they wont reenlist.   They as do I feel that political correctness doesn't belong in a fox hole.


----------



## Grace

Whats going on in a fox hole is men and women fighting to save their own lives, the lives of their brothers and sisters in arms, and for our country. Nothing else matters.
To put a value of sexual preference in such a situation is....sad.


----------



## blu

IMEURU said:


> Whats going on in a fox hole is men and women fighting to save their own lives, the lives of their brothers and sisters in arms, and for our country. Nothing else matters.
> To put a value of sexual preference in such a situation is....sad.



its what jesus would have done


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Well I can see that my post drew out openly gay deviants.  Good Morning.  Unprotected gay sex subsequent to HIV testing poses a real threat.  HIV is spread through direct contact with blood.  That is why it is classified as a most dangerous bio-hazard at any accident scene.  Universal precautions are observed.  If you pin heads had really served in the military you would know this.
> 
> By the way my pussy son, has served 3 combat tours in Iraq.  His unit has been tapped for deployment to Afghanistan.  At the moment he is passing on the skills that he honed in combat to deploying troops at Camp Shelby.  He is a war fighter trainer.  What have you maggots done for your country lately?  Whining doesn't count.



Ah...the plot thickens.   

Care to show us the increased threat of HIV in the military now?   How do you....I mean, your son...figure this?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> It is interesting seeing responses from people who've never put their butts on the line.  I'll say this again HIV testing occurs every 12  months.   A lot of nefarious activity can happen in that time.  You should be aware that HIV testing isn't a cure.  If a homo, engages in unprotected sex subsequent to HIV testing the threat of HIV isn't diminished.  If you doubt what I say ask your doctor.  The fear of  HIV isn't a component that you want to introduce to the equation when the troops are on the battle field with blood and gore flying all over.  I know that is a hard scenario to fathom when your sitting smugly and safely behind your key board.  Then again REMFS have always had that problem.



21 years retired Navy here.   You are spewing a load of dingos' kidneys my friend.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Awe come on momanalhedhunter, don't yank a knot in your shorts.  I don't want you to break anything.  If you want me to respect your homosexual point of view then you must give equal respect to my point of view.  *Deviants do not belong in the military.  *  One last thing.  If it thinks like REMF, and it writes like a REMF, then it's a REMF.  By the way I did serve.



Methinks you are spinning a tale here about any "son".


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Why are you afraid of showers?  Personal inadequacies?  (rightwinger)
> 
> No fear here rightwinger.  Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body.  No fear is there.  I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion.  Do you know what I mean?



Why are you under the mistaken impression that someone would want to look at you in the shower?


----------



## Dr Grump

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



Your boy and his pals should harden the fuck up or get out of the military. Gays have been serving in the military since adam. A lot of people who are not gay have HIV.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> IIMERU, thank you for the kind words about my son.  They are appreciated.  However, on this issue we will have to continue to disagree.  When I served I trusted my battle buddies with my life.  In turn they trusted me.  I didn't trust gays back then.  I don't trust them today.  I can't remember one active duty soldier that I've talked to recently that feels any differently.  You may not agree with that, but that is just the way it is.  Unfortunately, your opinions wont change that view point to any measurable degree.  That is why a lot of very good people have indicated that they wont reenlist.   They as do I feel that political correctness doesn't belong in a fox hole.



Obviously, it would not have been a wise thing for any of your gay ship mates to trust you.


----------



## Toome

yota5 said:


> Toome, I see from your unit patch that you were in the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade (Airborne.)  Let me be the first to thank you for your service to this country.  You've earned the right to your opinion.  I have earned that right too.
> 
> You and will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this matter.  My most recent reply above address' the sexual aspect of this issue directly.  I can't think of anyone that I've served with, veterans that I've met, or current active duty personnel that agrees with the concept of gays serving actively in the military.
> 
> I believe that unit cohesion, and esprit de corp is at risk here.  Active duty personnel have been ordered to keep their mouths shut about this matter.  You know the drill.  These suppressive measures don't make the problem go away.  It continues to fester, and the troops feel as thought they've been betrayed.  I don't see how that can lead to a positive outcome.



Fair enough.

I agree that the military tends to be heavy-handed when it comes to these Kumbaya training situations by force-feeding these new concepts.  Seems that the upper crust has forgotten that the troops in the trenches will sort things out themselves.  It was one of the things I found hypocritical when Congress came out with the Honor and Dignity Act, or whatever it was called.  That was when the military decided to pull out all the Penthouse magazines from the PX because it somehow smeared the image of the fighting soldier.  Yet troops were being trained how to thrust their bayonets into certain vulnerability areas in order to efficiently kill their enemy.

Regarding gays in the military, I think we will eventually evolve just like society has evolved.  The only requirement for gays or anyone else is to dress-right-dress, aim at the center of mass and never leave a fallen comrade behind.  Do those three things, and I don't think it matters whether that soldier is a devout Christian, atheist, black, white, male, female, gay or straight.

Like I said, I think the troops on the ground will sort these things out.

Thank you for your service.  Hope your son returns home safely.


----------



## yota5

Thanks for the kind words Toome. Until my sons deployed I never realized just how much my mother went through when I served.  I was lucky.  While my boys and I we stayed in touch daily by e-mail.  My mother had to rely on snail mail.  That made her wait much harder.  I can see now why she would chew me out with such gusto for being too busy to write.

Mike is a scout with the 278th RCT.  His job was to clear convoy routes of IEDs in Iraq.  He has experienced danger up close, and personal.  He's survived IEDs, and one suicide bomber that blew himself up, and the little girl that he'd abducted for cover outside of FOB Cobra.  It's funny how you never hear those stores in the news, but then that is another topic.

Mikes younger brother Steve, served in Iraq with the 101st ABN/ Air Assault.  He was in the push from Kuwait, to Baghdad, and then on  to Mosul.  His unit saw a lot of hard fighting along the way. 

There is a long military tradition in this family.  I'm very proud of my boys.  Both of them answered the call and served well.

The bottom line Toome, is that our young warriors go through a lot.  They give 200%, 24/7.  We have the finest military in the world because our young warriors make it so.  Our troops feel betrayed.  

Your probably right that the military will evolve.  It always does.   The military has a long history of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, selfless service, and personal courage.  I just think that this latest social engineering experiment will be a very painful process.  

Toome, we'll probably never change each others minds on this subject.  But, I must say that it has been refreshing to disagree with someone on an issue, and still have a rational, reasoned debate.  I wish you the best.  Have a good day.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> "How is it "bolstered" by your military service? I know you served with gays and lesbians, but did you know you did?"  (seawytch)
> 
> Any one who has been in a leadership position in the military knows what a profound impact that morale/ esprit de corp have on unit readiness, and wouldn't have to ask.  It sounds as though your primary interest is to give deviants access to the shower room.
> 
> What contributes to high morale/ esprit de corps?  Many things do.  None of the of the following  contributing factors have anything to do with gays serving openly in the military.  But, the following factors have everything to do with unit cohesion, and operational competence.
> 
> *The quality of leadership, and training.
> *Having an all volunteer, competent, highly motivated force.
> *A belief in the core values the military represents, and fights for.
> *Loyalty to country, unit, and comrades in arms.
> *A sense of pride in the customs, and traditions of the Military.
> *A profound sense of camaraderie.  (Those of you who haven't served wont understand.)
> 
> If you go up and reread Granny's post you will find a well articulated reply that gets to the heart of this matter.  Thank you Granny.
> 
> Let me say this again. * "Deviants do not belong in the military."* (yota5)



None of the things you listed have anything to do with a persons sexual orientation. There is ZERO evidence that having honestly serving gays and lesbians will have any affect on unit cohesion or moral. In fact, all the evidence points to the opposite (as shown by over a score of our allies that have lifted their bans without incident). Do you think our troops are less professional than theirs?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.



Why is it necessary for heterosexuals to "tell"? Gays and lesbians want to serve under the *exact* same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under and not have a separate, much more restrictive, set of rules just for them.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Thanks for the kind words Toome. Until my sons deployed I never realized just how much my mother went through when I served.  I was lucky.  While my boys and I we stayed in touch daily by e-mail.  My mother had to rely on snail mail.  That made her wait much harder.  I can see now why she would chew me out with such gusto for being too busy to write.
> 
> Mike is a scout with the 278th RCT.  His job was to clear convoy routes of IEDs in Iraq.  He has experienced danger up close, and personal.  He's survived IEDs, and one suicide bomber that blew himself up, and the little girl that he'd abducted for cover outside of FOB Cobra.  It's funny how you never hear those stores in the news, but then that is another topic.
> 
> Mikes younger brother Steve, served in Iraq with the 101st ABN/ Air Assault.  He was in the push from Kuwait, to Baghdad, and then on  to Mosul.  His unit saw a lot of hard fighting along the way.
> 
> There is a long military tradition in this family.  I'm very proud of my boys.  Both of them answered the call and served well.
> 
> *The bottom line Toome, is that our young warriors go through a lot.  They give 200%, 24/7. * We have the finest military in the world because our young warriors make it so.  Our troops feel betrayed.
> 
> Your probably right that the military will evolve.  It always does.   *The military has a long history of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, selfless service, and personal courage*.  I just think that this latest social engineering experiment will be a very painful process.
> 
> Toome, we'll probably never change each others minds on this subject.  But, I must say that it has been refreshing to disagree with someone on an issue, and still have a rational, reasoned debate.  I wish you the best.  Have a good day.



Actually, the bottom line is that those troops who happen to be gay also go thru a lot.   They also give 200%, 24/7.  They also are part of that long history of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, selfless service, and personal courage.


----------



## yota5

Seawtch, you've never served.  You do not have a frame of reference.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  Therefore, your opinions aren't valid.  Now run along, and hang out in the shower at the Y.  I don't have to tell you to enjoy yourself.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Seawtch, you've never served.  You do not have a frame of reference.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  Therefore, your opinions aren't valid.  Now run along, and hang out in the shower at the Y.  I don't have to tell you to enjoy yourself.



How do you know Seawytch has never served?   Are you privy to Military records and her real name?


----------



## yota5

*"How do you know Seawytch has never served? Are you privy to Military records and her real name?" * (Bodecea)

If you had served you wouldn't need to ask that question.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> *"How do you know Seawytch has never served? Are you privy to Military records and her real name?" * (Bodecea)
> 
> If you had served you wouldn't need to ask that question.



Apparently, you don't even read your own thread....I've already told you...I'm retired Navy.   21 years and retired as an O-5.   You?


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Thanks for the kind words Toome. Until my sons deployed I never realized just how much my mother went through when I served.  I was lucky.  While my boys and I we stayed in touch daily by e-mail.  My mother had to rely on snail mail.  That made her wait much harder.  I can see now why she would chew me out with such gusto for being too busy to write.
> 
> Mike is a scout with the 278th RCT.  His job was to clear convoy routes of IEDs in Iraq.  He has experienced danger up close, and personal.  He's survived IEDs, and one suicide bomber that blew himself up, and the little girl that he'd abducted for cover outside of FOB Cobra.  It's funny how you never hear those stores in the news, but then that is another topic.
> 
> Mikes younger brother Steve, served in Iraq with the 101st ABN/ Air Assault.  He was in the push from Kuwait, to Baghdad, and then on  to Mosul.  His unit saw a lot of hard fighting along the way.
> 
> There is a long military tradition in this family.  I'm very proud of my boys.  Both of them answered the call and served well.
> 
> The bottom line Toome, is that our young warriors go through a lot.  They give 200%, 24/7.  We have the finest military in the world because our young warriors make it so.  Our troops feel betrayed.
> 
> Your probably right that the military will evolve.  It always does.   The military has a long history of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, selfless service, and personal courage.  I just think that this latest social engineering experiment will be a very painful process.
> 
> Toome, we'll probably never change each others minds on this subject.  But, I must say that it has been refreshing to disagree with someone on an issue, and still have a rational, reasoned debate.  I wish you the best.  Have a good day.



So why shouldn't someones gay son be given the right to give 200% 24/7 In serving his country???


----------



## Dr.Drock

I read the first two pages, it was funny watching how quickly the OP was exposed.  

In the 1st post he pretended his first concern was health, then it became pretty obvious that he didn't like it solely because he's a homophobe.

Why can't people just be honest?  There's a lot of homophobes in here who will pat you on the back for hating gays cuz they're gay.  

Kinda seems like someone is a little bit ashamed, for good reason.

DADT repeal is probably about the dumbest story ever.  Has no affect on anything.  There were gays in the military before, are now, will be in the future.  People think a law in Washington will all of a sudden have gays talking openly with other soldiers about being gay when they didn't before?  Does anyone ever try to put a little common sense into their thoughts or is everything a sensationalized, talking point backed, freak out session?


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Seawtch, you've never served.  You do not have a frame of reference.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  Therefore, your opinions aren't valid.  Now run along, and hang out in the shower at the Y.  I don't have to tell you to enjoy yourself.



USCG Chief Petty Officer, Retired


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, you've never served.  You do not have a frame of reference.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  Therefore, your opinions aren't valid.  Now run along, and hang out in the shower at the Y.  I don't have to tell you to enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USCG Chief Petty Officer, Retired
Click to expand...


Coastie!     You guys were always fun to work with.


----------



## Seawytch

So Yota, we've determined that you are, in fact, having a conversation with people who have BTDT. Wanna try responding instead of dismissing everyone's opinions because they "never served"? 

Are you aware that the first Marine wounded in the current Iraq conflict was gay?


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Seawytch said:


> So Yota, we've determined that you are, in fact, having a conversation with people who have BTDT. Wanna try responding instead of dismissing everyone's opinions because they "never served"?
> 
> Are you aware that the first Marine wounded in the current Iraq conflict was gay?



He has never served. He bangs on and on about his son. His military experience was from the History Channel. Any way, dont ask dont tell does not change much. And while I do not approve of the Homosexual life style, the last I checked this is America and it is legal to be Gay.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> Seawtch, you've never served.  You do not have a frame of reference.  You really don't know what you're talking about.  Therefore, your opinions aren't valid.  Now run along, and hang out in the shower at the Y.  I don't have to tell you to enjoy yourself.



You googled all of yours.


----------



## rdean

yota5 said:


> *Yeah, I bet you served with distinction in the 101st Arm Chair Division at Fort Loving Room. * (momanalhedhunter)
> 
> No, but my son was in Mozul, Iraq with 101st. ABN/ Air Assault, in 2003.  I was in the 1/73rd Arty/ 1/23 INF/ 1/38 INF/ 1/22 Arty.  How about you?



I was in the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division.  Far more dangerous than the gays were the right wingers who threatened everybody and tried to push religion down everyone's throats.  To this day, I still don't understand the fascination with ignorance, mysticism and the occult.  Spooks?  Who woulda thought in this day and age.


----------



## Zona

yota5 said:


> Why are you afraid of showers?  Personal inadequacies?  (rightwinger)
> 
> No fear here rightwinger.  Dealing with deviants is like walking through a cesspool as leaches attach themselves to your body.  No fear is there.  I just have a feeling of absolute revulsion.  Do you know what I mean?



Yes, you are a homophobe.  A few years back, this was said about blacks.  See how well that one turned out for the racists from  back then.


----------



## Zona

rdean said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, I bet you served with distinction in the 101st Arm Chair Division at Fort Loving Room. * (momanalhedhunter)
> 
> No, but my son was in Mozul, Iraq with 101st. ABN/ Air Assault, in 2003.  I was in the 1/73rd Arty/ 1/23 INF/ 1/38 INF/ 1/22 Arty.  How about you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division.  Far more dangerous than the gays were the right wingers who threatened everybody and tried to push religion down everyone's throats.  To this day, I still don't understand the fascination with ignorance, mysticism and the occult.  Spooks?  Who woulda thought in this day and age.
Click to expand...


Damn I am glad you are not gone.


----------



## yota5

One thing that I've learned over the years is that G.I.s have their own vernacular.  We acquire a certain bearing, and work ethic while serving.  None of this can be imitated.  A soldier's bearing can definitely not be acquired through Google, or the military channel.  A military bearing is only acquired by serving.  That is why active duty troops, guardsman, reservist or veterans can spot a fake a mile away.  You don't talk the talk, and your incapable of walking the walk.  Now that we've cleared that up go crawl back under your liberal rocks.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for heterosexuals to "tell"? Gays and lesbians want to serve under the *exact* same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under and not have a separate, much more restrictive, set of rules just for them.
Click to expand...


As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> One thing that I've learned over the years is that G.I.s have their own vernacular.  We acquire a certain bearing, and work ethic while serving.  None of this can be imitated.  A soldier's bearing can definitely not be acquired through Google, or the military channel.  A military bearing is only acquired by serving.  That is why active duty troops, guardsman, reservist or veterans can spot a fake a mile away.  You don't talk the talk, and your incapable of walking the walk.  Now that we've cleared that up go crawl back under your liberal rocks.



One thing I've learned over the years is that there is nothing quite as stupid as a person who thinks everyone in the military thinks and acts like they do.


----------



## ogibillm

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for heterosexuals to "tell"? Gays and lesbians want to serve under the *exact* same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under and not have a separate, much more restrictive, set of rules just for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
Click to expand...


is telling someone that you're married a political statement? should a soldier's same sex partner be excluded from the resources and support of an FRG group to prevent the soldier from making what you call a politcal statement?

my wife and i went on a group outing with the other soldiers she works with and their families last week. was that a political statement being made by each of them?


----------



## Grace

Code Talkers had no reason whatsoever to help those who treated them so poorly, either. But they did. Willingly. Why? Because this is their country too. And if it werent for those Code Talkers, things may have turned out a tad different.
Gays are in the military not to find male poontang. They are there to fight for what everyone else is fighting for. The USA. Freedoms we have and that many right here use every day while talking over the corpse of someone who died for that right.


----------



## yota5

"*As I said, it's a political statement.* Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military."  (Kaz)

The operative word here is sexual, not political.  When I'm showering, and the guy standing behind me has a woody I don't experience warm fuzzy feelings.  At the same time a civilian co-worker told me that they were gay it wouldn't matter to me.  They have a right to make that choice.  I have the right to live by the morals, and code of ethics that matter to me.  I don't shower with them, and I damn sure don't have to go to war with them.

When you go to war with some one *"Trust"* becomes the operative word.  Esprit de Corp, becomes everything.  That one element is the reason that an American unit will fight on against insurmountable odds.  When the shit hits the fan it comes down to you and your battle buddies.  Nothing else matters.  All the sensitivity training in the world wont change that.

One last thing.  It is not a right to serve in the U.S. Military; it is an honor.


----------



## ogibillm

yota5 said:


> "*As I said, it's a political statement.* Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military."  (Kaz)
> 
> The operative word here is sexual, not political.  When I'm showering, and the guy standing behind me has a woody I don't experience warm fuzzy feelings.  At the same time a civilian co-worker told me that they were gay it wouldn't matter to me.  They have a right to make that choice.  I have the right to live by the morals, and code of ethics that matter to me.  I don't shower with them, and I damn sure don't have to go to war with them.
> 
> When you go to war with some one *"Trust"* becomes the operative word.  Esprit de Corp, becomes everything.  That one element is the reason that an American unit will fight on against insurmountable odds.  When the shit hits the fan it comes down to you and your battle buddies.  Nothing else matters.  All the sensitivity training in the world wont change that.
> 
> One last thing.  It is not a right to serve in the U.S. Military; it is an honor.



i'm a little confused here - are you saying that you find homosexuals inherently untrustworthy?


----------



## Dr.Drock

yota5 said:


> "*As I said, it's a political statement.* Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military."  (Kaz)
> 
> The operative word here is sexual, not political.  When I'm showering, and the guy standing behind me has a woody I don't experience warm fuzzy feelings.  At the same time a civilian co-worker told me that they were gay it wouldn't matter to me.  They have a right to make that choice.  I have the right to live by the morals, and code of ethics that matter to me.  I don't shower with them, and I damn sure don't have to go to war with them.
> 
> When you go to war with some one *"Trust"* becomes the operative word.  Esprit de Corp, becomes everything.  That one element is the reason that an American unit will fight on against insurmountable odds.  When the shit hits the fan it comes down to you and your battle buddies.  Nothing else matters.  All the sensitivity training in the world wont change that.
> 
> One last thing.  It is not a right to serve in the U.S. Military; it is an honor.



Every single post you've made is under the assumption that there were no gays in the military before the repeal of DADT and that there are gays in the military now only because of that.

Obviously, a very idiotic premise to anyone with common sense.

I'll give you some credit though, at least now you aren't pretending that you have this stance because of a health-related fear.  It's just based on you being a bigot.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> "*As I said, it's a political statement.* Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military."  (Kaz)
> 
> The operative word here is sexual, not political.  *When I'm showering, and the guy standing behind me has a woody I don't experience warm fuzzy feelings. * At the same time a civilian co-worker told me that they were gay it wouldn't matter to me.  They have a right to make that choice.  I have the right to live by the morals, and code of ethics that matter to me.  I don't shower with them, and I damn sure don't have to go to war with them.
> 
> When you go to war with some one *"Trust"* becomes the operative word.  Esprit de Corp, becomes everything.  That one element is the reason that an American unit will fight on against insurmountable odds.  When the shit hits the fan it comes down to you and your battle buddies.  Nothing else matters.  All the sensitivity training in the world wont change that.
> 
> One last thing.  It is not a right to serve in the U.S. Military; it is an honor.



You don't have to worry about that scenerio.


----------



## Ravi

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.


How sad that your son is such a coward. He should probably resign from the military if he is operating under this level of fear.


----------



## yota5

"You don't have to worry about that scenerio."  (Bodecea)

Really?  Would you be willing in the share the information that helped you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## Grace

This is just sad. How do you know the guy in the shower with the woody is thinking of a man?
And, why shouldnt you "trust" the guy watching your backside while in hostile environments? What if the guy that isnt gay but has a thing about sheep is guarding your back? He aint gay. He just likes a sheep now and then. Does that make you not trust him? What if he likes having sex with his woman while hanging from a chandelier? Or he likes to wear diapers while having sex? Is it still a trust issue? Or is it only beause he is GAY that makes it a trust issue?

I find this mindset very sad. And disappointing. THat honor you speak of should apply to all. No matter the sexual preference. But to you, and your son, gays are only there to find male sex? Sad indeed.


----------



## Mr Liberty

blu said:


> no one cares what the troops think. they are sheep who signed their lives over to protect our corporations profits.



So you think we should not have a military?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> "You don't have to worry about that scenerio."  (Bodecea)
> 
> Really?  Would you be willing in the share the information that helped you arrive at that conclusion?


You're one of those many, many hetero men who think you are absolutely irresistable to gay men and they cannot help but be attracted to you and want your bod.   When in real life, they could care less about you.


----------



## yota5

"How sad that your son is such a coward. He should probably resign from the military if he is operating under this level of fear."  (Ravi)

Ravi, you are entitled to your opinion.  Freedom of speech is one of the greatest rights that Americans enjoy.  You should be aware that the American military gave you the right to make outrageous statements that bolster your cretinous stature on this board.  You should be thankful of that.

What does matter is that my son has been judged by his peers under very harsh conditions  The men and women that he went to war with found him an acceptable associate, and he has earned their respect.  He's earned mine too.  I had the privilege of watching him become a honorable man.  

The values that matter to a soldier are: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal courage.   These values seem to lack importance with your group.


----------



## yota5

Bodecea, you're one of those gay people that keeps trying to foist your deviant lifestyle on to me.  Give it up.  I only feel revulsion.


----------



## yota5

*"This is just sad. How do you know the guy in the shower with the woody is thinking of a man?"*  (Imeru)

Really?  That is a profound statement.  Thank you Imeru.  I really needed a good laugh today.


----------



## Grace

> The values that matter to a soldier are: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal courage.



Honey, that is your answer right there. Why cant you see it? Just because someone is gay doesnt mean he has none of those things. Hopefully, a gay man wont have to be the one carrying your son to safety. Because if he were...what could you possibly say to him? Thank you, but you repulse me?

btw..just in case you are wondering...I am female. Straight.


----------



## Ravi

yota5 said:


> "How sad that your son is such a coward. He should probably resign from the military if he is operating under this level of fear."  (Ravi)
> 
> Ravi, you are entitled to your opinion.  Freedom of speech is one of the greatest rights that Americans enjoy.  You should be aware that the American military gave you the right to make outrageous statements that bolster your cretinous stature on this board.  You should be thankful of that.
> 
> What does matter is that my son has been judged by his peers under very harsh conditions  The men and women that he went to war with found him an acceptable associate, and he has earned their respect.  He's earned mine too.  I had the privilege of watching him become a honorable man.
> 
> The values that matter to a soldier are: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal courage.   These values seem to lack importance with your group.


There's nothing outrageous about my statement. If he's afraid of gay men then his courage comes into question. Why would you wish to have someone that fears gay people backing you up in battle against actually scary people with weapons? Hopefully he is not in a position of any authority because that would be even worse...he sounds irrational and that is not good officer material.


----------



## Grace

yota5 said:


> *"This is just sad. How do you know the guy in the shower with the woody is thinking of a man?"*  (Imeru)
> 
> Really?  That is a profound statement.  Thank you Imeru.  I really needed a good laugh today.




Dude coulda had a boner the size of manhattan thinking of his girl, but hes bisexual, or, its a pee woody.....so..what do I know?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Bodecea, you're one of those gay people that keeps trying to foist your deviant lifestyle on to me.  Give it up.  I only feel revulsion.





Then it is a mutual win/win situation.   You should not worry at all about gay people trying to foist our lifestyle on you whatsoever.   We DO have standards.


----------



## yota5

Keep dreaming Imeru.  Bodecea, congratulations.  You're out of the closet.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Keep dreaming Imeru.  Bodecea, congratulations.  You're out of the closet.



I was out of the closet a long time ago...I don't go for that cowardly hiding because people like you clutch their pearls and have the Vapors over us.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> "How sad that your son is such a coward. He should probably resign from the military if he is operating under this level of fear."  (Ravi)
> 
> Ravi, you are entitled to your opinion.  Freedom of speech is one of the greatest rights that Americans enjoy.  You should be aware that the American military gave you the right to make outrageous statements that bolster your cretinous stature on this board.  You should be thankful of that.
> 
> What does matter is that my son has been judged by his peers under very harsh conditions  The men and women that he went to war with found him an acceptable associate, and he has earned their respect.  He's earned mine too.  I had the privilege of watching him become a honorable man.
> 
> The values that matter to a soldier are: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal courage.   These values seem to lack importance with your group.



What sexual activities does your son engage in while in his own home?  What sexual fantasies does he have?

Should it matter?


----------



## Dr.Drock

Using the OP's logic why would any woman ever join the military?  Shouldn't she just be worried about getting STD's and thinking that if she's on the battlefield with a man his focus will be on sex and not his fellow soldiers and the mission?


----------



## bodecea

Dr.Drock said:


> Using the OP's logic why would any woman ever join the military?  Shouldn't she just be worried about getting STD's and thinking that if she's on the battlefield with a man his focus will be on sex and not his fellow soldiers and the mission?



I'm guessing the OP isn't too keen on women in the military either.


----------



## yota5

"I'm guessing the OP isn't too keen on women in the military either."  (bodecea)

Negative.  Women, have served honorable for years.  I salute their service.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.



You continue to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that under the DADT law, a soldier telling his or her mother that s/he is gay was illegal.  Homosexual conduct with one's lover was illegal.  You'd like to make this a simple matter of appropriate discussions in the work place.  But that's not what DADT was all about.


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> "You don't have to worry about that scenerio."  (Bodecea)
> 
> Really?  Would you be willing in the share the information that helped you arrive at that conclusion?



In my experience, gay people don't get sexually aroused over homophobe idiots.  So yeah, you're safe.


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> Freedom of speech is one of the greatest rights that Americans enjoy.



And yet you supported a law that unconstitutionally violated the free speech rights of our men and women in uniform.  



> You should be aware that the American military gave you the right to make outrageous statements that bolster your cretinous stature on this board.  You should be thankful of that.



WRONG!!  The government does not give people rights.  Rights belong to the people inherently.



> What does matter is that my son has been judged by his peers under very harsh conditions



Putting aside for a moment that such a claim is unfounded, why is that any more troublesome than gay service men and women being judged harshly by their peers?



> The men and women that he went to war with found him an acceptable associate, and he has earned their respect.  He's earned mine too.  I had the privilege of watching him become a honorable man.



And how is that any less true for any gay service member?



> The values that matter to a soldier are: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal courage.



Let's stop the romanticizing.  The Army values are a facade.  The values that matter to a soldier are killing commies and not getting blown up.


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> Negative.  Women, have served honorable for years.  I salute their service.



And so have gay people.  Yet you want to make special cases out of them.  Why are you so irrationally obsessed with gay people?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one question so far every liberal has failed to answer is why it's necessary for them to tell.  They are in the military, why do they have the burning need to tell the military they want to have sex with other men?  When liberals can answer that question so that the answer is not a political statement I'll support it and not until then.  No soldier should join the military to make any political statement, they should join the military to defend their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for heterosexuals to "tell"? Gays and lesbians want to serve under the *exact* same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under and not have a separate, much more restrictive, set of rules just for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
Click to expand...


Discharging people for the consenting adult they have relations with has nothing to do with serving their country and yet that is what occurs under DADT. It is a FACT that you don't have to tell to be discharged under DADT. You can be discharged if someone else "tells" for you. It is not a political statement for gays and lesbians who serve to want to serve under the *exact same* rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under. 

I'll give you a scenario...

SCENE: Motopool on a Monday morning. 

Soldier asks heterosexual soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"

Heterosexual Soldier: "I got a little poontang from that hot waitress at the E-Club"

Now, let's change the players.

Soldier asks gay soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"

Gay Soldier: "I picked out a new sofa with my partner Brad"

Which soldier would get a discharge with DADT in place?


----------



## Seawytch

Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you *might* finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a fucking shower.


----------



## yota5

Following is an article illustrating some of the nefarious activity gays can be counted on to be involved in.

Prosecutors have launched an investigation into a a second case of alleged sexual abuse at the summer camp where Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown was sexually molested as a child. 

The investigation began after a second former camper, encouraged by Brown's admission, has revealed to his lawyer that he was also sexually abused at Camp Good News, the summer camp Brown attended as a child.

"He was inspired to come forward because Scott Brown came forward. He felt empowered," said Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer representing the man, who was not identified.

Garabedian said the former camper, who is now an adult, came to him two weeks ago and disclosed that when he was a 10-year-old summer camper in 1985 a counselor or assistant director had allegedly abused him. The lawyer took the allegations to the Barnstable County District Attorney's office which has promised to investigate. 

Inspired by Scott Brown, Another Former Camper Reveals Past Sexual Abuse - ABC News


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> Following is an article illustrating some of the nefarious activity gays can be counted on to be involved in.
> 
> Prosecutors have launched an investigation into a a second case of alleged sexual abuse at the summer camp where Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown was sexually molested as a child.
> 
> The investigation began after a second former camper, encouraged by Brown's admission, has revealed to his lawyer that he was also sexually abused at Camp Good News, the summer camp Brown attended as a child.
> 
> "He was inspired to come forward because Scott Brown came forward. He felt empowered," said Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer representing the man, who was not identified.
> 
> Garabedian said the former camper, who is now an adult, came to him two weeks ago and disclosed that when he was a 10-year-old summer camper in 1985 a counselor or assistant director had allegedly abused him. The lawyer took the allegations to the Barnstable County District Attorney's office which has promised to investigate.
> 
> Inspired by Scott Brown, Another Former Camper Reveals Past Sexual Abuse - ABC News



You are trying to suggest that gay people are more likely to commit these crimes.  Truth is that straight people are equally likely to commit these kinds of crimes.


----------



## yota5

"You are trying to suggest that gay people are more likely to commit these crimes. Truth is that straight people are equally likely to commit these kinds of crimes."  (gekaap)

Ahh.  A pseudo-intellectual.  Now how cute is that?  

Sexual deviants commit these crimes against humanity.  People such as that who molest children should be shot where they stand.  Straight men don't molest little boys.  To be fair men, and women do molest children.  They're called pedophiles.  These people are all sexual deviants.  It is a clinical fact that most pedophiles were molested when they were children.  So you might say that this is a self replicating crime.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Following is an article illustrating some of the nefarious activity gays can be counted on to be involved in.
> 
> Prosecutors have launched an investigation into a a second case of alleged sexual abuse at the summer camp where Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown was sexually molested as a child.
> 
> The investigation began after a second former camper, encouraged by Brown's admission, has revealed to his lawyer that he was also sexually abused at Camp Good News, the summer camp Brown attended as a child.
> 
> "He was inspired to come forward because Scott Brown came forward. He felt empowered," said Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer representing the man, who was not identified.
> 
> Garabedian said the former camper, who is now an adult, came to him two weeks ago and disclosed that when he was a 10-year-old summer camper in 1985 a counselor or assistant director had allegedly abused him. The lawyer took the allegations to the Barnstable County District Attorney's office which has promised to investigate.
> 
> Inspired by Scott Brown, Another Former Camper Reveals Past Sexual Abuse - ABC News



And what do  you do about all those HETEROSEXUAL males who molest girls?   Did you know that 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18?   By HETEROSEXUAL men.   Maybe you should be worried about them in the military....especially when this kind of thing happens:

http://www.truthout.org/militarys-rape-and-sexual-assault-epidemic/1301554800

1995 Okinawa rape incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many times has your military son expressed concern over these kinds of things?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> "You are trying to suggest that gay people are more likely to commit these crimes. Truth is that straight people are equally likely to commit these kinds of crimes."  (gekaap)
> 
> Ahh.  A pseudo-intellectual.  Now how cute is that?
> 
> Sexual deviants commit these crimes against humanity.  People such as that who molest children should be shot where they stand.  Straight men don't molest little boys.  To be fair men, and women do molest children.  They're called pedophiles.  These people are all sexual deviants.  It is a clinical fact that most pedophiles were molested when they were children.  So you might say that this is a self replicating crime.



Wait...are you saying there are children in the military for gays to molest?    

It's a FACT that 1 in 4 girls are sexually molested by STRAIGHT males before they reach 18...many by family members.   Maybe it's fathers and brothers we need to really look out for.


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> Ahh.  A pseudo-intellectual.  Now how cute is that?



Ad hominems will not get you anywhere, and they will not provide any support for your failed arguments.



> Sexual deviants commit these crimes against humanity.  People such as that who molest children should be shot where they stand.



I'm inclined to agree, more or less.  But that has nothing to do with supporting an unconstitutional law that made it illegal for a gay service member to talk to his/her parents about his/her sexual orientation.



> Straight men don't molest little boys.



Actually, there _are_ straight men who molest boys.



> To be fair men, and women do molest children.



Then why are you only focusing on one portion of the issue?  



> They're called pedophiles.  These people are all sexual deviants.  It is a clinical fact that most pedophiles were molested when they were children.  So you might say that this is a self replicating crime.



So now you're going to invoke "clinical fact," and you call me a pseudo-intellectual?  You seem to know very little about this issue, so please allow me to clear up a few things.  Child molestation is an act that arises out of some kind of emotional disturbance or dysfunction in a person.  Albeit what the victim suffers is a sexual violation, alot like rape, the act is often born of non-sexual causes (sometimes yes, but often no).  There's a very complex array of things that can contribute to a person becoming a child molester.  But sexual orientation is NOT one of them.  Being gay does not make you molest children any more than being straight causes you to only be sexually drawn toward legal adults.  There are men who molest children, and there are women.  There are straight people who molest children, and there are gay people.  Neither gender nor sexual orientation actually contributes to a person becoming a child molester.


----------



## yota5

Gekaap, you're a piece of work.  You just paraphrased what I said in my last reply.  Maybe a remedial reading comprehension class would help you.


----------



## gekaap

Then you need to explain how, if what you've said is nothing different then what I've said, you justify your contention that being gay has anything to do with child molestation, when I explicitly said otherwise.


----------



## yota5

Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.


----------



## yota5

PS.  Gekaap, I forgot to tell you earlier but I think that your clown suit very appropriately compliments your persona.  Excellent choice.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.



How amusing.  The Goddess of Irony is well pleased.


You, of course, are welcome to explain what is so puzzling about my replies to you.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.



Once again showing why you are the boards latest Renaissance man

We are going to have a lot of fun with you


----------



## yota5

I would like to thank you both for proving my point.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> I would like to thank you both for proving my point.



You have a point somewhere on this thread?

Oh yea..want to explain about the queer blood again?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> I would like to thank you both for proving my point.



Your point being that you can be proven a fool in one post....yes, we know.


----------



## Dr Grump

yota5 said:


> The military has a long history of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, selfless service, and personal courage.  I just think that this latest social engineering experiment will be a very painful process.



And of course a bigotted retard like you doesn't believe a gay person serving in the military can have any of those traits, right?


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.



What makes you think I'm gay?  I'm as straight as they come.  I just don't have any irrational fear of gay people, and I have no objection to them serving in the military because I served with gay people and they were fine soldiers serving their country.  But I'm glad to see your true colors showing through.  You have nothing to actually back up your position.  All you have is ad hominem insults, which are worthless.  Your position is based on nothing more than an irrational obsession you have with gay people, and with hating gay people.


----------



## sinister59

gekaap said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm gay?  I'm as straight as they come.  I just don't have any irrational fear of gay people, and I have no objection to them serving in the military because I served with gay people and they were fine soldiers serving their country.  But I'm glad to see your true colors showing through.  You have nothing to actually back up your position.  All you have is ad hominem insults, which are worthless.  Your position is based on nothing more than an irrational obsession you have with gay people, and with hating gay people.
Click to expand...

as a vet I am proud to read your post


----------



## Zona

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to thank you both for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point somewhere on this thread?
> 
> Oh yea..want to explain about the queer blood again?
Click to expand...


Charlie sheen light?


----------



## gautama

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished* his fourth *sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Four?   We didn't have that many on Sexual Harassment after Tailhook.
> 
> Oh, btw....did your son tell you that all military are tested for HIV EVERY YEAR during their physical?
Click to expand...


I just read the OP without any of the posts in this thread.

I assume that what I am going to post has already been stated......however, in that case it bears repetition.

WTF good is an annual test ???? 

What about the ALL-IMPORTANT "in-between" periods between annual testing.........which it doesn't take too much to figure out that testing the fucking queers weekly would be too onerous.....and impractical. Thus making the "annual tests" just a useless BULLSHIT exercise !!!

Face it. The Obamarrhoidal Administration, with its fucked up PC Agenda, is endangering the lives of not only the queers, but the normals in the Military.

The Military ?

There are enough high ranking military that will kiss the President's arse no matter what the issue.

Consider the Muslim "Psychiatrist" Jihadist Major Hasan: FOR MONTHS, the Military spewed out the Obamarrhoidal PC line without mentioning the word "terrrorist", Jihadist, or even Islam claiming that it was an isolated nutcase occurrence on par with the nutcase that shot the congresswoman in the head, or the Columbine shootings, etc., even though the Jihadist Arsehole Hassan howled Allahu Akbar and had numerous correspondence with Osama Bin Laden's substitute Awaki (sp).


----------



## gekaap

gautama said:


> WTF good is an annual test ????
> 
> What about the ALL-IMPORTANT "in-between" periods between annual testing.........which it doesn't take to much to figure out that testing the fucking queers weekly would be too onerous.....and impractical. Thus making the "annual tests" just a useless BULLSHIT exercise !!!
> 
> Face it. The Obamarrhoidal Administration, with its fucked up PC Agenda, is endangering the lives of not only the queers, but the normals in the Military.
> 
> The Military ?
> 
> There are enough high ranking military that will kiss the President's arse no matter what the issue.
> 
> Consider the Muslim "Psychiatrist" Jihadist Major Hasan: FOR MONTHS, the Military spewed out the Obamarrhoidal PC line without mentioning the word "terrrorist", Jihadist, or even Islam claiming that it was an isolated nutcase occurrence on par with the nutcase that shot the congresswoman in the head, or the Columbine shootings, etc., even though the Jihadist Arsehole Hassan howled Allahu Akbar and had numerous correspondence with Osama Bin Laden's substitute Awaki (sp).



On what basis do you pre-suppose that gay people have HIV?  On what basis do you pre-suppose that straight soldiers cannot contract HIV between their yearly test?  And on what basis do you find any relevance to going off on tangents such as Kathy Giffords or the Columbine shooting?  It's obvious that you have nothing to say that is based on a rational view of the issue, and that you're more interested in ranting mindlessly.  No, what you're saying doesn't bear repeating, because it's been so thoroughly debunked you actually sound less intelligent than the OP for saying it now.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> One thing that I've learned over the years is that G.I.s have their own vernacular.  We acquire a certain bearing, and work ethic while serving.  None of this can be imitated.  A soldier's bearing can definitely not be acquired through Google, or the military channel.  A military bearing is only acquired by serving.  That is why active duty troops, guardsman, reservist or veterans can spot a fake a mile away.  You don't talk the talk, and your incapable of walking the walk.  Now that we've cleared that up go crawl back under your liberal rocks.



You forgot one thing there sparky, when I was in boot camp we a class called core ethics. This class had one point and it was that we were all navy blue. That meant black, white, woman what ever. We also were told that a sailor or Sea Bee will be there to back up the Sailor or Sea Bee on or off duty in or out of uniform. This will now include gay or straight. as for your bearing statement, you need to dig out your blue jackets Manuel and look up what military bearing means because you told us how you define it, not how the military does. You have not given any of your combat exploits only your Sons. The man who took over Navy World the day I graduated boot did the same thing. If you were in the Navy then you know ware I went to boot camp and who I am talking about and what he did and why he did it. you did not do it so you have to take your Sons credit for there alleged actions. I would hate to see how you carry on when they get laid.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again showing why you are the boards latest Renaissance man
> 
> We are going to have a lot of fun with you
Click to expand...


You mean Rain Man.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Dr.Drock said:


> Using the OP's logic why would any woman ever join the military?  Shouldn't she just be worried about getting STD's and thinking that if she's on the battlefield with a man his focus will be on sex and not his fellow soldiers and the mission?



Except for the STD's, I have actually seen this problem.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> I would like to thank you both for proving my point.



When did you actually provide a point? You started a "I don't like queers" thread and then went on to reiterate that opinion with more opinion. You haven't provided any facts to support your contention that "The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly" just more of your *opinion*. Well, we all know what they say about opinions...


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for heterosexuals to "tell"? Gays and lesbians want to serve under the *exact* same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under and not have a separate, much more restrictive, set of rules just for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discharging people for the consenting adult they have relations with has nothing to do with serving their country and yet that is what occurs under DADT. It is a FACT that you don't have to tell to be discharged under DADT. You can be discharged if someone else "tells" for you. It is not a political statement for gays and lesbians who serve to want to serve under the *exact same* rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under.
> 
> I'll give you a scenario...
> 
> SCENE: Motopool on a Monday morning.
> 
> Soldier asks heterosexual soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"
> 
> Heterosexual Soldier: "I got a little poontang from that hot waitress at the E-Club"
> 
> Now, let's change the players.
> 
> Soldier asks gay soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"
> 
> Gay Soldier: "I picked out a new sofa with my partner Brad"
> 
> Which soldier would get a discharge with DADT in place?
Click to expand...


The Soldier would be sent to sensitivity training because a Woman soldier overheard the other soldier talking about wild wacky sex he had over the weekend. I have seen it. I got a talking to for calling a fellow Woman Sea Bee a stupid twat. It was just horsing around, but it was not acceptable at the time. Realy, the biggest danger to our fighting men and woman is the PC bull shit that will come with it.

Excample-  Bob, hand me that wrench would you ?

Bob says- Get it your self you stupid twat, am I your damn slave ?

Chief over hears this exchange and counsels Bob and then it go's into Bobs service record that he was counseled on sexism and racism. Hyper sensitivity will make DADT a pain in the ass. Name one young man who does not call his best friend a stupid fag .


----------



## Seawytch

Momanohedhunter said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discharging people for the consenting adult they have relations with has nothing to do with serving their country and yet that is what occurs under DADT. It is a FACT that you don't have to tell to be discharged under DADT. You can be discharged if someone else "tells" for you. It is not a political statement for gays and lesbians who serve to want to serve under the *exact same* rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under.
> 
> I'll give you a scenario...
> 
> SCENE: Motopool on a Monday morning.
> 
> Soldier asks heterosexual soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"
> 
> Heterosexual Soldier: "I got a little poontang from that hot waitress at the E-Club"
> 
> Now, let's change the players.
> 
> Soldier asks gay soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"
> 
> Gay Soldier: "I picked out a new sofa with my partner Brad"
> 
> Which soldier would get a discharge with DADT in place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soldier would be sent to sensitivity training because a Woman soldier overheard the other soldier talking about wild wacky sex he had over the weekend. I have seen it. I got a talking to for calling a fellow Woman Sea Bee a stupid twat. It was just horsing around, but it was not acceptable at the time. Realy, the biggest danger to our fighting men and woman is the PC bull shit that will come with it.
> 
> Excample-  Bob, hand me that wrench would you ?
> 
> Bob says- Get it your self you stupid twat, am I your damn slave ?
> 
> Chief over hears this exchange and counsels Bob and then it go's into Bobs service record that he was counseled on sexism and racism. Hyper sensitivity will make DADT a pain in the ass. Name one young man who does not call his best friend a stupid fag .
Click to expand...


Sorry, but punishing someone for disrespect isn't "PC". Using "fag" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC". Is it okay to call your best friend the "N" word? Of course not and you would deserve censure for that. Fag is no different. 

I would agree that "sensitivity" training regarding gays finally being able to serve honestly is ridiculous, especially since the majority of the troops really don't give a shit if someone is gay or not, but those were the conditions of the repeal. The sooner the training is done, the sooner we can finally get rid of the draconian policy known as DADT and just get back to work.


----------



## rightwinger

Momanohedhunter said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discharging people for the consenting adult they have relations with has nothing to do with serving their country and yet that is what occurs under DADT. It is a FACT that you don't have to tell to be discharged under DADT. You can be discharged if someone else "tells" for you. It is not a political statement for gays and lesbians who serve to want to serve under the *exact same* rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under.
> 
> I'll give you a scenario...
> 
> SCENE: Motopool on a Monday morning.
> 
> Soldier asks heterosexual soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"
> 
> Heterosexual Soldier: "I got a little poontang from that hot waitress at the E-Club"
> 
> Now, let's change the players.
> 
> Soldier asks gay soldier..."What did you do this weekend?"
> 
> Gay Soldier: "I picked out a new sofa with my partner Brad"
> 
> Which soldier would get a discharge with DADT in place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soldier would be sent to sensitivity training because a Woman soldier overheard the other soldier talking about wild wacky sex he had over the weekend. I have seen it. I got a talking to for calling a fellow Woman Sea Bee a stupid twat. It was just horsing around, but it was not acceptable at the time. Realy, the biggest danger to our fighting men and woman is the PC bull shit that will come with it.
> 
> Excample-  Bob, hand me that wrench would you ?
> 
> Bob says- Get it your self you stupid twat, am I your damn slave ?
> 
> Chief over hears this exchange and counsels Bob and then it go's into Bobs service record that he was counseled on sexism and racism. Hyper sensitivity will make DADT a pain in the ass. Name one young man who does not call his best friend a stupid fag .
Click to expand...


Shut up you stupid twat


----------



## yota5

Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.  

To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day. 

The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.

The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.

For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*


----------



## Ravi

yota5 said:


> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*


Did your son resign from the military yet or is he still eying the other guys in the showers?


----------



## yota5

No ravi, my son hasn't resigned.  Unlike you he isn't a sexual deviant.  Have a nice day.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate myun thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*



I, for one, welcome you to the board. We will have a lot of fun with you. There are quite a few like you on the board and you are fun to play with
Those with a mindset in the 80s are easy prey

Have fun posting


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> No ravi, my son hasn't resigned.  Unlike you he isn't a sexual deviant.  Have a nice day.



If I were you, I would encourage my son to stand by his convictions and resign over the repeal of DADT. Given his fear of public showering and your own stated fears over gay blood, it is the most courageous thing for him to do.

Let him make a statement in proving how wrong the military is about gays. If your OP is correct, I imagine millions of soldiers will resign with him


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> No ravi, my son hasn't resigned.  Unlike you he isn't a sexual deviant.  Have a nice day.



So...he is just all talk.


----------



## yota5

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate myun thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, welcome you to the board. We will have a lot of fun with you. There are quite a few like you on the board and you are fun to play with
> Those with a mindset in the 80s are easy prey
> 
> Have fun posting
Click to expand...


Thank you Rightwinger.  I appreciate the kind words, and the invite.  I want you to know that I'm having a lot of fun with you guys too.  

The mindset of the 80s?  Did the concepts of Morality, Honor, Integrity, Duty, Respect, Loyalty, selfless service, and personal courage really make it that far?  I had thought that these core American values were thrown out in the 60s.  Interesting?  I've got to admit though that I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard.

Have fun posting to you too.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate myun thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, welcome you to the board. We will have a lot of fun with you. There are quite a few like you on the board and you are fun to play with
> Those with a mindset in the 80s are easy prey
> 
> Have fun posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Rightwinger.  I appreciate the kind words, and the invite.  I want you to know that I'm having a lot of fun with you guys too.
> 
> The mindset of the 80s?  Did the concepts of Morality, Honor, Integrity, Duty, Respect, Loyalty, selfless service, and personal courage really make it that far?  I had thought that these core American values were thrown out in the 60s.  Interesting?  I've got to admit though that* I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard.*
> 
> Have fun posting to you too.
Click to expand...


And what gives you THAT impression?   Please explain.


----------



## Brewbrother

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



I didn't know sexual orientation effected rifle accuracy.


----------



## bodecea

Brewbrother said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know sexual orientation effected rifle accuracy.
Click to expand...


If you continue to read the thread, you will find the OP to be a smoke screen....


----------



## yota5

Boudica (play /&#712;bu&#720;d&#618;k&#601;/; alternative spelling: Boudicca), also known as Boadicea /bo&#650;d&#618;&#712;si&#720;&#601;/ and known in Welsh as "Buddug" [&#712;b&#616;&#798;ð&#616;&#798;&#609;][1] (d. AD 60 or 61) was queen of the Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire.

Boudica's husband Prasutagus, ruler of the Iceni tribe who had ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor in his will. However, when he died, his will was ignored. The kingdom was annexed as if conquered, Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans.

In AD 60 or 61, while the Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was leading a campaign on the island of Anglesey in north Wales, Boudica led the Iceni people, along with the Trinovantes and others, in revolt. They destroyed Camulodunum (modern Colchester), formerly the capital of the Trinovantes, but now a colonia (a settlement for discharged Roman soldiers) and the site of a temple to the former emperor Claudius, which was built and maintained at local expense. They also routed a Roman legion, the IX Hispana, sent to relieve the settlement.

Boudica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boadicea, the warrior queen.  She would spin in her grave.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Boudica (play /&#712;bu&#720;d&#618;k&#601;/; alternative spelling: Boudicca), also known as Boadicea /bo&#650;d&#618;&#712;si&#720;&#601;/ and known in Welsh as "Buddug" [&#712;b&#616;&#798;ð&#616;&#798;&#609;][1] (d. AD 60 or 61) was queen of the Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Boudica's husband Prasutagus, ruler of the Iceni tribe who had ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor in his will. However, when he died, his will was ignored. The kingdom was annexed as if conquered, Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans.
> 
> In AD 60 or 61, while the Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was leading a campaign on the island of Anglesey in north Wales, Boudica led the Iceni people, along with the Trinovantes and others, in revolt. They destroyed Camulodunum (modern Colchester), formerly the capital of the Trinovantes, but now a colonia (a settlement for discharged Roman soldiers) and the site of a temple to the former emperor Claudius, which was built and maintained at local expense. They also routed a Roman legion, the IX Hispana, sent to relieve the settlement.
> 
> Boudica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Boadicea, the warrior queen.  She would spin in her grave.



Your lovely historical deflection is noted.....now, could you kindly explain this comment of yours?



> I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard.



If you are able, of course.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate myun thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, welcome you to the board. We will have a lot of fun with you. There are quite a few like you on the board and you are fun to play with
> Those with a mindset in the 80s are easy prey
> 
> Have fun posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you Rightwinger.  I appreciate the kind words, and the invite.  I want you to know that I'm having a lot of fun with you guys too.
> 
> The mindset of the 80s?  Did the concepts of Morality, Honor, Integrity, Duty, Respect, Loyalty, selfless service, and personal courage really make it that far?  I had thought that these core American values were thrown out in the 60s.  Interesting?  I've got to admit though that I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard.
> 
> Have fun posting to you too.
Click to expand...


Sorry,

But I lived through the 60s and they were not very moral. Open hatred over a persons race, religion or sexuality. An unwillingness to accept the role women are capable of serve to this country. Not very moral

Blacks were beaten and lynched, gays openly beaten without protection, women beaten by their husbands and the law would d nothing about it

Those were not moral times


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, welcome you to the board. We will have a lot of fun with you. There are quite a few like you on the board and you are fun to play with
> Those with a mindset in the 80s are easy prey
> 
> Have fun posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Rightwinger.  I appreciate the kind words, and the invite.  I want you to know that I'm having a lot of fun with you guys too.
> 
> The mindset of the 80s?  Did the concepts of Morality, Honor, Integrity, Duty, Respect, Loyalty, selfless service, and personal courage really make it that far?  I had thought that these core American values were thrown out in the 60s.  Interesting?  I've got to admit though that I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard.
> 
> Have fun posting to you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> But I lived through the 60s and they were not very moral. Open hatred over a persons race, religion or sexuality. An unwillingness to accept the role women are capable of serve to this country. Not very moral
> 
> Blacks were beaten and lynched, gays openly beaten without protection, women beaten by their husbands and the law would d nothing about it
> 
> Those were not moral times
Click to expand...



C'mon, RW.   There's moral and then there's "moral".


----------



## Mr. Shaman

yota5 said:


> *As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.*  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  *Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.*
> 
> *Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. * The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that *this country sends into harms way*.


Yeah....*especially* when *harms way* includes..... 



> ....*The BRASS**!!!!!*





> "Greg Jeloudov was 35 and new to America when he decided to join the Army. Like most soldiers, he was driven by both patriotism for his adopted homeland and the pragmatic notion that the military could be a first step in a career that would enable him to provide for his new family. Instead, Jeloudov arrived at Fort Benning, Ga., for basic training in May 2009, in the middle of the economic crisis and rising xenophobia. The soldiers in his unit, responding to his Russian accent and New York City address, called him a &#8220;champagne socialist&#8221; and a &#8220;commie faggot.&#8221; He was, he told NEWSWEEK, &#8220;in the middle of the viper&#8217;s pit.&#8221; *Less than two weeks after arriving on base, he was gang-raped in the barracks by men who said they were showing him who was in charge of the United States.* When he reported the attack to unit commanders, he says they told him, *&#8220;It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.&#8221;*


----------



## yota5

Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.

Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.  

When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.

I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.



LOL

 Still protecting us from the red menace....I am not surprised


----------



## Mr. Shaman

yota5 said:


> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.


Yeah.....we *Progressives* feel we have an obligation to keep an eye on the.....



> ....*White Wingers*....



....as well.

(You know....those *folks* who are worried about *losing their Country*. )​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Still protecting us from the red menace....I am not surprised
Click to expand...

Hey.....you know.....



> *"Bend the twig and so grows the tree."*


----------



## konradv

yota5 said:


> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*



Word to yota.  We've progressed beyond your parochial views.  YOU'RE the deviant now!!!


----------



## yota5

konradv said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word to yota.  We've progressed beyond your parochial views.  YOU'RE the deviant now!!!
Click to expand...


Komrad, I see that you and shaman, use the communist code word progressive.  In this context progressive is synonymous with communist.  That fact is widely known.  

I understand why communist as enemies of the United States don't want themselves identified, or their activities known.  For those board members who aren't aware of the nefarious activities of the communist party USA.  I would suggest that they log on to your home page. http//cpusa.org  Situational awareness requires that you always know what the enemy is up to.

A list of communist alias' follows.

1.  Progressive
2.  Centrist
3.  Liberal
4.  communist et al

A complete edification of the communist agenda can be found at http//cpusa.org .


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word to yota.  We've progressed beyond your parochial views.  YOU'RE the deviant now!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Komrad, I see that you and shaman, use the communist code word progressive.  In this context progressive is synonymous with communist.  That fact is widely known.
> 
> I understand why communist as enemies of the United States don't want themselves identified, or their activities known.  For those board members who aren't aware of the nefarious activities of the communist party USA.  I would suggest that they log on to your home page. http//cpusa.org  Situational awareness requires that you always know what the enemy is up to.
> 
> A list of communist alias' follows.
> 
> 1.  Progressive
> 2.  Centrist
> 3.  Liberal
> 4.  communist et al
> 
> A complete edification of the communist agenda can be found at http//cpusa.org .
Click to expand...


Damn commies are plotting to take us over

We need brave men like yota to protect us from the commies, gays, libruls, feminists and tree huggers 

The whole world hangs in the balance


----------



## gautama

gekaap said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF good is an annual test ????
> 
> What about the ALL-IMPORTANT "in-between" periods between annual testing.........which it doesn't take to much to figure out that testing the fucking queers weekly would be too onerous.....and impractical. Thus making the "annual tests" just a useless BULLSHIT exercise !!!
> 
> Face it. The Obamarrhoidal Administration, with its fucked up PC Agenda, is endangering the lives of not only the queers, but the normals in the Military.
> 
> The Military ?
> 
> There are enough high ranking military that will kiss the President's arse no matter what the issue.
> 
> Consider the Muslim "Psychiatrist" Jihadist Major Hasan: FOR MONTHS, the Military spewed out the Obamarrhoidal PC line without mentioning the word "terrrorist", Jihadist, or even Islam claiming that it was an isolated nutcase occurrence on par with the nutcase that shot the congresswoman in the head, or the Columbine shootings, etc., even though the Jihadist Arsehole Hassan howled Allahu Akbar and had numerous correspondence with Osama Bin Laden's substitute Awaki (sp).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis do you pre-suppose that gay people have HIV?  On what basis do you pre-suppose that straight soldiers cannot contract HIV between their yearly test?  And on what basis do you find any relevance to going off on tangents such as Kathy Giffords or the Columbine shooting?  It's obvious that you have nothing to say that is based on a rational view of the issue, and that you're more interested in ranting mindlessly.  No, what you're saying doesn't bear repeating, because it's been so thoroughly debunked you actually sound less intelligent than the OP for saying it now.
Click to expand...


Geekrap,

Queers are more prone than normals to get HIV, probably by a factor close to 10 to one. I don't have the stats, but I betcha that in spite of your Geekrappola you wouldn't stake your life on the fact that I'm wrong. Being a queer geek you'd naturally lie about that.

Obviously normals are able to get HIV, the Bubonic plague, Leprosy, etc., between annual tests ........ however the obvious fact is that they are a helluva lot less likely to contract HIV, than the fucking queers.

The relevance of the Kathy Gifford, Columbine shootings, etc., is that they are obviously not connected to Islamofascist Terrorism. While the jihadist Whackjob Maj Hasan's terrorism is.......yet, the Military brass are willing to abide by Presidential whims of the MONUMENTAL FRAUD Obami Salaami, whatever the issue......even to the extent of toeing the ridiculous policy of permitting the fucking queers to openly practice their perversion openly while in the military.

If you weren't an Obamarrhoidal stooge you wouldn't have made your ludicrous post. You are probably a fucking queer to boot and that would explain your mental aberration more definitively.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.


Wait....who's been talking about Communism in this thread?    No one but you.   Is it possible for you to STICK to a subject?   Or are you unable to do so?


----------



## yota5

Rightwinger, it's hard to say it that it isn't so when the evidence is in the words of you and your komrads.  http//cpusa.org


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word to yota.  We've progressed beyond your parochial views.  YOU'RE the deviant now!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Komrad, I see that you and shaman, use the communist code word progressive.  In this context progressive is synonymous with communist.  That fact is widely known.
> 
> I understand why communist as enemies of the United States don't want themselves identified, or their activities known.  For those board members who aren't aware of the nefarious activities of the communist party USA.  I would suggest that they log on to your home page. http//cpusa.org  Situational awareness requires that you always know what the enemy is up to.
> 
> A list of communist alias' follows.
> 
> 1.  Progressive
> 2.  Centrist
> 3.  Liberal
> 4.  communist et al
> 
> A complete edification of the communist agenda can be found at http//cpusa.org .
Click to expand...


So...according to you anyone not an ultraconservative is a communist?


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....who's been talking about Communism in this thread?    No one but you.   Is it possible for you to STICK to a subject?   Or are you unable to do so?
Click to expand...


Boadicea, you asked me a specific question.  I answered it even though it had nothing to do with sexual deviants serving in the military.  On that subject my thesis remains the same.  Sexual deviants shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.  Have a nice day.  

The subject of communism is a real threat to the USA.  I post the link to this liberal web site so that Americans will be aware of what our enemy is up to.  Home » cpusa


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Rightwinger, it's hard to say it that it isn't so when the evidence is in the words of you and your komrads.  http//cpusa.org



Yes comrade...you will be safe in your bunker

Stock up on ammo, fresh water and twinkies ....

You alone can beat off the marauding commies


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....who's been talking about Communism in this thread?    No one but you.   Is it possible for you to STICK to a subject?   Or are you unable to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boadicea, you asked me a specific question.  I answered it even though it had nothing to do with sexual deviants serving in the military.  On that subject my thesis remains the same.  Sexual deviants shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.  Have a nice day.
> 
> The subject of communism is a real threat to the USA.  I post the link to this liberal web site so that Americans will be aware of what our enemy is up to.  Home » cpusa
Click to expand...



OK, fair enough....How do YOU define a sexual deviant?


----------



## Montrovant

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....who's been talking about Communism in this thread?    No one but you.   Is it possible for you to STICK to a subject?   Or are you unable to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boadicea, you asked me a specific question.  I answered it even though it had nothing to do with sexual deviants serving in the military.  On that subject my thesis remains the same.  Sexual deviants shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.  Have a nice day.
> 
> The subject of communism is a real threat to the USA.  I post the link to this liberal web site so that Americans will be aware of what our enemy is up to.  Home » cpusa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough....How do YOU define a sexual deviant?
Click to expand...


He's already been asked that and failed to answer.  I imagine he's got some fetishes or inclinations that could be considered deviant himself.  Most people probably do.


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning boadicea.  "I'm getting the impression that many of those posting to this board don't hold any of the core American values in very high regard."  (yota5)  Your answer follows.
> 
> Boad, one only has to read the postings, and replies from our more socialistic inclined board members.  A pattern soon emerges.  The far left always takes the side that is most injures to the USA.
> 
> When the far lefts web site Home » cpusa is visited it soon becomes evident what the lefts agenda is, and who is driving it.  Once on cpusa.org read the communist manifesto that is posted there.  It will then become crystal clear what the lefts goals are, and how they plan to achieve them.  You will not find one reference to core American values posted there.
> 
> I found this site by accident about four years ago.  I was reading some replies on another web site.  I thought back then that reply sounds like a communists view point.  I Googled communist party expecting to find this subversive outfit headquartered in Europe.  Imagine my surprise when the communist party USA web site popped up.  I go there often.  It is always advantageous to know what your enemy is up to.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....who's been talking about Communism in this thread?    No one but you.   Is it possible for you to STICK to a subject?   Or are you unable to do so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boadicea, you asked me a specific question.  I answered it even though it had nothing to do with sexual deviants serving in the military.  On that subject my thesis remains the same.  Sexual deviants shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.  Have a nice day.
> 
> The subject of communism is a real threat to the USA.  I post the link to this liberal web site so that Americans will be aware of what our enemy is up to.  Home » cpusa
Click to expand...


Okay, let us see if you are a man of conviction.
You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours. Your wounded need evacuation and you can not get them out. 
Another unit is coming to help you and you know there a few gay soldiers in that unit.
Do you:
A. Accept their help and rescue your men or
B. Tell them "Queers are perverts and may give AIDS to my men if they come to help us. I would rather sacrifice my men than have queers come to my and my men's aid.

Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Gadawg73 said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....who's been talking about Communism in this thread?    No one but you.   Is it possible for you to STICK to a subject?   Or are you unable to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boadicea, you asked me a specific question.  I answered it even though it had nothing to do with sexual deviants serving in the military.  On that subject my thesis remains the same.  Sexual deviants shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.  Have a nice day.
> 
> The subject of communism is a real threat to the USA.  I post the link to this liberal web site so that Americans will be aware of what our enemy is up to.  Home » cpusa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let us see if you are a man of conviction.
> You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours. Your wounded need evacuation and you can not get them out.
> Another unit is coming to help you and you know there a few gay soldiers in that unit.
> Do you:
> A. Accept their help and rescue your men or
> B. Tell them "Queers are perverts and may give AIDS to my men if they come to help us. I would rather sacrifice my men than have queers come to my and my men's aid.
> 
> Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens.
Click to expand...


I put your odds of getting an answer to this at about 10,000 to 1.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

yota5 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.
> 
> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.
> 
> For those of you with reading comprehension issues let me reiterate my thesis. * Deviants shouldn't be allowed to openly serve in our military.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word to yota.  We've progressed beyond your parochial views.  YOU'RE the deviant now!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Komrad, I see that you and shaman, use the communist code word progressive.  In this context progressive is synonymous with communist.  That fact is widely known.
Click to expand...

*Whew!!!*

You *Stormfront*-boys will believe anything.







*


----------



## Mr. Shaman

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Word to yota.  We've progressed beyond your parochial views.  YOU'RE the deviant now!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Komrad, I see that you and shaman, use the communist code word progressive.  In this context progressive is synonymous with communist.  That fact is widely known.
> 
> I understand why communist as enemies of the United States don't want themselves identified, or their activities known.  For those board members who aren't aware of the nefarious activities of the communist party USA.  I would suggest that they log on to your home page. http//cpusa.org  Situational awareness requires that you always know what the enemy is up to.
> 
> A list of communist alias' follows.
> 
> 1.  Progressive
> 2.  Centrist
> 3.  Liberal
> 4.  communist et al
> 
> A complete edification of the communist agenda can be found at http//cpusa.org .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn commies are plotting to take us over
> 
> We need brave men like yota to protect us from the commies, gays, libruls, feminists and tree huggers
> 
> The whole world hangs in the balance
Click to expand...

Those poor *Aryan*-boys *still* haven't gotten-over the *Ass-Whuppin'-On-The-Eastern-Front*.






(....Or, Jesse Owens, for that matter.





 )


----------



## Mr. Shaman

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwinger, it's hard to say it that it isn't so when the evidence is in the words of you and your komrads.  http//cpusa.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes comrade...you will be safe in your bunker
> 
> Stock up on ammo, fresh water and twinkies ....
> 
> *You alone can beat off the marauding commies*
Click to expand...

...At least, that's what the brochures always say.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ld_2lHK54&feature=related]YouTube - Late 1980ies - Last Trip Inside the Führerbunker 1 of 2[/ame]​


----------



## BlindBoo

Perhaps they could call someone in one of these countries to find out how they handled it.  All allow openly gay soldiers.

1.1 Albania 
1.2 Argentina 
1.3 Australia 
1.4 Austria 
1.5 Belgium 
1.6 Bermuda 
1.7 Canada 
1.8 Republic of China 
1.9 Colombia 
1.10 Croatia 
1.11 Czech Republic 
1.12 Denmark 
1.13 Estonia 
1.14 Finland 
1.15 France 
1.16 Germany 
1.17 Greece 
1.18 Republic of Ireland 
1.19 Israel 
1.20 Italy 
1.21 Japan 
1.22 Lithuania 
1.23 Luxembourg 
1.24 Malta 
1.25 The Netherlands 
1.26 New Zealand 
1.27 Norway 
1.28 Peru 
1.29 Philippines 
1.30 Poland 
1.31 Romania 
1.32 Russia 
1.33 Serbia 
1.34 Slovenia 
1.35 South Africa 
1.36 Spain 
1.37 Sweden 
1.38 Switzerland 
1.39 Thailand 
1.40 Uruguay 
1.41 United Kingdom


----------



## yota5

I'm not interested what other countries allow sexual deviants to do, Boo.  America, has the finest military in the world for a reason.  Why should we bring our military down to the standards of an inferior fighting force?


----------



## Gadawg73

BlindBoo said:


> Perhaps they could call someone in one of these countries to find out how they handled it.  All allow openly gay soldiers.
> 
> 1.1 Albania
> 1.2 Argentina
> 1.3 Australia
> 1.4 Austria
> 1.5 Belgium
> 1.6 Bermuda
> 1.7 Canada
> 1.8 Republic of China
> 1.9 Colombia
> 1.10 Croatia
> 1.11 Czech Republic
> 1.12 Denmark
> 1.13 Estonia
> 1.14 Finland
> 1.15 France
> 1.16 Germany
> 1.17 Greece
> 1.18 Republic of Ireland
> 1.19 Israel
> 1.20 Italy
> 1.21 Japan
> 1.22 Lithuania
> 1.23 Luxembourg
> 1.24 Malta
> 1.25 The Netherlands
> 1.26 New Zealand
> 1.27 Norway
> 1.28 Peru
> 1.29 Philippines
> 1.30 Poland
> 1.31 Romania
> 1.32 Russia
> 1.33 Serbia
> 1.34 Slovenia
> 1.35 South Africa
> 1.36 Spain
> 1.37 Sweden
> 1.38 Switzerland
> 1.39 Thailand
> 1.40 Uruguay
> 1.41 United Kingdom



Like my Dad, at age 88 last year before he died stated:
"There are lots of queers already serving in the military all over the world so we need to sign them up here also"
Captain USMC 1942-1953. 
"I am more concerned whether they can shoot straight, not whether they are straight."


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> I'm not interested what other countries allow sexual deviants to do, Boo.  America, has the finest military in the world for a reason.  Why should we bring our military down to the standards of an inferior fighting force?



The Isrealis "an inferior fighting force"? 

Sir, respectfully and sincerely, your claims are not very intelligent and you need to go get a cold beer or glass of tea. If I was near you I would buy it for you out of respect to you sir but you are wrong on this one. Give it up before you lose ALL credibility here.


----------



## rightwinger

BlindBoo said:


> Perhaps they could call someone in one of these countries to find out how they handled it.  All allow openly gay soldiers.
> 
> 1.1 Albania
> 1.2 Argentina
> 1.3 Australia
> 1.4 Austria
> 1.5 Belgium
> 1.6 Bermuda
> 1.7 Canada
> 1.8 Republic of China
> 1.9 Colombia
> 1.10 Croatia
> 1.11 Czech Republic
> 1.12 Denmark
> 1.13 Estonia
> 1.14 Finland
> 1.15 France
> 1.16 Germany
> 1.17 Greece
> 1.18 Republic of Ireland
> 1.19 Israel
> 1.20 Italy
> 1.21 Japan
> 1.22 Lithuania
> 1.23 Luxembourg
> 1.24 Malta
> 1.25 The Netherlands
> 1.26 New Zealand
> 1.27 Norway
> 1.28 Peru
> 1.29 Philippines
> 1.30 Poland
> 1.31 Romania
> 1.32 Russia
> 1.33 Serbia
> 1.34 Slovenia
> 1.35 South Africa
> 1.36 Spain
> 1.37 Sweden
> 1.38 Switzerland
> 1.39 Thailand
> 1.40 Uruguay
> 1.41 United Kingdom



The soldiers in those countries are not as "sensitive" as yota's son.  Some of our soldiers need to be babied and protected from "the gay"


----------



## yota5

"OK, fair enough....How do YOU define a sexual deviant?"  (Boadicea)

I'll bet that you already know the answer to that question.  

For the rest of you rump rangers that are slobbering all over this post let me say this.  No other fighting force on this planet can equal the United States Military.  If you don't believe me ask the members of the cited militaries.  They will confirm this.   Then biggest weakness that our military has is the incompetent meddling of bunch of simpering societal engineers.


----------



## Grace

Ooh. Good question. Id like to see the answer, yota. Please?



> You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours. Your wounded need evacuation and you can not get them out.
> Another unit is coming to help you and you know there a few gay soldiers in that unit.
> Do you:
> A. Accept their help and rescue your men or
> B. Tell them "Queers are perverts and may give AIDS to my men if they come to help us. I would rather sacrifice my men than have queers come to my and my men's aid.
> 
> Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> I'm not interested what other countries allow sexual deviants to do, Boo.  America, has the finest military in the world for a reason.  Why should we bring our military down to the standards of an inferior fighting force?



How are they inferior?   Are you calling Israel inferior?  Are you calling Finland's military inferior?   They beat the Soviets.  Are you calling Switzerland's military inferior?   No one beats them.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> "OK, fair enough....How do YOU define a sexual deviant?"  (Boadicea)
> 
> I'll bet that you already know the answer to that question.
> 
> For the rest of you rump rangers that are slobbering all over this post let me say this.  No other fighting force on this planet can equal the United States Military.  If you don't believe me ask the members of the cited militaries.  They will confirm this.   Then biggest weakness that our military has is the incompetent meddling of bunch of simpering societal engineers.



How odd that you did NOT answer my question.  What are you afraid of?


----------



## Grace

I dont get it. For those who are straight and dont have your mindset, yota, that means to your way of thinking we are all rump rangers?? Is that what you really think?


----------



## Grace

And while Im at it...Im really wondering if its your son you are speaking about concerning his concern....or if its you using him to test the waters here to see if anyone is of like mind as yourself?
Dont mean any disrespect although you have been disrespecting quite a few here that dont/didnt deserve it. Id just like an answer to the question posed by another member that I quoted in post #217 as well as post 220, if you dont mind. Might give me some insight as to what youre really thinking. Then again..maybe not.


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> "OK, fair enough....How do YOU define a sexual deviant?"  (Boadicea)
> 
> I'll bet that you already know the answer to that question.
> 
> For the rest of you rump rangers that are slobbering all over this post let me say this.  No other fighting force on this planet can equal the United States Military.  If you don't believe me ask the members of the cited militaries.  They will confirm this.   Then biggest weakness that our military has is the incompetent meddling of bunch of simpering societal engineers.



I agree with most of that. 
But I am not a "rump ranger" and your milk is weak calling me one behind an internet board.
Talk about "slobbering".


----------



## Gadawg73

I admit it, I do not invite gay guys to go on fishing trips with me. Good friend of mine, straight as an arrow, had a gay friend he wanted to bring because we had an extra bed room one year. I said no. Guess I have some prejudice still in me. 
But I have worked with them for years and have friends and neighbors in the military now. Combat troops returning from Afghanistan.
They tell me gays are already in the military and fairly open about it. So why not allow it and let these good folks BE WHO THEY ARE?


----------



## Grace

I love gay guys.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

yota5 said:


> I'm not interested what other countries allow sexual deviants to do, Boo.  America, has the finest military in the world for a reason.


.....'Cause *The BRASS* is *raping*.....



> ....*it's OWN TROOPS**??!!!!!*



You've got some *strange* ideas about _readiness_.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

yota5 said:


> "OK, fair enough....How do YOU define a sexual deviant?"  (Boadicea)
> 
> I'll bet that you already know the answer to that question.
> 
> *For the rest of you rump rangers that are slobbering all over this post* let me say this.  No other fighting force on this planet can equal the United States Military.


You'd have made a.....



> .....*great Spartan**!!!!*



​


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> "*As I said, it's a political statement.* Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military. But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement. And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them. Keep your politics out of the military."  (Kaz)
> 
> The operative word here is sexual, not political.  When I'm showering, and the guy standing behind me has a woody I don't experience warm fuzzy feelings.  At the same time a civilian co-worker told me that they were gay it wouldn't matter to me.  They have a right to make that choice.  I have the right to live by the morals, and code of ethics that matter to me.  I don't shower with them, and I damn sure don't have to go to war with them.
> 
> When you go to war with some one *"Trust"* becomes the operative word.  Esprit de Corp, becomes everything.  That one element is the reason that an American unit will fight on against insurmountable odds.  When the shit hits the fan it comes down to you and your battle buddies.  Nothing else matters.  All the sensitivity training in the world wont change that.
> 
> One last thing.  It is not a right to serve in the U.S. Military; it is an honor.



And that's ware your ignorance is spotlighted proving you have no clue. By the time you go threw boot camp and A-school (AIT) for the Army and what ever for the Marines it is drilled into your head that you will be there for the guy on either side of you. If one happens to be gay it does not matter because he has gone threw all the same shit as you. Woman were a pain in the ass to drill with because they had short legs and the Men had long legs so we took shorter steps and they took longer ones and it all worked out well. Black white red or yellow Male or Female gay or straight the guy on either side of you is there for you and you for them. This issue is an old one in the military and the fact that you claim your two sons are concerned about it is flat bullshit because this has been a long time coming and go's a bit further to spotlight your ignorance on the issue.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> I'm not interested what other countries allow sexual deviants to do, Boo.  America, has the finest military in the world for a reason.  Why should we bring our military down to the standards of an inferior fighting force?



Israel is an inferior fighting force ? I figured you would know better being the arm chair commando that you are.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Gadawg73 said:


> I admit it, I do not invite gay guys to go on fishing trips with me. Good friend of mine, straight as an arrow, had a gay friend he wanted to bring because we had an extra bed room one year. I said no. Guess I have some prejudice still in me.
> But I have worked with them for years and have friends and neighbors in the military now. Combat troops returning from Afghanistan.
> They tell me gays are already in the military and fairly open about it. So why not allow it and let these good folks BE WHO THEY ARE?



Have been for years. The only ones that got booted made it a point to tell.


----------



## rdean

The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

rdean said:


> The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.



I dont know, we got ours when Clinton and Newt shut it down the last time.


----------



## gautama

Dr.Drock said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boadicea, you asked me a specific question.  I answered it even though it had nothing to do with sexual deviants serving in the military.  On that subject my thesis remains the same.  Sexual deviants shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.  Have a nice day.
> 
> The subject of communism is a real threat to the USA.  I post the link to this liberal web site so that Americans will be aware of what our enemy is up to.  Home » cpusa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let us see if you are a man of conviction.
> You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours. Your wounded need evacuation and you can not get them out.
> Another unit is coming to help you and you know there a few gay soldiers in that unit.
> Do you:
> A. Accept their help and rescue your men or
> B. Tell them "Queers are perverts and may give AIDS to my men if they come to help us. I would rather sacrifice my men than have queers come to my and my men's aid.
> 
> Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put your odds of getting an answer to this at about 10,000 to 1.
Click to expand...


Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,

First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:

*IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.

In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*

WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????


----------



## bodecea

rdean said:


> The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.



Troops will get paid....my retirement however might not come....but that I can put up with.


----------



## Zona

rdean said:


> The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.



I want to see how they will try to spin that little one.  They will stop paying the troops and hell even me as a retiree if "they" shut down the government.  I bet the republicans who are doing this will still be paid.  

They make me sick.


----------



## Zona

bodecea said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troops will get paid....my retirement however might not come....but that I can put up with.
Click to expand...


Do a little research.  NO THEY WONT GET PAID.  I just watched a news report on what will stop and I checked it out on the web to back this up.  

The troops will not be paid.  Congrats republicans.


----------



## Zona

Momanohedhunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know, we got ours when Clinton and Newt shut it down the last time.
Click to expand...


Shrugs.....

Wonk Room » U.S. Troops Won&#8217;t Get Paid If The Government Shuts Down

I just watched this on the news...


----------



## Momanohedhunter

I remember it being something we were all worried about, but I am pretty sure we got full pay.


----------



## gautama

gautama said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let us see if you are a man of conviction.
> You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours. Your wounded need evacuation and you can not get them out.
> Another unit is coming to help you and you know there a few gay soldiers in that unit.
> Do you:
> A. Accept their help and rescue your men or
> B. Tell them "Queers are perverts and may give AIDS to my men if they come to help us. I would rather sacrifice my men than have queers come to my and my men's aid.
> 
> Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put your odds of getting an answer to this at about 10,000 to 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????
Click to expand...


An Addendum: Note GoDog's flamboyant and typically contemptibly phony Obamarrhoidal tactics in the restriction to a rebuttal: "Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens " .......when the Obamarrhoidal arsehole *uses the HYPOTHETICAL case himself !!!*

The posts by the Obamarrhoidal stooges are typical of the tactics of these arseholes.


----------



## bodecea

gautama said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put your odds of getting an answer to this at about 10,000 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An Addendum: Note GoDog's flamboyant and typically contemptibly phony Obamarrhoidal tactics in the restriction to a rebuttal: "Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens " .......when the Obamarrhoidal arsehole *uses the HYPOTHETICAL case himself !!!*
> 
> The posts by the Obamarrhoidal stooges are typical of the tactics of these arseholes.
Click to expand...


We are all comforted to know that even the Recruiters would have rejected you....yes, even the Army.


----------



## Gadawg73

gautama said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put your odds of getting an answer to this at about 10,000 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An Addendum: Note GoDog's flamboyant and typically contemptibly phony Obamarrhoidal tactics in the restriction to a rebuttal: "Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens " .......when the Obamarrhoidal arsehole *uses the HYPOTHETICAL case himself !!!*
> 
> The posts by the Obamarrhoidal stooges are typical of the tactics of these arseholes.
Click to expand...


I R a Republican Moe.
Try again with some original material next time.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Good morning maggots.  I think that I'm going to have a great time with you too.  Hoo Rah!  There is one thing that is clear.  You're gay.  Like the old adage goes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck.  Nuff said about that.



Enough said about what? Are you attempting to claim that if you are supportive of gay and lesbian equality you must be gay? I will agree that some of the posters responding to you are gay, but not all of them are. 

What long experience has shown me is that the many anti-gay "ducks" end up being gay themselves. It certainly wouldn't be a stretch to see you falling into that category. 



> To those of you claiming to have served with a self declared gay I have only one thing to say.  Horse Hockey!  When I served DADT didn't exist.  So I can only say that I knowingly served with two gays.  One night on BN. Staff Duty, I caught two rump rangers honking on each other (you know like seawtch says, you got to eat your meat to get to the pudding) while doing HQ CO bed check.  These two individuals were taken into custody, and were out processed the next day.



You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about meat or pudding. 



> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.



And yet they do. If you had taken the time to read the Pentagon survey you would know that almost 70% of the respondents thought that they were serving with someone who was gay or lesbian. Sorry old timer, but the world and the military has moved on from your archaic behaviors and beliefs. 



> The statement that you served with openly declared gays would suggest that you're a liar, or didn't serve.  I think that the assumption that you're a liar is evident.  Your service to this country is in question, but is not readily verifiable with out seeing your DD 214.  When I served we still had a volunteer/ drafted force.  So all units had their fair share of maggots to deal with.  Some folks just didn't belong in the military.  So the fact that you may have served is a possibility.



Who are you talking to? Who made the claim? Whose service are you questioning?


----------



## yota5

*"You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about meat or pudding."*  (Seawtch)

You are right Seawtch, I did have you mixed up with someone else.  No excuse for that.  Please accept my apology.  That should have never happened. 

As far as the rest of the commentary in my reply goes I stand by that.  As a veteran I served to preserve the right of free speech, and the ability to express ones opinions freely.  These are my opinions.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

gautama said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let us see if you are a man of conviction.
> You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours. Your wounded need evacuation and you can not get them out.
> Another unit is coming to help you and you know there a few gay soldiers in that unit.
> Do you:
> A. Accept their help and rescue your men or
> B. Tell them "Queers are perverts and may give AIDS to my men if they come to help us. I would rather sacrifice my men than have queers come to my and my men's aid.
> 
> Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put your odds of getting an answer to this at about 10,000 to 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
Click to expand...

Have you considered "coming-out", yourself*???*

When someone displays the anger, *YOU* do, there are usually....



> .....*other*_-things_ goin'-on.




​


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> *"You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about meat or pudding."*  (Seawtch)
> 
> You are right Seawtch, I did have you mixed up with someone else.  No excuse for that.  Please accept my apology.  That should have never happened.
> 
> As far as the rest of the commentary in my reply goes I stand by that.  As a veteran I served to preserve the right of free speech, and the ability to express ones opinions freely.  These are my opinions.



Has someone here tried to stop your from giving your opinion freely?


----------



## yota5

I saw a few expressions that people are concerned that their retirement checks aren't coming, but the troops would get paid.  The retirement checks for those already in the system will come on time.  New applications will be held up.  Troops will not be paid unless the 7 day extension passes today.  

Democrats should have passed the budget last year.  They didn't do this because fear of voter angst during the election.  Now the Dem's and republicans are 7 billion dollars apart.  This amounts to 7 days worth of interest payments on the mega-trillion dollar debt that this  country owes.  

Democrats, think that the republicans will be blamed for the coming government shut down.  Chuck Schumer, D NY, says said this publicly.  He, and the rest of the Dem's are rooting for a government shutdown.  This time the American people know exactly who to blame.  Democrats are trying to force republicans into leaving things as they are so that the Dem's can continue to squander our national treasure, and bankrupt this country.

I know that this doesn't have anything to do with *sexual deviants serving in the military*, but I thought that I would respond to the interest expressed in these issues earlier in this thread.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about meat or pudding."*  (Seawtch)
> 
> You are right Seawtch, I did have you mixed up with someone else.  No excuse for that.  Please accept my apology.  That should have never happened.
> 
> As far as the rest of the commentary in my reply goes I stand by that.  As a veteran I served to preserve the right of free speech, and the ability to express ones opinions freely.  These are my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone here tried to stop your from giving your opinion freely?
Click to expand...


Goodmorning bodecea, a remedial reading comprehension class may help.


----------



## gekaap

Brewbrother said:


> I didn't know sexual orientation effected rifle accuracy.



Two of the gay people I knew got perfect scores, 40/40.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> I saw a few expressions that people are concerned that their retirement checks aren't coming, but the troops would get paid.  The retirement checks for those already in the system will come on time.  New applications will be held up.  Troops will not be paid unless the 7 day extension passes today.
> 
> *Democrats should have passed the budget last year. * They didn't do this because fear of voter angst during the election.  Now the Dem's and republicans are 7 billion dollars apart.  This amounts to 7 days worth of interest payments on the mega-trillion dollar debt that this  country owes.
> 
> Democrats, think that the republicans will be blamed for the coming government shut down.  Chuck Schumer, D NY, says said this publicly.  He, and the rest of the Dem's are rooting for a government shutdown.  This time the American people know exactly who to blame.  Democrats are trying to force republicans into leaving things as they are so that the Dem's can continue to squander our national treasure, and bankrupt this country.
> 
> I know that this doesn't have anything to do with *sexual deviants serving in the military*, but I thought that I would respond to the interest expressed in these issues earlier in this thread.



They did.   There's a new budget each year, you know.


----------



## gekaap

Yota, perhaps you should move to Afghanistan and help the Taliban regain control.  It's clear that you would be much happier under the kind of society that their laws promoted.  Geez, and people think that it's foreign extremism that America has to fear.  *shakes head*


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing would happen today under DADT.  If you declare sexual deviation through action or statement you're gone.  Gays can't openly serve in the US Military.  It's that simple.  People who have served would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they do. If you had taken the time to read the Pentagon survey you would know that almost 70% of the respondents thought that they were serving with someone who was gay or lesbian. Sorry old timer, but the world and the military has moved on from your archaic behaviors and beliefs.
Click to expand...

You'd think such a *hard-core*, like yota5, would be a little-more familiar with military-history; circa *1958!!!*​


> "When Dennis Murphy's novel, *"The Sergeant,"* appeared in 1958, one reviewer described it as the story of a young man's personal discovery in a contest between good and evil."
> 
> *The Sergeant*​


----------



## gautama

Gadawg73 said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Addendum: Note GoDog's flamboyant and typically contemptibly phony Obamarrhoidal tactics in the restriction to a rebuttal: "Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens " .......when the Obamarrhoidal arsehole *uses the HYPOTHETICAL case himself !!!*
> 
> The posts by the Obamarrhoidal stooges are typical of the tactics of these arseholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I R a Republican Moe.
> Try again with some original material next time.
Click to expand...


WTF are you babbling about  ?

You came out with bullshit and got exposed.

End of story.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"You have me mistaken for someone else. I have said nothing about meat or pudding."*  (Seawtch)
> 
> You are right Seawtch, I did have you mixed up with someone else.  No excuse for that.  Please accept my apology.  That should have never happened.
> 
> As far as the rest of the commentary in my reply goes I stand by that.  As a veteran I served to preserve the right of free speech, and the ability to express ones opinions freely.  These are my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone here tried to stop your from giving your opinion freely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goodmorning bodecea, a remedial reading comprehension class may help.
Click to expand...


Can you show where you were prevented from giving your opinion freely?

People disagreeing with you does not prevent you from expressing your opinion. I appreciate your service in protecting our right to post on internet message boards


----------



## gekaap

gautama said:


> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????



On what basis do you presume that gay men and women must have HIV?  And on what basis do you disregard the equal possibility of straight men and women having HIV?


----------



## Mr. Shaman

gekaap said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis do you presume that gay men and women must have HIV?  *And on what basis do you disregard the equal possibility of straight men and women having HIV?*
Click to expand...

*Bingo!!!!*













> "Nobody even cared about AIDS until some straight people caught it.
> 
> *Reagans friend and confidant, the evangelical Billy Graham, said that AIDS was killing all the right people.*
> 
> *100 Sentences for Reagans 100th Birthday*​


----------



## BlindBoo

yota5 said:


> I'm not interested what other countries allow sexual deviants to do, Boo.  America, has the finest military in the world for a reason.  Why should we bring our military down to the standards of an inferior fighting force?



Yeah sure yota5, can't lower our standards to the level of Israel or Great Brittan? 

The fact that you refer to homesexuals as sexual deviants proves out what others have concluded about you.


----------



## yota5

If you had trained with these countries during NATO exercises you would know that they have a competent military force.  However, even the members the two countries that you've cited will tell you that the US is a far superior force.


----------



## ogibillm

bodecea said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The troops are concerned about the paychecks they won't be getting if Republicans shut down government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troops will get paid....my retirement however might not come....but that I can put up with.
Click to expand...


My wife sent me an email they recieved. They expect more guidance tomorrow but the worst case scenario right now is those that are AGR continue to work, *without pay* through the shutdown. Those that are technicians will not work and will also *not be paid*. Travel and training will be shut down with the exception of mobilization events.

i know there are a lot of things still up in the air but right now it looks like the troops - or at least some - will not be paid.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a few expressions that people are concerned that their retirement checks aren't coming, but the troops would get paid.  The retirement checks for those already in the system will come on time.  New applications will be held up.  Troops will not be paid unless the 7 day extension passes today.
> 
> *Democrats should have passed the budget last year. * They didn't do this because fear of voter angst during the election.  Now the Dem's and republicans are 7 billion dollars apart.  This amounts to 7 days worth of interest payments on the mega-trillion dollar debt that this  country owes.
> 
> Democrats, think that the republicans will be blamed for the coming government shut down.  Chuck Schumer, D NY, says said this publicly.  He, and the rest of the Dem's are rooting for a government shutdown.  This time the American people know exactly who to blame.  Democrats are trying to force republicans into leaving things as they are so that the Dem's can continue to squander our national treasure, and bankrupt this country.
> 
> I know that this doesn't have anything to do with *sexual deviants serving in the military*, but I thought that I would respond to the interest expressed in these issues earlier in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did.   There's a new budget each year, you know.
Click to expand...


Bod, if you go back and check you'll see that the liberal controlled Congress didn't pass a budget last year.  Instead they kept kicking the can down the road with budget extensions.  The bottom line is that they wish to leave things exactly as they are so that they can continue to squander our national treasure.  If these clowns worked in the private sector they would've been shown the curb a long time ago.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> If you had trained with these countries during NATO exercises you would know that they have a competent military force.  However, even the members the two countries that you've cited will tell you that the US is a far superior force.



I doubt seriously someone from another country's military is going to say our military force ( or members) are superior.   Our numbers and equipment, yes, actual members...no.   In fact, I wish we did like the Brits did with cohesive units that stick together for a long time.


----------



## beowolfe

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



Sounds like you and your son are equally uninformed.  Gays are ALREADY serving in the military.  When you say 'Troops' are you referring to the gay troops and the straight one that don't mind serving next to openly gay troops, or are you simply referring to the homophobes.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

yota5 said:


> If you had trained with these countries during NATO exercises you would know that they have a competent military force.  However, even the members the two countries that you've cited will tell you that the US is a far superior force.


Yeah.....enforcing *DADT* really helped to attract the....



> ....*U.S. Cream-O'-The-Crop**!!*​


----------



## yota5

Hey shamen, do you ever form your own opinions when you're out riding that sporty, or are you just religiously addicted to the cut and paste?


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had trained with these countries during NATO exercises you would know that they have a competent military force.  However, even the members the two countries that you've cited will tell you that the US is a far superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt seriously someone from another country's military is going to say our military force ( or members) are superior.   Our numbers and equipment, yes, actual members...no.   In fact, I wish we did like the Brits did with cohesive units that stick together for a long time.
Click to expand...


Well bod, you would have had to participate in a NATO training exercise to have heard those comments, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had trained with these countries during NATO exercises you would know that they have a competent military force.  However, even the members the two countries that you've cited will tell you that the US is a far superior force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt seriously someone from another country's military is going to say our military force ( or members) are superior.   Our numbers and equipment, yes, actual members...no.   In fact, I wish we did like the Brits did with cohesive units that stick together for a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well bod, you would have had to participate in a NATO training exercise to have heard those comments, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...


How many RIMPACs and Team Spirits were you involved in?


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> As far as the rest of the commentary in my reply goes I stand by that.  As a veteran I served to preserve the right of free speech, and the ability to express ones opinions freely.  These are my opinions.



Stand by what? Who is doing anything to your right to express your opinions? Your statement does not address a single question that anyone has asked or point they have made. Do you ever plan on doing so? 

Gays and lesbians are serving in the Armed Forces right now. They have been since the beginning of time. In the very near future they will no longer have to abide by a different set of rules than those that apply to heterosexuals...all will be serving under the same exact rules and regulations. How is this a problem?


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> If you had trained with these countries during NATO exercises you would know that they have a competent military force.  However, even the members the two countries that you've cited will tell you that the US is a far superior force.



Yes sir, you are right.
But it has nothing to do with banning gay folks from admitting who they are. 
Nothing whatsoever.


----------



## rightwinger

beowolfe said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you and your son are equally uninformed.  Gays are ALREADY serving in the military.  When you say 'Troops' are you referring to the gay troops and the straight one that don't mind serving next to openly gay troops, or are you simply referring to the homophobes.
Click to expand...


His son is a pussy and needs to either resign from the service or quit whining about having to serve with gays


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you and your son are equally uninformed.  Gays are ALREADY serving in the military.  When you say 'Troops' are you referring to the gay troops and the straight one that don't mind serving next to openly gay troops, or are you simply referring to the homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His son is a pussy and needs to either resign from the service or quit whining about having to serve with gays
Click to expand...


Do  you seriously believe this is a Son issue?


----------



## rightwinger

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you and your son are equally uninformed.  Gays are ALREADY serving in the military.  When you say 'Troops' are you referring to the gay troops and the straight one that don't mind serving next to openly gay troops, or are you simply referring to the homophobes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His son is a pussy and needs to either resign from the service or quit whining about having to serve with gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do  you seriously believe this is a Son issue?
Click to expand...


I believe the sons real beliefs are being altered to reflect yota's hateful personal agenda. But since yota brought him up, I think his son is a pussy for not standing by his convictions and resigning because he is forced to serve with gays


----------



## SFC Ollie

You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.

I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.

I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.
> 
> I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....



That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.


----------



## yota5

gekaap said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.
> 
> I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
Click to expand...


Once a clown, always a clown.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt seriously someone from another country's military is going to say our military force ( or members) are superior.   Our numbers and equipment, yes, actual members...no.   In fact, I wish we did like the Brits did with cohesive units that stick together for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well bod, you would have had to participate in a NATO training exercise to have heard those comments, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many RIMPACs and Team Spirits were you involved in?
Click to expand...


None.  I was in the Army, not the Navy.  Nor,  was I ever stationed in South Korea.


----------



## SFC Ollie

gekaap said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.
> 
> I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
Click to expand...


This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.
> 
> I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about you being against the repeal of DADT.  I'm talking about how you say that there will be problems and that we won't here about them.  That kind of thinking is dogmatic.  I could just as easily say that DADT created problems but we just didn't hear about them and never will.


----------



## SFC Ollie

gekaap said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about you being against the repeal of DADT.  I'm talking about how you say that there will be problems and that we won't here about them.  That kind of thinking is dogmatic.  I could just as easily say that DADT created problems but we just didn't hear about them and never will.
Click to expand...


I retired while DADT was being implemented, the general feeling at the time was not good. I do believe that it worked out fairly decent though. But i can promise you there were instances that the general public never heard about under DADT.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.
> 
> I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
Click to expand...


You are spot on about problems coming with the repeal of DADT, but I truly dont believe that it will be because some guy got wood in the shower. What you will see are instances of some one getting offended because a guy called him a fag or homo. Carers will get destroyed over words or someone will say they got passed over for a promotion because they are gay or whatever.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about you being against the repeal of DADT.  I'm talking about how you say that there will be problems and that we won't here about them.  That kind of thinking is dogmatic.  I could just as easily say that DADT created problems but we just didn't hear about them and never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I retired while DADT was being implemented, the general feeling at the time was not good. I do believe that it worked out fairly decent though. But i can promise you there were instances that the general public never heard about under DADT.
Click to expand...


Yeah...like those who didn't tell but were still kicked out.


----------



## Grace

I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.

Its all very sad.


----------



## bodecea

IMEURU said:


> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.



Lotta gay medics.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all know that I have been against repealing DADT. I haven't changed my mind.
> 
> I still believe it is going to cause problems that our military doesn't need right now.
> 
> I also still believe that we won't hear about most of those problems. We won't be meant to know about them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
Click to expand...


"I could be wrong" Ollie. 
And I bet good $$$ that you will be one that will acknowledge that  you were wrong as that is who I believe you are Ollie. And I respect that. 
There will be problems initiating it and I do worry about initiating it during two wars but the Pentagon wants it initiated. This wasn't Obama's idea. Gates/Mullen, et al.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

IMEURU said:


> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.



He nor do his imaginary sons  represent or speak for the majority of the military. The Doc will help any who need it regardless. The Military is not a bunch of dumb hicks. When I was in boot camp I was one of four who had never went to collage. The seven  had at least a year.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I could be wrong" Ollie.
> And I bet good $$$ that you will be one that will acknowledge that  you were wrong as that is who I believe you are Ollie. And I respect that.
> There will be problems initiating it and I do worry about initiating it during two wars but the Pentagon wants it initiated. This wasn't Obama's idea. Gates/Mullen, et al.
Click to expand...


Whoever got it pushed through doesn't matter now. It was wrong and the worst timing it could have possibly been.


----------



## Shogun

Momanohedhunter said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a perfectly hollow and dogmatic thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are spot on about problems coming with the repeal of DADT, but I truly dont believe that it will be because some guy got wood in the shower. What you will see are instances of some one getting offended because a guy called him a fag or homo. Carers will get destroyed over words or someone will say they got passed over for a promotion because they are gay or whatever.
Click to expand...


yea... it's too bad they can't tell ****** jokes after racial integration either.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Shogun said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are spot on about problems coming with the repeal of DADT, but I truly dont believe that it will be because some guy got wood in the shower. What you will see are instances of some one getting offended because a guy called him a fag or homo. Carers will get destroyed over words or someone will say they got passed over for a promotion because they are gay or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea... it's too bad they can't tell ****** jokes after racial integration either.
Click to expand...


They are not that stupid. And the military is not the only place ****** jokes get told.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> I retired while DADT was being implemented, the general feeling at the time was not good. I do believe that it worked out fairly decent though. But i can promise you there were instances that the general public never heard about under DADT.



And I can "promise" you that the Freemasons, in conjunction with the Illuminati, are running the government.  You just don't hear about it.


----------



## Gadawg73

Shogun said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an old argument and I will not repeat it for the newbies. It is where I stand and will stand until and if the future proves me to be wrong. Take it for whatever you think it's worth. But it is based upon 22 years on active duty. But hey, I could be wrong. It's happened. Not often, but it has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are spot on about problems coming with the repeal of DADT, but I truly dont believe that it will be because some guy got wood in the shower. What you will see are instances of some one getting offended because a guy called him a fag or homo. Carers will get destroyed over words or someone will say they got passed over for a promotion because they are gay or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea... it's too bad they can't tell ****** jokes after racial integration either.
Click to expand...


Yeah, good point there. I grew up during integration and saw the worst from folks I would have never believed it would have come from. Changed me forever.
And I know that had an ifluence from about age 35 on how I looked at and treated gay folk.
Not saying it is the same as I know many that are not homophobes that oppose the repeal but it sure looks the same to me as I grew up in it and saw the verbal slandering of folks.
Discrimination is discrimination.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> Whoever got it pushed through doesn't matter now. It was wrong and the worst timing it could have possibly been.



Actually, DADT was declared unconstitutional shortly before the repeal.  So in fact it seems that repealing the law was right, as it was not constitutional in the first place.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Gadawg73 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are spot on about problems coming with the repeal of DADT, but I truly dont believe that it will be because some guy got wood in the shower. What you will see are instances of some one getting offended because a guy called him a fag or homo. Carers will get destroyed over words or someone will say they got passed over for a promotion because they are gay or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea... it's too bad they can't tell ****** jokes after racial integration either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, good point there. I grew up during integration and saw the worst from folks I would have never believed it would have come from. Changed me forever.
> And I know that had an ifluence from about age 35 on how I looked at and treated gay folk.
> Not saying it is the same as I know many that are not homophobes that oppose the repeal but it sure looks the same to me as I grew up in it and saw the verbal slandering of folks.
> Discrimination is discrimination.
Click to expand...


This is different. Blacks had it worse in my opinion. They used to have segregated regiments, and living quarters and what not. This is not the case with gays. Gays have been serving with straights for ever without a problem and unless the military lets them cross dress then it wont be an issue for long


----------



## gautama

bodecea said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Drek and the other Obamarrhoidal stooge Godog,
> 
> First of all, when you pose a hypothetical question like you did with the silent *IF* ....."You and your men are on patrol and are ambushed and pinned down for hours, etc. then, reasonably, one has to answer with some  reasonable qualifications, such as:
> 
> *IF* the ambushed men are wounded, or dying.....or, in need of help......the conditions in our Army are so fucked up regarding the fucking queers allowed to serve....that one *HAS NO CHOICE* but to ask for the rescue, hoping against hope, that the fucking queers in the rescuing party aren't going to get wounded and bleed their fucking HIV unto the wounded who are normals.
> 
> In short, *the answer without the hypotheticals*, is as the OP stated: when one is now serving in the Military, *ONE NO LONGER HAS A CHOICE BUT TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF A QUEER'S HIV INFECTED BLOOD GET TRANSFERRED TO YOU IN CASE OF WOUNDS !!!*
> 
> WTF is necessary for you fucking queers, or queer supporters to understand the OBVIOUS ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Addendum: Note GoDog's flamboyant and typically contemptibly phony Obamarrhoidal tactics in the restriction to a rebuttal: "Which is it? No ifs, ands or buts or maybes, wouldas, couldas, oughtas or that would never happens " .......when the Obamarrhoidal arsehole *uses the HYPOTHETICAL case himself !!!*
> 
> The posts by the Obamarrhoidal stooges are typical of the tactics of these arseholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are all comforted to know that even the Recruiters would have rejected you....yes, even the Army.
Click to expand...


Obviously, the recruiters *MUST* follow the Military's current and idiotic "QUEER PC " policy regarding the fucking queers.

So, one cannot arbitrarily select one's own conditions and impose them on the Military.

Your point, whatever it is, is meaningless.

Your babble, at best, is usually distorted, mendacious, or meaningless.


----------



## yota5

IMEURU said:


> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.



Imeuru, if you had walked in my boots you would know the true meaning of visceral fear.  You would know that in spite of that you can still function in a very hostile environment.  You know that your training, and faith in your buddies will get you through.  But, you haven't walked in my boots.  You've never served your country not even for 4 seconds.  Therefore, you do not have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You can only blow a bunch of smoke, because you don't know what you're talking about.  

What SFC Ollie says is true.  There will be a lot going on behind the scenes that you'll never know.  The troops have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.  

Civilians in power positions don't care about service men and women.  They only care about their own careers.  I think that anyone in a civilian capacity that makes decisions that affects the well being of our service men, and women should be strapped to the front bumper of an MRAP, and be driven around Iraq, or Afghanistan, for about 3 months.  

The attitude adjustment that would make would be very profound.  It would stop dimwitted social engineering projects such as sexual deviants openly serving in the military in their tracks.


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imeuru, if you had walked in my boots you would know the true meaning of visceral fear.  You would know that in spite of that you can still function in a very hostile environment.  You know that your training, and faith in your buddies will get you through.  But, you haven't walked in my boots.  You've never served your country not even for 4 seconds.  Therefore, you do not have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You can only blow a bunch of smoke, because you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> What SFC Ollie says is true.  There will be a lot going on behind the scenes that you'll never know.  The troops have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> Civilians in power positions don't care about service men and women.  They only care about their own careers.  I think that anyone in a civilian capacity that makes decisions that affects the well being of our service men, and women should be strapped to the front bumper of an MRAP, and be driven around Iraq, or Afghanistan, for about 3 months.
> 
> The attitude adjustment that would make would be very profound.  It would stop dimwitted social engineering projects such as sexual deviants openly serving in the military in their tracks.
Click to expand...


Considering that the military is ultimately controlled by the civilian government, there will always be and should be civilians making decisions that affect the well being of our soldiers.  I think you worded that poorly.

And I'm still waiting to hear just what constitutes sexual deviants according to you.  Obviously you put gays in that category, but what about the myriad sexual proclivities and fetishes practiced by heterosexuals?  Are any of them sexual deviants, and if so, should we be preventing them from joining the military?


----------



## Grace

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imeuru, if you had walked in my boots you would know the true meaning of visceral fear.  You would know that in spite of that you can still function in a very hostile environment.  You know that your training, and faith in your buddies will get you through.  But, you haven't walked in my boots.  You've never served your country not even for 4 seconds.  Therefore, you do not have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You can only blow a bunch of smoke, because you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> What SFC Ollie says is true.  There will be a lot going on behind the scenes that you'll never know.  The troops have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> Civilians in power positions don't care about service men and women.  They only care about their own careers.  I think that anyone in a civilian capacity that makes decisions that affects the well being of our service men, and women should be strapped to the front bumper of an MRAP, and be driven around Iraq, or Afghanistan, for about 3 months.
> 
> The attitude adjustment that would make would be very profound.  It would stop dimwitted social engineering projects such as sexual deviants openly serving in the military in their tracks.
Click to expand...


Wow. I mustve pushed a button. This time, unintentionally. 
For the record, I care very much for our soldiers. Every one of them. Past, present and future. No matter their race, their sex, or their sexual prefernce. If you want to think Im dimwitted and shouldnt have an opinion, thats your problem. I still hope your son stays safe and if you are still enlisted yourself, that you stay safe as well and both of you come home without harm. Well, as much LESS harm as possible.
And frankly, Im tired of the sexual deviants repeats. Find a new insulting word for your fellow men and women at arms..and in harms way.Thanks in advance.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imeuru, if you had walked in my boots you would know the true meaning of visceral fear.  You would know that in spite of that you can still function in a very hostile environment.  You know that your training, and faith in your buddies will get you through.  But, you haven't walked in my boots.  You've never served your country not even for 4 seconds.  Therefore, you do not have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You can only blow a bunch of smoke, because you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> What SFC Ollie says is true.  There will be a lot going on behind the scenes that you'll never know.  The troops have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> Civilians in power positions don't care about service men and women.  They only care about their own careers.  I think that anyone in a civilian capacity that makes decisions that affects the well being of our service men, and women should be strapped to the front bumper of an MRAP, and be driven around Iraq, or Afghanistan, for about 3 months.
> 
> The attitude adjustment that would make would be very profound.  It would stop dimwitted social engineering projects such as sexual deviants openly serving in the military in their tracks.
Click to expand...


Very hypothetical question here, but what if one of the people you served with-and literally trusted with your life came out of the closet tomorrow? What would you tell them?


----------



## Grace

Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.

He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

IMEURU said:


> Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.
> 
> He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.



It slipped off because dude got pegged as a shit bird trying to use history channel facts to build a past in the Army or whatever that never existed. This is how most shit birds operate.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

JamesInFlorida said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the worst repercussions will be those who need the medic but the medic is gay. Or those who are the hurt ones wont get help because they are gay. Deaths. Mindsets like those of yota. Fear. DEATH that could have been avoided. Suffering. Betrayal. Mistrust.
> 
> Its all very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imeuru, if you had walked in my boots you would know the true meaning of visceral fear.  You would know that in spite of that you can still function in a very hostile environment.  You know that your training, and faith in your buddies will get you through.  But, you haven't walked in my boots.  You've never served your country not even for 4 seconds.  Therefore, you do not have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You can only blow a bunch of smoke, because you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> What SFC Ollie says is true.  There will be a lot going on behind the scenes that you'll never know.  The troops have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> Civilians in power positions don't care about service men and women.  They only care about their own careers.  I think that anyone in a civilian capacity that makes decisions that affects the well being of our service men, and women should be strapped to the front bumper of an MRAP, and be driven around Iraq, or Afghanistan, for about 3 months.
> 
> The attitude adjustment that would make would be very profound.  It would stop dimwitted social engineering projects such as sexual deviants openly serving in the military in their tracks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very hypothetical question here, but what if one of the people you served with-and literally trusted with your life came out of the closet tomorrow? What would you tell them?
Click to expand...


This is what will happen, and life will go on. And as for the original poster going on about the troops being told not to comment on the issue, had he been in any branch of the military he and his imaginary sons would know that they are not allowed to make comments to the press. The officers are supposed to address those questions. The fact that this goof ball mistakes typical military BS as some type of conspiracy go's further to spotlight this fellow as an arm chair commando. I enlisted roughly at the beginning of dont ask dont tell. For ten years after it was common knowledge that it would go away. No one had to tell us.The dude was fishing for rep. nothing more.


----------



## Grace

Momanohedhunter said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imeuru, if you had walked in my boots you would know the true meaning of visceral fear.  You would know that in spite of that you can still function in a very hostile environment.  You know that your training, and faith in your buddies will get you through.  But, you haven't walked in my boots.  You've never served your country not even for 4 seconds.  Therefore, you do not have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You can only blow a bunch of smoke, because you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> What SFC Ollie says is true.  There will be a lot going on behind the scenes that you'll never know.  The troops have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> Civilians in power positions don't care about service men and women.  They only care about their own careers.  I think that anyone in a civilian capacity that makes decisions that affects the well being of our service men, and women should be strapped to the front bumper of an MRAP, and be driven around Iraq, or Afghanistan, for about 3 months.
> 
> The attitude adjustment that would make would be very profound.  It would stop dimwitted social engineering projects such as sexual deviants openly serving in the military in their tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very hypothetical question here, but what if one of the people you served with-and literally trusted with your life came out of the closet tomorrow? What would you tell them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what will happen, and life will go on. And as for the original poster going on about the troops being told not to comment on the issue, had he been in any branch of the military he and his imaginary sons would know that they are not allowed to make comments to the press. The officers are supposed to address those questions. The fact that this goof ball mistakes typical military BS as some type of conspiracy go's further to spotlight this fellow as an arm chair commando. I enlisted roughly at the beginning of dont ask dont tell. For ten years after it was common knowledge that it would go away. No one had to tell us.The dude was fishing for rep. nothing more.
Click to expand...


Tis a shame, but I think youre right.


----------



## Gadawg73

I was not in the military.
But every other male in my family was, the last 3 tours in Viet Nam '66, '67 and '68, my brother.
Dad, my uncles, granfathers, cousins and brother all told me their military comrades WERE LIKE FAMILY.
So if a family member comes out to you that they are gay do you turn on them yota?
Doesn't sound like any military man I have ever known.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Gadawg73 said:


> I was not in the military.
> But every other male in my family was, the last 3 tours in Viet Nam '66, '67 and '68, my brother.
> Dad, my uncles, granfathers, cousins and brother all told me their military comrades WERE LIKE FAMILY.
> So if a family member comes out to you that they are gay do you turn on them yota?
> Doesn't sound like any military man I have ever known.



Only if they get wood and try and give you a butt dart in the shower.


----------



## Seawytch

When asked  "What is your current professional military judgement about the risk to military effectiveness?", the four military Chiefs said:

- GEN. PETER CHIARELLI &#8211; VICE CHIEF OF ARMY: &#8220;I had a session with commanders last Friday, they have indicated no issues so far in Tier I and Tier II training as they get ready to kick off our Tier III training.&#8221;

- GEN. JAMES AMOS &#8211; CHIEF OF THE MARINE CORPS: &#8220;And I&#8217;m looking for specifically for issues coming out of the Tier II and Tier III training and to be honest with you, Chairman, we&#8217;ve not seen it&#8230;there hasn&#8217;t been the recalcitrant push back, there hasn&#8217;t been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field.&#8221;

- GEN. NORTON SCHWARTZ &#8211; CHIEF OF AIR FORCE: &#8220;We are mitigating the risk in the way we are approaching this and so I&#8217;m more comfortable than I was on the 22 of December, but we still have a ways to go and it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring this home.&#8221;

- ADM. GARY ROUGHEAD &#8211; CHIEF OF NAVY: &#8220;I&#8217;m very comfortable. I was very comfortable in making the recommendation last December and it&#8217;s consistent with what I continue to see in the Navy today.&#8221;

http://armedservices.house.gov/inde...Group_id=13e47ffa-0753-47a7-ad5e-1ba7592015c9

Just as predicted, the lifting of DADT is a big "ho hum". The troops want to do their jobs and get home in one piece and then get a little piece. They don't care what sex the piece is that the other guy is getting.


----------



## yota5

IMEURU said:


> Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.
> 
> He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.



Good morning Imeuru.  I don't spend the majority of my day glued to this board.  I have a life.  If I don't answer your questions immediately it's because I'm not log on.  

The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.  Our troops have been given direct orders to keep their mouths shut about this issue.  As usual their opinions and feelings will not be considered.  We are in effect telling them to be seen, not heard, and to run along and die when instructed to do so.  

If you have to have me explain to you what a sexual deviant is then you're too naive to discuss this latest liberal social engineering scheme.  

Thanks for the kind words about my boys.  My oldest son still serves.  He is a three time Iraqi Freedom vet.  His younger brother was injured during his last week in Iraq.  Both he, and I are veterans.


----------



## Dr.Drock

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.
> 
> He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning Imeuru.  I don't spend the majority of my day glued to this board.  I have a life.  If I don't answer your questions immediately it's because I'm not log on.
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.  Our troops have been given direct orders to keep their mouths shut about this issue.  As usual their opinions and feelings will not be considered.  We are in effect telling them to be seen, not heard, and to run along and die when instructed to do so.
> 
> If you have to have me explain to you what a sexual deviant is then you're too naive to discuss this latest liberal social engineering scheme.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words about my boys.  My oldest son still serves.  He is a three time Iraqi Freedom vet.  His younger brother was injured during his last week in Iraq.  Both he, and I are veterans.
Click to expand...


Why at the beginning did you pretend it was about STD's?  Why didn't you just come right out and say "I don't want gays in the military because I hate gays"?


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.



The only sexual deviants are the people like you who insist on trying to control how the rest of us have sex.  It's a pretty twisted obsession you have.  So I agree, people like you should be barred from serving in the military.


----------



## rightwinger

gekaap said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only sexual deviants are the people like you who insist on trying to control how the rest of us have sex.  It's a pretty twisted obsession you have.  So I agree, people like you should be barred from serving in the military.
Click to expand...


He does raise an interesting point..

Should sexual deviants be banned from the Army?
or
Should simple minded people who hate anyone who is different than them be banned from the Army?


----------



## JamesInFlorida

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.
> 
> He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning Imeuru.  I don't spend the majority of my day glued to this board.  I have a life.  If I don't answer your questions immediately it's because I'm not log on.
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.  Our troops have been given direct orders to keep their mouths shut about this issue.  As usual their opinions and feelings will not be considered.  We are in effect telling them to be seen, not heard, and to run along and die when instructed to do so.
> 
> If you have to have me explain to you what a sexual deviant is then you're too naive to discuss this latest liberal social engineering scheme.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words about my boys.  My oldest son still serves.  He is a three time Iraqi Freedom vet.  His younger brother was injured during his last week in Iraq.  Both he, and I are veterans.
Click to expand...


Once again: what would you say to somebody you served with who came out of the closet tomorrow? (hypothetically speaking of course).

And the military can't ask every single person in the military what their thoughts or feelings are-there's way too many. And this is about all issues-not just DADT.

And if you don't want a job where you do what you're told to, and your feelings aren't taken into consideration, the solution is simple: don't join the military.

Lastly-to think that your son(s), or yourself speak on behalf of the entire military, is one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard of.

And thank you for your service.


----------



## bodecea

gekaap said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only sexual deviants are the people like you who insist on trying to control how the rest of us have sex.  It's a pretty twisted obsession you have.  So I agree, people like you should be barred from serving in the military.
Click to expand...


It IS odd how those against homosexuality seem to want to talk about homosexual sex MORE than homosexuals do...   It's very odd.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.
> 
> He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning Imeuru.  I don't spend the majority of my day glued to this board.  I have a life.  If I don't answer your questions immediately it's because I'm not log on.
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.  *Our troops have been given direct orders to keep their mouths shut about this issue.  As usual their opinions and feelings will not be considered.*  We are in effect telling them to be seen, not heard, and to run along and die when instructed to do so.
> 
> If you have to have me explain to you what a sexual deviant is then you're too naive to discuss this latest liberal social engineering scheme.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words about my boys.  My oldest son still serves.  He is a three time Iraqi Freedom vet.  His younger brother was injured during his last week in Iraq.  Both he, and I are veterans.
Click to expand...


A rather Ironic point....you are upset about the troops having to "keep their mouths shut" but you support a system where gay soldiers/sailors have to "keep their mouths shut"....some are more equal than others, eh?


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont hold your breath waiting for a reply, James. He still hasnt bothered to answer my questions, nor has he answered questions from others.
> 
> He started off seemingly normal and wanting to discuss this. But then the mask kinda slipped. Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning Imeuru.  I don't spend the majority of my day glued to this board.  I have a life.  If I don't answer your questions immediately it's because I'm not log on.
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.  Our troops have been given direct orders to keep their mouths shut about this issue.  As usual their opinions and feelings will not be considered.  We are in effect telling them to be seen, not heard, and to run along and die when instructed to do so.
> *
> If you have to have me explain to you what a sexual deviant is then you're too naive to discuss this latest liberal social engineering scheme. *
> 
> Thanks for the kind words about my boys.  My oldest son still serves.  He is a three time Iraqi Freedom vet.  His younger brother was injured during his last week in Iraq.  Both he, and I are veterans.
Click to expand...


So, here is a summary of what your position appears to be regarding the bolded part of your quote :

yota5 : Sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve in the military

myself and others : Ok, well just what constitutes sexual deviants?

yota5 : If I have to explain that then you are too naive to discuss it.  Or, in other words, if you don't already agree with me I'm not going to explain my position to you.

Sounds to me as though you either are unable to clarify your opinion, perhaps because it isn't well-formed, or you are unwilling to do so, probably because it would lead to an acknowledgment that many heterosexuals would also need to be banned from military service because of their 'sexual deviancy'.  
Whatever the case, stating an opinion based on an obviously subjective parameter and then refusing to explain the boundaries of that subjective parameter is silly and hurts whatever credibility you might have in this argument.


----------



## WorldWatcher

rightwinger said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mask has never slipped.  My position has remained the same since line one.  Sexual deviants serving openly in our military will have a negative effect on our combat readiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only sexual deviants are the people like you who insist on trying to control how the rest of us have sex.  It's a pretty twisted obsession you have.  So I agree, people like you should be barred from serving in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should sexual deviants be banned from the Army?
Click to expand...




I can't speak for the Army, but I have a passing knowledge of the Navy.

If "sexual deviance" is defined as non penal/vaginal sexual relations, it's a good thing we didn't have that rule when I was in.  Pulling out of the Philippines, Thailand, Hong Kong, etc... we'd have left half the battle group behind.


>>>>


----------



## rightwinger

WorldWatcher said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only sexual deviants are the people like you who insist on trying to control how the rest of us have sex.  It's a pretty twisted obsession you have.  So I agree, people like you should be barred from serving in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should sexual deviants be banned from the Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for the Army, but I have a passing knowledge of the Navy.
> 
> If "sexual deviance" is defined as none penal/vaginal sexual relations, it's a good thing we didn't have that rule when I was in.  Pulling out of the Philippines, Thailand, Hong Kong, etc... we'd have left half the battle group behind.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...



Not yota

Missionary Position with the lights off


----------



## gekaap

rightwinger said:


> Not yota
> 
> Missionary Position with the lights off



Don't forget, never out of wedlock, and no enjoying it.  It's for procreation only.


----------



## blu

Seawytch said:


> When asked  "What is your current professional military judgement about the risk to military effectiveness?", the four military Chiefs said:
> 
> - GEN. PETER CHIARELLI  VICE CHIEF OF ARMY: I had a session with commanders last Friday, they have indicated no issues so far in Tier I and Tier II training as they get ready to kick off our Tier III training.
> 
> - GEN. JAMES AMOS  CHIEF OF THE MARINE CORPS: And Im looking for specifically for issues coming out of the Tier II and Tier III training and to be honest with you, Chairman, weve not seen itthere hasnt been the recalcitrant push back, there hasnt been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field.
> 
> - GEN. NORTON SCHWARTZ  CHIEF OF AIR FORCE: We are mitigating the risk in the way we are approaching this and so Im more comfortable than I was on the 22 of December, but we still have a ways to go and it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring this home.
> 
> - ADM. GARY ROUGHEAD  CHIEF OF NAVY: Im very comfortable. I was very comfortable in making the recommendation last December and its consistent with what I continue to see in the Navy today.
> 
> Hearings - Armed Services Republicans
> 
> Just as predicted, the lifting of DADT is a big "ho hum". The troops want to do their jobs and get home in one piece and then get a little piece. They don't care what sex the piece is that the other guy is getting.


----------



## BlindBoo

gautama said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF good is an annual test ????
> 
> What about the ALL-IMPORTANT "in-between" periods between annual testing.........which it doesn't take to much to figure out that testing the fucking queers weekly would be too onerous.....and impractical. Thus making the "annual tests" just a useless BULLSHIT exercise !!!
> 
> Face it. The Obamarrhoidal Administration, with its fucked up PC Agenda, is endangering the lives of not only the queers, but the normals in the Military.
> 
> The Military ?
> 
> There are enough high ranking military that will kiss the President's arse no matter what the issue.
> 
> Consider the Muslim "Psychiatrist" Jihadist Major Hasan: FOR MONTHS, the Military spewed out the Obamarrhoidal PC line without mentioning the word "terrrorist", Jihadist, or even Islam claiming that it was an isolated nutcase occurrence on par with the nutcase that shot the congresswoman in the head, or the Columbine shootings, etc., even though the Jihadist Arsehole Hassan howled Allahu Akbar and had numerous correspondence with Osama Bin Laden's substitute Awaki (sp).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis do you pre-suppose that gay people have HIV?  On what basis do you pre-suppose that straight soldiers cannot contract HIV between their yearly test?  And on what basis do you find any relevance to going off on tangents such as Kathy Giffords or the Columbine shooting?  It's obvious that you have nothing to say that is based on a rational view of the issue, and that you're more interested in ranting mindlessly.  No, what you're saying doesn't bear repeating, because it's been so thoroughly debunked you actually sound less intelligent than the OP for saying it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geekrap,
> 
> Queers are more prone than normals to get HIV, probably by a factor close to 10 to one. I don't have the stats, but I betcha that in spite of your Geekrappola you wouldn't stake your life on the fact that I'm wrong. Being a queer geek you'd naturally lie about that.
> 
> Obviously normals are able to get HIV, the Bubonic plague, Leprosy, etc., between annual tests ........ however the obvious fact is that they are a helluva lot less likely to contract HIV, than the fucking queers.
> 
> The relevance of the Kathy Gifford, Columbine shootings, etc., is that they are obviously not connected to Islamofascist Terrorism. While the jihadist Whackjob Maj Hasan's terrorism is.......yet, the Military brass are willing to abide by Presidential whims of the MONUMENTAL FRAUD Obami Salaami, whatever the issue......even to the extent of toeing the ridiculous policy of permitting the fucking queers to openly practice their perversion openly while in the military.
> 
> If you weren't an Obamarrhoidal stooge you wouldn't have made your ludicrous post. You are probably a fucking queer to boot and that would explain your mental aberration more definitively.
Click to expand...


People who have unprotected sex, or who share needles are more prone to catching the virus that anyone else.  Doesn't matter if your straight or gay.

I've often found that those who are most adamantly against homosexuality do so because they know deep down in their dear little hearts they're queer too!

Better *Late*nt than never queertama!


----------



## Gadawg73

Worked a case today where the detective with the local jurisdiction is a lesbian. And man, is she ever a lesbian.
Fine job she did as she has nailed the accused.
It has been and always will be about WORK ETHIC AND PREPAREDNESS.
If your milk is weak and you are not disciplined enough to get the job done around others that may be different than you then quit and go home.


----------



## High_Gravity

I think the troops are more concerned about if whether they are going to get their next paycheck.


----------



## High_Gravity

I had sex with a married woman when I was single, with no condom. Do I qualify as a sexual deviant who should be barred from Military service?


----------



## yota5

Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.  

So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.



What about my 21 years in the Navy doesn't count as having served?


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about my 21 years in the Navy doesn't count as having served?
Click to expand...


Sorry Bod, *gay* service doesn't "count". (It leaves me out too  )


----------



## rightwinger

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about my 21 years in the Navy doesn't count as having served?
Click to expand...


Only service by manly men counts......if you don't beat up gays in your spare time...you didn't serve


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that under the DADT law, a soldier telling his or her mother that s/he is gay was illegal.  Homosexual conduct with one's lover was illegal.  You'd like to make this a simple matter of appropriate discussions in the work place.  But that's not what DADT was all about.
Click to expand...


Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.   I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past.  On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell.  I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement. And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military.  I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you *might* finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a fucking shower.



Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that.  They sleep and live together.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's a political statement.  Telling people they have sex with men has zero to do with defending their country, which is their job in the military.  But as you say they need to tell to make the political statement.  And on the flip side, if you tell people in other jobs you sleep with men, you don't then shower and sleep with them.  Keep your politics out of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to ignore the reality of the situation, which is that under the DADT law, a soldier telling his or her mother that s/he is gay was illegal.  Homosexual conduct with one's lover was illegal.  You'd like to make this a simple matter of appropriate discussions in the work place.  But that's not what DADT was all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.   I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past.  On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell.  I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement. And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military.  I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but DADT is only a viable solution if it applies to ALL servicemembers, not just the gay and lesbian ones. That would, of course, mean that nobody gets dependent pay, base housing or extra moving allowances. Nobody gets to talk about their spouses, g/fs, b/fs or children. 

When DADT has to apply to heterosexuals as well as to gays and lesbians it is a viable policy...until then, it's unconstitutional.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Using "fag" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC".



Yeah, it is Nancy


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you *might* finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a fucking shower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that.  They sleep and live together.
Click to expand...


So? Sleep in your underwear. Shouldn't be sleeping naked in the barracks anyway.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using "fag" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is Nancy
Click to expand...


Really? So not using racial slurs like the "n" word is just PC? That's lame.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Sorry, but DADT is only a viable solution if it applies to ALL servicemembers, not just the gay and lesbian ones. That would, of course, mean that nobody gets dependent pay, base housing or extra moving allowances. Nobody gets to talk about their spouses, g/fs, b/fs or children.


It's acceptable to me and unacceptable to you because I care about the military defending the United States and you care about the military practicing political correctness.  It's just a complete offshoot of your complete lack of knowledge from the reality of the world.  The military has been too effective and made you feel too safe in a very dangerous world.  You are of course trying to "fix" that.



Seawytch said:


> When DADT has to apply to heterosexuals as well as to gays and lesbians it is a viable policy...until then, it's unconstitutional.



You are so full of it.  But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up.   To bad for you it's an enumerated document.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to put the "shower issue" into perspective...a recent survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showed that only 8% of them had to shower in "communal" showers. Right now, gay and lesbian soldiers are shitting, showering and shaving right alongside heterosexuals. When DADT is lifted in the very near future, you *might* finally KNOW that you are showering with someone who is gay or lesbian. The ONLY thing changing is that you may, potentially, KNOW (instead of only suspecting) that the person that has been showering with you for a year is gay. Big whoop. If it freaks you out, even though you've been showering with them for a year now, don't shower when they do. They could give a shit...they just want to take a fucking shower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that.  They sleep and live together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Sleep in your underwear. Shouldn't be sleeping naked in the barracks anyway.
Click to expand...


You liberals have so many places to practice your politics, why do you go after the people who allow you to do that?  Keep your politics in the streets and out of the military.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using "fag" is disrespectful and censuring that disrespect isn't "PC".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is Nancy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? So not using racial slurs like the "n" word is just PC? That's lame.
Click to expand...


Can you show me my post where I advocated using the "n" word?  I don't remember taking a position on that.  Refresh my memory.


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.



Actually DADT is a policy, many misapply it to thinking it is the law.  The law, 10 USC § 654 bars homosexuals from serving.




kaz said:


> I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past.



I disagree with the logic.  If homosexuals are barred from serving, and somone were to find out - then they would be likely to be blackmailed.

On the other hand, if homosexuals are allowed to serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals - then there is no leverage to apply blackmail as being "outed" would not jeopardize a career.




kaz said:


> On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell.  I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement.



Do you believe that a heterosexual wearing a wedding ring is making a political statement?  It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Do you believe that a heterosexual having a picture of their wife/girlfriend in their locker is making a political statement?  It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.

Do you believe that a heterosexual talking about a weekend conquest of a hot piece of ass is making a political statement?  It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.




kaz said:


> And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military.  I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.



In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
Click to expand...


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> You are so full of it.  But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up.   To bad for you it's an enumerated document.




You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually DADT is a policy, many misapply it to thinking it is the law.  The law, 10 USC § 654 bars homosexuals from serving.
Click to expand...

OK, so there is an unenforced law on the books, I'm cool with removing it.



WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against prohibiting gays because I don't think it's necessary and it leaves them open to blackmail, which has happened in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the logic.  If homosexuals are barred from serving, and somone were to find out - then they would be likely to be blackmailed.
> 
> On the other hand, if homosexuals are allowed to serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals - then there is no leverage to apply blackmail as being "outed" would not jeopardize a career.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...re-read this.  You didn't make any point relevant to our discussion.




WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I see no reason other then political statement that then "need" to tell.  I don't believe the military is the place for a political statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that a heterosexual wearing a wedding ring is making a political statement?  It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.
> 
> Do you believe that a heterosexual having a picture of their wife/girlfriend in their locker is making a political statement?  It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.
> 
> Do you believe that a heterosexual talking about a weekend conquest of a hot piece of ass is making a political statement?  It is a method of "telling" others they are heterosexual.
Click to expand...


Outside the military, no.  They have a choice.  Live a free, ass fucking life and tell everyone you want, or live a free ass fucking life join the military and keep it to yourself.  There are a lot of jobs that are inappropriate to do things that are OK in others.  If you're a pot head on TV, it's inconsistent with being a kindergarten teacher.  If we had a draft, like Israel, I could at least see the argument.  But that they have to join the military and they then have to tell people where their prick goes in the evening?  Sorry, choose.




WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military.  I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

OK, that's your opinion.  And it's based on your political need to allow them to tell.  You don't care about the practical implications of it as long as your political objective is met.  And you have the right to think that.  It's a free country.  Thanks to our military.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not very discrete, were you?
Click to expand...


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
Click to expand...



Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders.  As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt fucking a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.

And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.


>>>>


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders.  As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt fucking a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.
> 
> And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last you checked? Hell - dipshit - it's a standing order.
> 
> What the fuck's a "standing order," BTW. I lived under the UCMJ.
> 
> Different set of rules for faggots?
> 
> What the fuck were you - a dumb assed SH or SK?
> 
> Stick to your day job Elvis.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of it.  But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up.   To bad for you it's an enumerated document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:

1)  The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government.  Gay soldiers are government.  They have the choice to join government or not.  If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else.  Joining the government was their choice.

2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders.  As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt fucking a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.
> 
> And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last you checked? Hell - dipshit - it's a standing order.
> 
> What the fuck's a "standing order," BTW. I lived under the UCMJ.
> 
> Different set of rules for faggots?
> 
> What the fuck were you - a dumb assed SH or SK?
> 
> Stick to your day job Elvis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, Gh0ster...don't like the new page set up over there?   That's why you're back here?   Or tired of having to follow rules of respect over there?
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr Natural

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A chief is an E-7, dipshit.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

Mr Clean said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A chief is an E-7, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...there's Chief...and then there's an E-7.   E-7's don't go thru initiation and are not worthy of the title of Chief.    slukasiewski was trying to insult WW.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually DADT is a policy, many misapply it to thinking it is the law.  The law, 10 USC § 654 bars homosexuals from serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so there is an unenforced law on the books, I'm cool with removing it.
> 
> 
> Hmmm...re-read this.  You didn't make any point relevant to our discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside the military, no.  They have a choice.  Live a free, ass fucking life and tell everyone you want, or live a free ass fucking life join the military and keep it to yourself.  There are a lot of jobs that are inappropriate to do things that are OK in others.  If you're a pot head on TV, it's inconsistent with being a kindergarten teacher.  If we had a draft, like Israel, I could at least see the argument.  But that they have to join the military and they then have to tell people where their prick goes in the evening?  Sorry, choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military.  I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, that's your opinion.  And it's based on your political need to allow them to tell.  You don't care about the practical implications of it as long as your political objective is met.  And you have the right to think that.  It's a free country.  Thanks to our military.
Click to expand...


You assume the majority want open service because of a "political need" yet offer ZERO EVIDENCE to back up any of your argument.
What political need to I have? I want open service for eveyone so what is my political need?
Specifics please as you offer nothing to date. 
What politics is my need and who do I vote for? 
Please include the winning lotto ticket #s for Ga., powerball #, the winners of the baseball games tonight and the 2011 World Series winner.


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I check *sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders.*  As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt fucking a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.
> 
> And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last you checked? Hell - dipshit - it's a standing order.
> 
> What the fuck's a "standing order," BTW. I lived under the UCMJ.
> 
> Different set of rules for faggots?
> 
> What the fuck were you - a dumb assed SH or SK?
> 
> Stick to your day job Elvis.
Click to expand...






Thanks for the comedic interlude.


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of it.  But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up.   To bad for you it's an enumerated document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:
> 
> 1)  The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government.  Gay soldiers are government.  They have the choice to join government or not.  If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else.  Joining the government was their choice.
> 
> 2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.
Click to expand...


1. Under this argument blacks can be denied. Stupid argument. 
2. See #1.


----------



## Mr Natural

bodecea said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> A chief is an E-7, dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...there's Chief...and then there's an E-7.   E-7's don't go thru initiation and are not worthy of the title of Chief.    slukasiewski was trying to insult WW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the initiation.
> 
> Hope it's nothing like the Turtle Club. How fucking sick was that?
Click to expand...


----------



## slukasiewski

Mr Clean said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A chief is an E-7, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - a "CHIEF" isn't am E7, ya fucking retard.
> Creed anyone?
> Had you ever achieved the rank and been initiated - you'd know that.
> Idiot...
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:
> 
> 1)  The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government.  Gay soldiers are government.  They have the choice to join government or not.  If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else.  Joining the government was their choice.
> 
> 2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Under this argument blacks can be denied. Stupid argument.
> 2. See #1.
Click to expand...


The US Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. The Constitution is not to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO. The Constitution is to tell the GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of it.  But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up.   To bad for you it's an enumerated document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:
> 
> 1)  The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government.  Gay soldiers are government.  They have the choice to join government or not.  If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else.  Joining the government was their choice.
Click to expand...


You are right, the government does not have rights.  However I disagree, service members have a different legal system from most civilians, however that does not preclude that they have rights.  For example, read the Manual of the Courts Martial and you will find many references to the rights of the accused.



kaz said:


> 2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  *The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.*  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.




So let me get this straight, you claim the Constitution is an enumerated document, I challenge you - prepared to point out BTW that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution, and I'm asking an "ignorant" question?




>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

Mr Clean said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt fucking in the Bosn's Locker?
> 
> You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A chief is an E-7, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While technically true, a Chief is in the paygrade E-7, typically calling a "Chief" an "E-7" is considered a pejorative usage of rank.  Kind of like calling the Captain of a ship an O-6.
> 
> 
> Well, at least by us Chiefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military.  I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, that's your opinion.  And it's based on your political need to allow them to tell.  You don't care about the practical implications of it as long as your political objective is met.  And you have the right to think that.  It's a free country.  Thanks to our military.
Click to expand...



Sorry, I don't have a "political need" for them to tell me anything.  As a life long Republican, I do have a political need that our government not to conduct itself in a discriminatory manner for no compelling interest.  

Some, Social Authoritarians are butt hurt (pun intended) right now because homosexuals might be treated like other service members.  They'll hem-n-haw for awhile, but in a few years everyone will wonder what the big hoop-a-loo was about.


>>>>


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> A chief is an E-7, dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While technically true, a Chief is in the paygrade E-7, typically calling a "Chief" an "E-7" is considered a pejorative usage of rank.  Kind of like calling the Captain of a ship an O-6.
> 
> 
> Well, at least by us Chiefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct
> Good on ya Chief
Click to expand...


----------



## WorldWatcher

bodecea said:


> So, Gh0ster...don't like the new page set up over there?




That's GhOster?

Didn't know.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> Correct
> Good on ya Chief




Thank you.


>>>>


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct
> Good on ya Chief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


No need for thanks. Buy you a beer in the CPO Club anytime.


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct
> Good on ya Chief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for thanks. Buy you a beer in the CPO Club anytime.
Click to expand...



OK, second round is on me.


>>>>


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.



Yeah, we wouldn't want any French fag nasty's to get on the boys now would we.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> You assume the majority want open service because of a "political need" yet offer ZERO EVIDENCE to back up any of your argument.
> What political need to I have?



I want the military for the most part to set their own rules on gays in the military. I don't think they should ban gays because of blackmail of gay soldiers.  It may not have happened every day, but apparently it has through the years lead to some pretty serious espionage.  They commit espionage or give up their careers, now that is not fair and it's an actual military reason I hold that view.

You on the other hand keep talking about their need to tell and that you want them to tell.  That has zero to do with the military.  It is a political objective because it's a political argument.  This is government, it is not freedom of the people from government.  The latter is the subject of the Constitution.  You want to make the political statement about gays, go for it.  But on the street, not in the military.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:
> 
> 1)  The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government.  Gay soldiers are government.  They have the choice to join government or not.  If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else.  Joining the government was their choice.
> 
> 2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Under this argument blacks can be denied. Stupid argument.
> 2. See #1.
Click to expand...


Blacks can be denied what?


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  *The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.*  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you claim the Constitution is an enumerated document, I challenge you - prepared to point out BTW that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution, and I'm asking an "ignorant" question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Let me know when you're done jerking off and we can get back to the argument


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> Sorry, I don't have a "political need" for them to tell me anything.  As a life long Republican, I do have a political need that our government not to conduct itself in a discriminatory manner for no compelling interest.


Every argument you've made has been primarily based on your wanting them to tell and to a lesser degree that they want to tell.  You have made no argument that there is any reason they need to.



WorldWatcher said:


> Some, Social Authoritarians are butt hurt (pun intended) right now because homosexuals might be treated like other service members.  They'll hem-n-haw for awhile, but in a few years everyone will wonder what the big hoop-a-loo was about



I think we're headed there anyway and probably in my lifetime the military will end the rule on it's own.  Given the mission they have and that gays can serve as long as they don't feel the need to bring their politics into the workplace, we just don't need to make their job any harder then it already is for no benefit but a political one.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is.  *The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed.*  In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it.  So most rights protected under it aren't listed.  There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you claim the Constitution is an enumerated document, I challenge you - prepared to point out BTW that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution, and I'm asking an "ignorant" question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you're done jerking off and we can get back to the argument
Click to expand...


Really nice there.


----------



## kaz

RDD_1210 said:


> How many active soldiers are HIV positive?
> 
> Straight soldiers can't have HIV?



Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."


----------



## kaz

yota5 said:


> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.



True that most gays are stupid, but I don't see how that makes them different in that regard then the general population...


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Showering is part of it, but I don't believe anyone said it was just that.  They sleep and live together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? Sleep in your underwear. Shouldn't be sleeping naked in the barracks anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You liberals have so many places to practice your politics, why do you go after the people who allow you to do that?  Keep your politics in the streets and out of the military.
Click to expand...


Equality isn't about politics. Serving under the exact same rules and regulations isn't politics. That's all gay and lesbian servicemembers want to do. They want to serve equally under the exact same rules and regulations that heterosexual servicemembers serve under. It REALLY IS as simple as that. The right wing are the ones politicizing this issue (that isn't even an issue).


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is Nancy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So not using racial slurs like the "n" word is just PC? That's lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me my post where I advocated using the "n" word?  I don't remember taking a position on that.  Refresh my memory.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to suss out your position. You seem to be saying that not using the "f" word for gay man is being politically correct, but not using the "n" word isn't being politically correct. Is that about right?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many active soldiers are HIV positive?
> 
> Straight soldiers can't have HIV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."
Click to expand...


*Anyone* who has unprotected sex can get HIV and a host of other STDs. This is why soldiers are tested regularly. 

A straight guy on leave from Iraq might head over to Africa, meet a nice woman (over 12 million women in Africa have HIV) and...

So what does HIV have to do with gays and lesbians (who are already serving) being able to finally serve honestly, without the constant fear of discharge?


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.



Actually, studies have shown that gays and lesbians are generally better educated than heterosexuals...but don't let that stop you from making an ass of yourself with school yard taunts. We've been exposed to the bully mentality before. You can keep trying to bolster your self worth with "you're a stupid deviant" ad hominems if it makes you feel better...but somehow I don't think it does. 

You've stated your unsupported opinions about the repeal of DADT. Nothing you have said is supported by facts or evidence. 

In a few months DADT is going to be repealed. The Joint Chiefs have stated that they have experienced no problems in the repeal process thus far and that the training is going fine. 

Like I said before, this is going to be a huge ho-hum to the troops, almost 70% of whom suspect they serve with someone who is gay or lesbian anyway. They don't care. 


You know, it ain't just "they gheys" watching Glee...


----------



## rightwinger

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, studies have shown that gays and lesbians are generally better educated than heterosexuals...but don't let that stop you from making an ass of yourself with school yard taunts. We've been exposed to the bully mentality before. You can keep trying to bolster your self worth with "you're a stupid deviant" ad hominems if it makes you feel better...but somehow I don't think it does.
> 
> You've stated your unsupported opinions about the repeal of DADT. Nothing you have said is supported by facts or evidence.
> 
> In a few months DADT is going to be repealed. The Joint Chiefs have stated that they have experienced no problems in the repeal process thus far and that the training is going fine.
> 
> Like I said before, this is going to be a huge ho-hum to the troops, almost 70% of whom suspect they serve with someone who is gay or lesbian anyway. They don't care.
> 
> 
> You know, it ain't just "they gheys" watching Glee...
Click to expand...


Yota's biggest fear is that once his son starts to serve with known gays he may start hanging out in gay bars and eventually catch "the ghey". Poor yota will be denied the opportunity of grandiose that he can indoctrinate with his hate while his son prances around in gay parades


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many active soldiers are HIV positive?
> 
> Straight soldiers can't have HIV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."
Click to expand...


A disease is neither gay or straight. A disease is a disease.


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume the majority want open service because of a "political need" yet offer ZERO EVIDENCE to back up any of your argument.
> What political need to I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want the military for the most part to set their own rules on gays in the military. I don't think they should ban gays because of blackmail of gay soldiers.  It may not have happened every day, but apparently it has through the years lead to some pretty serious espionage.  They commit espionage or give up their careers, now that is not fair and it's an actual military reason I hold that view.
> 
> You on the other hand keep talking about their need to tell and that you want them to tell.  That has zero to do with the military.  It is a political objective because it's a political argument.  This is government, it is not freedom of the people from government.  The latter is the subject of the Constitution.  You want to make the political statement about gays, go for it.  But on the street, not in the military.
Click to expand...


Well, I agree with you that political statements should not be made in the military.
But you still offer NO evidence whatsoever that my argument is based on a political statement.
Equal oppurtunity is not a political statement. Discrimination is discrimination.
Your argument is a bogus one anyway. Admiral Mullen IS THE DAMN MILITARY.
Offer some evidence ADMIRAL MULLEN is making a political statement.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Gadawg73 said:


> Well, I agree with you that political statements should not be made in the military.
> But you still offer NO evidence whatsoever that my argument is based on a political statement.
> Equal oppurtunity is not a political statement. Discrimination is discrimination.
> Your argument is a bogus one anyway. Admiral Mullen IS THE DAMN MILITARY.
> Offer some evidence ADMIRAL MULLEN is making a political statement.




If stating that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals is a political statement?

Then wouldn't stating that the military should discriminate against homosexual service members over to heterosexuals also be a political statement?


Some people don't see that is a hypocritical position.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

yota5 said:


> Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me...




From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.


................................................................ Thank you for your service.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73

I admire the ones that state "I don't want no faggot queers in the military" more than the ones that skippy around with the "well, it is this and that and the reason YOU favor the repeal is because you believe this and that and you are making this kind of statement".
I know where I stand with the former and don't have to wade through an ocean of BS to get there.


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.
> 
> 
> ................................................................ Thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


This white, liberal, lesbian retired Chief says the same to you!


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.
> 
> 
> ................................................................ Thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This white, liberal, lesbian retired Chief says the same to you!
Click to expand...




OK, since you're the liberal, you get to buy the first round.


In this one case I won't mind spending your money.





>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.
> 
> 
> ................................................................ Thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This white, liberal, lesbian retired Chief says the same to you!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since you're the liberal, you get to buy the first round.
> 
> 
> In this one case I won't mind spending your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

Oh sure...pick on the "bloated government worker" (that is supporting a family of four, just got an increase in her cost share of benefits AND has to take furlough day)


----------



## JamesInFlorida

yota5 said:


> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.



Well you keep ignoring my simple question. But I can assure you that I come from a big military family, both of my grandfathers-one was in the battle of the bulge (army), the other fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam-and is currently interred at Arlington (air force)-actually two of my relatives are interred there. My father was in the air force. My uncle was in the navy. My cousin is over in Afghanistan right now. You bet your ass I would have joined the military, I tried but was unable to due to having a bad leg from a bad car accident in my teenage years. Now I may not know from personal experience-you wont see me pretending that here. I have too much respect for people who have served to pretend to have been one (although I certainly would if I could). But I have talked to the many people I know about gays serving in the military-and not one of them said they wouldn't care. I can form an informed decision based upon that.

Once again thank you for your service-regardless of your personal views. However don't make the mistake in thinking your family's experience/views of the military is the only one.

And for the record-I'm straight.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This white, liberal, lesbian retired Chief says the same to you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, since you're the liberal, you get to buy the first round.
> 
> 
> In this one case I won't mind spending your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh sure...pick on the "bloated government worker" (that is supporting a family of four, just got an increase in her cost share of benefits AND has to take furlough day)
Click to expand...


I work for a school system.  If you need a shoulder to cry on you might try Bod, I think your second careers retirement system is better than mine.




>>>>


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So not using racial slurs like the "n" word is just PC? That's lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me my post where I advocated using the "n" word?  I don't remember taking a position on that.  Refresh my memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to suss out your position. You seem to be saying that not using the "f" word for gay man is being politically correct, but not using the "n" word isn't being politically correct. Is that about right?
Click to expand...


No, you're still just making it up.  I said nothing about using the "f" word either.  Why don't you read my posts and respond to points I am making rather then making up points you want me to have made?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many active soldiers are HIV positive?
> 
> Straight soldiers can't have HIV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Anyone* who has unprotected sex can get HIV and a host of other STDs. This is why soldiers are tested regularly.
> 
> A straight guy on leave from Iraq might head over to Africa, meet a nice woman (over 12 million women in Africa have HIV) and...
> 
> So what does HIV have to do with gays and lesbians (who are already serving) being able to finally serve honestly, without the constant fear of discharge?
Click to expand...


Um...OK....but it doesn't counter my point.  Had I said straights cannot get AIDS, it would have countered it.  But that's not what I said, I said it's "primarily" a gay disease.  Your correct statement straights can get it doesn't counter that.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many active soldiers are HIV positive?
> 
> Straight soldiers can't have HIV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A disease is neither gay or straight. A disease is a disease.
Click to expand...


Gotcha, so cervical cancer's not a women's disease either.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume the majority want open service because of a "political need" yet offer ZERO EVIDENCE to back up any of your argument.
> What political need to I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want the military for the most part to set their own rules on gays in the military. I don't think they should ban gays because of blackmail of gay soldiers.  It may not have happened every day, but apparently it has through the years lead to some pretty serious espionage.  They commit espionage or give up their careers, now that is not fair and it's an actual military reason I hold that view.
> 
> You on the other hand keep talking about their need to tell and that you want them to tell.  That has zero to do with the military.  It is a political objective because it's a political argument.  This is government, it is not freedom of the people from government.  The latter is the subject of the Constitution.  You want to make the political statement about gays, go for it.  But on the street, not in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with you that political statements should not be made in the military.
> But you still offer NO evidence whatsoever that my argument is based on a political statement.
> *Equal oppurtunity is not a political statement*. Discrimination is discrimination.
> Your argument is a bogus one anyway. Admiral Mullen IS THE DAMN MILITARY.
> Offer some evidence ADMIRAL MULLEN is making a political statement.
Click to expand...


They have equal opportunity, you've argued nothing but the political point you want them to need to tell people where they put their pecker


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with you that political statements should not be made in the military.
> But you still offer NO evidence whatsoever that my argument is based on a political statement.
> Equal oppurtunity is not a political statement. Discrimination is discrimination.
> Your argument is a bogus one anyway. Admiral Mullen IS THE DAMN MILITARY.
> Offer some evidence ADMIRAL MULLEN is making a political statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If stating that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals is a political statement?
> 
> Then wouldn't stating that the military should discriminate against homosexual service members over to heterosexuals also be a political statement?
Click to expand...


No, the military is saying it would be disruptive to the service.  I am not military, but my family is.  They don't care about gays, but they agree with the military it would be disruptive to service and cause a lot of problems.

The military is government and what they are doing in incredible.  Why can't you fight your gay war in the public rather then forcing your political objectives on people who are fighting enemies like the Taliban?  Win it here, attitudes will change, the military will change.  That you feel it's necessary to take this fight to the military with what they are doing now is just pathetic.


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.
> 
> 
> ................................................................ Thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


The quote in your post was made by yota5, not me


----------



## yota5

JamesInFlorida said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you keep ignoring my simple question. But I can assure you that I come from a big military family, both of my grandfathers-one was in the battle of the bulge (army), the other fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam-and is currently interred at Arlington (air force)-actually two of my relatives are interred there. My father was in the air force. My uncle was in the navy. My cousin is over in Afghanistan right now. You bet your ass I would have joined the military, I tried but was unable to due to having a bad leg from a bad car accident in my teenage years. Now I may not know from personal experience-you wont see me pretending that here. I have too much respect for people who have served to pretend to have been one (although I certainly would if I could). But I have talked to the many people I know about gays serving in the military-and not one of them said they wouldn't care. I can form an informed decision based upon that.
> 
> Once again thank you for your service-regardless of your personal views. However don't make the mistake in thinking your family's experience/views of the military is the only one.
> 
> And for the record-I'm straight.
Click to expand...


Good morning James.  From your post you and I have a lot in common.  My father was career Air Force.  He served with the Army during WW2 then transitioned to the Air Force.  My Uncles served in the Navy duing WW2.  My boys have served in OEF/ OIF.  Multiple tours with the 101st ABN/ Air Assault, the 278th RCT, and 82nd Air Borne.  I served with 1/73rd Arty 1st AD, 1/27th Inf. and 1/38th Inf. 2nd. Inf. Div, and 1/22nd Arty 4th AD.  My families military history goes back to the revulutionary war. 

James I can spot a smoke blower a mile away.  You aren't on of those people, and I can sense the sincerity in your reply.  I will respond to you in kind.  



I can understand your desire to serve.  Service to ones country is a privilage.  Sometimes medical conditions prevent your service.  This happened with my  youngest son when he attempted to enlist.  He was turned back after his physical at MEPS.  For those of you who haven't served MEPS stands for Military Entrance Processing Station.  

Since military service can place you in potentially life threating, very harsh environments physical ability is a rigidly enforced requirement.  James, I can spot a smoke blower a mile away.  You aren't on of those people, and I can sense the sincerity in your reply.  I will respond to you in kind.  

This thread has proven that gays serving in the military is a hot button issue.  Most of the replys to this thread have been from the same group of people who support the abolishment of DADT.  Others voice their frustration with this topic, and then move on. 

While the troops can't comment many of them follow this thread.  I've sent my sons the URL to this discussion.  They consider some of the replies here comical.  Others really tick them off.  Unfortunately they've been ordered to silence.  You'll never here their opinions posted here.  You know how tha goes.  *"Go forth and die as instructed youngman.  Remember keep your mouth shut.  You're opinions and feelings arn't considered important here."*

On this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree James.  My opinions were formed from a life time association with the U.S. Military.  Unlike you I've never talked to any service member reqardless of component who agrees that gays serving openly in the military is a good idea.  The feelings expressed to me are 100% in opposition to gays serving openly in the military.  I agree with my brothers, and sisters in arms.

I'm sorry that I missed your questions.  sometimes replies come so fast it is difficult to respond to everyone.  Let me correct that situation now.

James in Florida, asks the following questions:

1.  Once again: what would you say to somebody you served with who came out of the      closet tomorrow? (hypothetically speaking of course).  

    A:  Should that happen today neither one of us would be serving in the military.  As a civilian we are entiltled to live our lives as we choose.  Our lifestyles don't impact the military in any measureable degree.

2.  And the military can't ask every single person in the military what their thoughts or feelings are-there's way too many. And this is about all issues-not just DADT.

   A: All of that is true.

3.  And if you don't want a job where you do what you're told to, and your feelings aren't taken into consideration, the solution is simple: don't join the military.

   A:  That is also true.

4.  Lastly-to think that your son(s), or yourself speak on behalf of the entire military, is one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard of.

   A:  If the case could be made that I or my sons are speaking for the entire military I would agree that these opinions would be extremely presumptious, and arrogant.  What I've said here is my opinion, based on my lives experiance.  I've also included the opinions of those military people that I know.  I'm still waiting to talk face to face with military person who disagrees with me.

5.  And thank you for your service. 

   A: Thank you for the kind words James.  They are appreciated.  I wish you the best.  Live long and prosper.


----------



## rikules

yota5 said:


> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.



allowed to?

should they wear pink triangles?

or would you just prefer ovens and gas chambers?


----------



## kaz

rikules said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allowed to?
> 
> should they wear pink triangles?
> 
> or would you just prefer ovens and gas chambers?
Click to expand...


A pink triangle?  Wow, talk about anti-gay stereotypes.  Why do you hate them so much?

BTW, I think you meant a purple triangle...


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.
> 
> 
> ................................................................ Thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote in your post was made by yota5, not me
Click to expand...



You have my sincere apologies, mistake in editing.

I have corrected the original post and my quote here.  If you care to delete your quote of my post, that should straighten it out for readers to follow.


Sorry,

WW


>>>>


----------



## yota5

rikules said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the replies from the gays responding to this thread has led me to a valid conclusion.  Gays, aren't only sexual deviants they are really stupid people.  Gekaap, Seawtch, and Bodecea, it amazes me that you folks are allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allowed to?
> 
> should they wear pink triangles?
> 
> or would you just prefer ovens and gas chambers?
Click to expand...


Written like a true liberal.  Your komrads will be appreciative of your effort.  The rest of us will take comfort in the fact that our assessment of you is correct.


----------



## WorldWatcher

yota5 said:


> On this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree James.  My opinions were formed from a life time association with the U.S. Military.  Unlike you I've never talked to any service member reqardless of component who agrees that gays serving openly in the military is a good idea.  The feelings expressed to me are 100% in opposition to gays serving openly in the military.  I agree with my brothers, and sisters in arms.




Maybe you should get out more an really talk to people, or maybe your "friends" are telling you what they think you want to hear (also known as the machismo factor).

Military times conducts an annual poll on the subject.

The percentage of active duty military opposing homosexuals serving has been steadily declining over the years.
Currently it's pretty close to a 50/50 split between those who oppose equal treatment and those who could care less if homosexuals were allowed to serve under equal conditions.









Military Times Poll


>>>>


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a straight, white, Republican, old fart retired Chief.
> 
> 
> ................................................................ Thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote in your post was made by yota5, not me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have my sincere apologies, mistake in editing.
> 
> I have corrected the original post and my quote here.  If you care to delete your quote of my post, that should straighten it out for readers to follow.
> 
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> WW
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I know it was an honest mistake.  If the quote weren't being repeated so much I wouldn't have pointed it out at all.


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quote in your post was made by yota5, not me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have my sincere apologies, mistake in editing.
> 
> I have corrected the original post and my quote here.  If you care to delete your quote of my post, that should straighten it out for readers to follow.
> 
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> WW
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it was an honest mistake.  If the quote weren't being repeated so much I wouldn't have pointed it out at all.
Click to expand...



Thank you.


>>>>


----------



## SFC Ollie

WorldWatcher said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree James.  My opinions were formed from a life time association with the U.S. Military.  Unlike you I've never talked to any service member reqardless of component who agrees that gays serving openly in the military is a good idea.  The feelings expressed to me are 100% in opposition to gays serving openly in the military.  I agree with my brothers, and sisters in arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get out more an really talk to people, or maybe your "friends" are telling you what they think you want to hear (also known as the machismo factor).
> 
> Military times conducts an annual poll on the subject.
> 
> The percentage of active duty military opposing homosexuals serving has been steadily declining over the years.
> Currently it's pretty close to a 50/50 split between those who oppose equal treatment and those who could care less if homosexuals were allowed to serve under equal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Times Poll
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Interesting, over 50% oppose overturning DADT and only 30% are in favor. And roughly 20% are afraid to speak out and take a stand.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

yota5 said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang!  I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke.  None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier.  You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.
> 
> So let me tell  you what you've accomplished.  Nothing.  No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same.   You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in  the military.  Sorry gang that is just the way things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you keep ignoring my simple question. But I can assure you that I come from a big military family, both of my grandfathers-one was in the battle of the bulge (army), the other fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam-and is currently interred at Arlington (air force)-actually two of my relatives are interred there. My father was in the air force. My uncle was in the navy. My cousin is over in Afghanistan right now. You bet your ass I would have joined the military, I tried but was unable to due to having a bad leg from a bad car accident in my teenage years. Now I may not know from personal experience-you wont see me pretending that here. I have too much respect for people who have served to pretend to have been one (although I certainly would if I could). But I have talked to the many people I know about gays serving in the military-and not one of them said they wouldn't care. I can form an informed decision based upon that.
> 
> Once again thank you for your service-regardless of your personal views. However don't make the mistake in thinking your family's experience/views of the military is the only one.
> 
> And for the record-I'm straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good morning James.  From your post you and I have a lot in common.  My father was career Air Force.  He served with the Army during WW2 then transitioned to the Air Force.  My Uncles served in the Navy duing WW2.  My boys have served in OEF/ OIF.  Multiple tours with the 101st ABN/ Air Assault, the 278th RCT, and 82nd Air Borne.  I served with 1/73rd Arty 1st AD, 1/27th Inf. and 1/38th Inf. 2nd. Inf. Div, and 1/22nd Arty 4th AD.  My families military history goes back to the revulutionary war.
> 
> James I can spot a smoke blower a mile away.  You aren't on of those people, and I can sense the sincerity in your reply.  I will respond to you in kind.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your desire to serve.  Service to ones country is a privilage.  Sometimes medical conditions prevent your service.  This happened with my  youngest son when he attempted to enlist.  He was turned back after his physical at MEPS.  For those of you who haven't served MEPS stands for Military Entrance Processing Station.
> 
> Since military service can place you in potentially life threating, very harsh environments physical ability is a rigidly enforced requirement.  James, I can spot a smoke blower a mile away.  You aren't on of those people, and I can sense the sincerity in your reply.  I will respond to you in kind.
> 
> This thread has proven that gays serving in the military is a hot button issue.  Most of the replys to this thread have been from the same group of people who support the abolishment of DADT.  Others voice their frustration with this topic, and then move on.
> 
> While the troops can't comment many of them follow this thread.  I've sent my sons the URL to this discussion.  They consider some of the replies here comical.  Others really tick them off.  Unfortunately they've been ordered to silence.  You'll never here their opinions posted here.  You know how tha goes.  *"Go forth and die as instructed youngman.  Remember keep your mouth shut.  You're opinions and feelings arn't considered important here."*
> 
> On this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree James.  My opinions were formed from a life time association with the U.S. Military.  Unlike you I've never talked to any service member reqardless of component who agrees that gays serving openly in the military is a good idea.  The feelings expressed to me are 100% in opposition to gays serving openly in the military.  I agree with my brothers, and sisters in arms.
> 
> I'm sorry that I missed your questions.  sometimes replies come so fast it is difficult to respond to everyone.  Let me correct that situation now.
> 
> James in Florida, asks the following questions:
> 
> 1.  Once again: what would you say to somebody you served with who came out of the      closet tomorrow? (hypothetically speaking of course).
> 
> A:  Should that happen today neither one of us would be serving in the military.  As a civilian we are entiltled to live our lives as we choose.  Our lifestyles don't impact the military in any measureable degree.
> 
> 2.  And the military can't ask every single person in the military what their thoughts or feelings are-there's way too many. And this is about all issues-not just DADT.
> 
> A: All of that is true.
> 
> 3.  And if you don't want a job where you do what you're told to, and your feelings aren't taken into consideration, the solution is simple: don't join the military.
> 
> A:  That is also true.
> 
> 4.  Lastly-to think that your son(s), or yourself speak on behalf of the entire military, is one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard of.
> 
> A:  If the case could be made that I or my sons are speaking for the entire military I would agree that these opinions would be extremely presumptious, and arrogant.  What I've said here is my opinion, based on my lives experiance.  I've also included the opinions of those military people that I know.  I'm still waiting to talk face to face with military person who disagrees with me.
> 
> 5.  And thank you for your service.
> 
> A: Thank you for the kind words James.  They are appreciated.  I wish you the best.  Live long and prosper.
Click to expand...


I too will agree to disagree. Thanks for a cordial response.


Best of luck to you, and your sons in the future, I sincerely hope they come back safely.


----------



## yota5

"I too will agree to disagree. Thanks for a cordial response.
Best of luck to you, and your sons in the future, I sincerely hope they come back safely."  (James in Florida)

No need to thank me for a cordial response James.  This is as it should be.  To disagree about a subject, and then debate an issue is human nature.  For me a good spirited debate is a way to test my theory, or assumption, and to determine whether I've made a valid assessment or not.  

We all know that debate doesn't always produce a clear winner.  Stalemates are common.  That is the case with our continued disagreement.  However, I think that we've parted in a friendly manner, and both of us feel comfortable with our position.  

I wish you the best, and I look forward to debating issues with you in the future.


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A disease is neither gay or straight. A disease is a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotcha, so cervical cancer's not a women's disease either.
Click to expand...


A disease is neither gay or straight. A disease is a disease.

Gay women and straight women can BOTH get cervical cancer.

A disease is neither gay or straight. A disease is a disease.

Strike two, wave another BS liner out there and it will be STRIKE THREE and sit the pine.


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with you that political statements should not be made in the military.
> But you still offer NO evidence whatsoever that my argument is based on a political statement.
> Equal oppurtunity is not a political statement. Discrimination is discrimination.
> Your argument is a bogus one anyway. Admiral Mullen IS THE DAMN MILITARY.
> Offer some evidence ADMIRAL MULLEN is making a political statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If stating that homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals is a political statement?
> 
> Then wouldn't stating that the military should discriminate against homosexual service members over to heterosexuals also be a political statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the military is saying it would be disruptive to the service.  I am not military, but my family is.  They don't care about gays, but they agree with the military it would be disruptive to service and cause a lot of problems.
> 
> The military is government and what they are doing in incredible.  Why can't you fight your gay war in the public rather then forcing your political objectives on people who are fighting enemies like the Taliban?  Win it here, attitudes will change, the military will change.  That you feel it's necessary to take this fight to the military with what they are doing now is just pathetic.
Click to expand...


Respectfully there my man but you are not too swift there.
THE MILITARY are the ones THAT ARE SPONSORING AND SUPPORTING THE REPEAL.
Hate to bust your bubble there old fellow but Admiral Mullen is in the military.


----------



## SFC Ollie

> On October 10, 2009, Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he will end the ban, but offered no timetable. As president, Obama said in his first State of the Union Address in 2010, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."



It began as a political movement. The military are simply backing the Boss. Still wrong,  and very bad timing in my opinion.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me my post where I advocated using the "n" word?  I don't remember taking a position on that.  Refresh my memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to suss out your position. You seem to be saying that not using the "f" word for gay man is being politically correct, but not using the "n" word isn't being politically correct. Is that about right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're still just making it up.  I said nothing about using the "f" word either.  Why don't you read my posts and respond to points I am making rather then making up points you want me to have made?
Click to expand...


I stated that using the f-word for gay man is disrespectful and not using it isn't being politically correct. Your response was "Yeah it is". 

What other conclusion am I to draw from that?


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree James.  My opinions were formed from a life time association with the U.S. Military.  Unlike you I've never talked to any service member reqardless of component who agrees that gays serving openly in the military is a good idea.  The feelings expressed to me are 100% in opposition to gays serving openly in the military.  I agree with my brothers, and sisters in arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get out more an really talk to people, or maybe your "friends" are telling you what they think you want to hear (also known as the machismo factor).
> 
> Military times conducts an annual poll on the subject.
> 
> The percentage of active duty military opposing homosexuals serving has been steadily declining over the years.
> Currently it's pretty close to a 50/50 split between those who oppose equal treatment and those who could care less if homosexuals were allowed to serve under equal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Times Poll
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, over 50% oppose overturning DADT and only 30% are in favor. And roughly 20% are afraid to speak out and take a stand.
Click to expand...


From the Military Times web site:

*the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.

The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.*
Sampling the military - Military News | News From Afghanistan, Iraq And Around The World - Military Times

Would you also like to put it in historical context and take a look at how the troops felt about desegregation?

_*3/4 Air Force men favored separate training schools, combat, and ground crews and 85% of white soldiers thought it was a good idea to have separate service clubs in army camps*_

Wonk Room » EXCLUSIVE: Records Show Military Surveyed Troops In 1940s, Prior To Racially Integrating The Forces

DADT is gone. All servicemembers will serve under the exact same rules and regulations from now on. Get over it and move on to gay marriage and DOMA...'cause that's what WE are concentrating on now


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this subject we are going to have to agree to disagree James.  My opinions were formed from a life time association with the U.S. Military.  Unlike you I've never talked to any service member reqardless of component who agrees that gays serving openly in the military is a good idea.  The feelings expressed to me are 100% in opposition to gays serving openly in the military.  I agree with my brothers, and sisters in arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get out more an really talk to people, or maybe your "friends" are telling you what they think you want to hear (also known as the machismo factor).
> 
> Military times conducts an annual poll on the subject.
> 
> The percentage of active duty military opposing homosexuals serving has been steadily declining over the years.
> Currently it's pretty close to a 50/50 split between those who oppose equal treatment and those who could care less if homosexuals were allowed to serve under equal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Times Poll
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, over 50% oppose overturning DADT and only 30% are in favor. And roughly 20% are afraid to speak out and take a stand.
Click to expand...


Afraid?


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get out more an really talk to people, or maybe your "friends" are telling you what they think you want to hear (also known as the machismo factor).
> 
> Military times conducts an annual poll on the subject.
> 
> The percentage of active duty military opposing homosexuals serving has been steadily declining over the years.
> Currently it's pretty close to a 50/50 split between those who oppose equal treatment and those who could care less if homosexuals were allowed to serve under equal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military Times Poll
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, over 50% oppose overturning DADT and only 30% are in favor. And roughly 20% are afraid to speak out and take a stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Afraid?
Click to expand...


It's one way or one word to describe it. I'm sure others would do as well.


----------



## Seawytch

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, over 50% oppose overturning DADT and only 30% are in favor. And roughly 20% are afraid to speak out and take a stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the Military Times web site:
> 
> *the Military Times survey is based on responses from those who chose to participate. That means it is impossible to calculate statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion surveys, because those calculations depend on random sampling techniques.
> 
> The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.*
> Sampling the military - Military News | News From Afghanistan, Iraq And Around The World - Military Times
> 
> Would you also like to put it in historical context and take a look at how the troops felt about desegregation?
> 
> _*3/4 Air Force men favored separate training schools, combat, and ground crews and 85% of white soldiers thought it was a good idea to have separate service clubs in army camps*_
> 
> Wonk Room » EXCLUSIVE: Records Show Military Surveyed Troops In 1940s, Prior To Racially Integrating The Forces
> 
> DADT is gone. All servicemembers will serve under the exact same rules and regulations from now on. Get over it and move on to gay marriage and DOMA...'cause that's what WE are concentrating on now
Click to expand...


{ahem}


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> You liberals have so many places to practice your politics, why do you go after the people who allow you to do that?  Keep your politics in the streets and out of the military.



Wait a second.  It's okay for homophobes to have their politics inserted into the military, but not okay for those who seek equality?  It's also, apparently, okay to keep the constitution out of military law?


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."



Anyone who wants to babble on about this HIV bullshit needs to show hard data that shows the rate of HIV infection among soldiers, and then breaks it up between gay and straight soldiers.  Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> I want the military for the most part to set their own rules on gays in the military.



Should we also allow the military to make its own rules to prohibit blacks, or women?



> I don't think they should ban gays because of blackmail of gay soldiers.  It may not have happened every day, but apparently it has through the years lead to some pretty serious espionage.  They commit espionage or give up their careers, now that is not fair and it's an actual military reason I hold that view.



If you're going to spout off BS like that, citation needed.  Many citations.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> Gotcha, so cervical cancer's not a women's disease either.



He said "gay or straight."  Said nothing about "male or female."  So, you've got nothing.


----------



## sinister59

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



in group for vets one guy was a member of the path finders , they initiated him by raping him , 
now I mention pathfinders because they tried getting me in it wile headed for a helicopter company , it seems male rape is ok for initiation ? and you worry about gays ? 
as fare HIV ? John Cochran VA hospital gave one patient HIV and a lot were infected with Hepatitis . through dirty instruments , it seem they don't believe in sterilizing their tools . 

the troops were unhappy with integration too , should we separate non whites from whites ? they said they's rape any women asigned to them , just what kind of soldier is your son ?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?

I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)

At any rate there is no comparison.

And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.



Racism isn't a cultural problem?


----------



## sinister59

SFC Ollie said:


> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.



and why do you wear a dress ? 
its not about racism its about the troops doing what their told ,accepting who ever is assigned to a unit , so its not a cultural problem , its the troops doing what their told , in the military you have no opinion just orders .


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.



Nobody is comparing sexual orientation to race, but comparing discrimination to discrimination. Just because one school of thought, homophobia, is personally supported by you and racism isn't, doesn't make you more right than the racists. (you're both wrong and you both think your views are justified)


----------



## SFC Ollie

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is comparing sexual orientation to race, but comparing discrimination to discrimination. Just because one school of thought, homophobia, is personally supported by you and racism isn't, doesn't make you more right than the racists. (you're both wrong and you both think your views are justified)
Click to expand...


There we go again, Since when am I homophobic? If you actually knew anything about me you would already know that my stepson is gay.

 I do not believe that this is a wise decision especially during time of war.

I believe it will cause problems that the US Military does not need at this time.

We shall see. But don't go calling me names when you know nothing....

Discrimination is discrimination, this is true, but there is still a wide difference.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is comparing sexual orientation to race, but comparing discrimination to discrimination. Just because one school of thought, homophobia, is personally supported by you and racism isn't, doesn't make you more right than the racists. (you're both wrong and you both think your views are justified)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There we go again, Since when am I homophobic? If you actually knew anything about me you would already know that my stepson is gay.
> 
> I do not believe that this is a wise decision especially during time of war.
> 
> I believe it will cause problems that the US Military does not need at this time.
> 
> We shall see. But don't go calling me names when you know nothing....
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination, this is true, but there is still a wide difference.
Click to expand...


I disagree with Ollie on this 100% but do not believe him to be homophobic.
He reminds me so much of another career military man, a man we call Vike that was 25 year Army. Vike now stands for the repeal but didn't before. Give Ollie time.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.



gays are not compared to blacks...that's the simpleton's answer.

Discrimination against one minority is compared to discrimination against another minority.   

You might as well ask, why are women being compared to blacks when it comes to women's rights....or why are the handicapped compared to blacks when it comes to handicapped rights.

To say it's about race is the simpleton's answer....it's about discrimination.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to suss out your position. You seem to be saying that not using the "f" word for gay man is being politically correct, but not using the "n" word isn't being politically correct. Is that about right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're still just making it up.  I said nothing about using the "f" word either.  Why don't you read my posts and respond to points I am making rather then making up points you want me to have made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated that using the f-word for gay man is disrespectful and not using it isn't being politically correct. Your response was "Yeah it is".
> 
> What other conclusion am I to draw from that?
Click to expand...


You're going to have to show me that post.  Something was misunderstood there.  I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "fag" in itself is either offensive or not offensive.  Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say.  You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals have so many places to practice your politics, why do you go after the people who allow you to do that?  Keep your politics in the streets and out of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second.  It's okay for homophobes to have their politics inserted into the military, but not okay for those who seek equality?  It's also, apparently, okay to keep the constitution out of military law?
Click to expand...


No idea what you're talking about.  Then again you don't know what you're talking about either.  Can you turn this into a coherent question and I'll take a stab at it?


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight soldiers obviously can have HIV, but it's rare.  Particularly for non-drug users.  For all the liberal desire to declare it a non-gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease.  But that's only if you believe facts that are so and don't call what you want to happen "facts."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants to babble on about this HIV bullshit needs to show hard data that shows the rate of HIV infection among soldiers, and then breaks it up between gay and straight soldiers.  Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...


I said HIV in general, I didn't say anything about HIV among soldiers.  Since you raised the HIV rate among soldiers actually you're the one talking out of your ass until you show that it's not dramatically different.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> There we go again, Since when am I homophobic? If you actually knew anything about me you would already know that my stepson is gay.



So you're telling us that your stepson should not be able to serve in the military?  That if he did serve in the military he should be required to remain abstinent and that he should be prohibited from even talking to his mother about his sexuality?



> I do not believe that this is a wise decision especially during time of war.



You think that people's constitutional rights should be ignored just because it's a time of war?



> I believe it will cause problems that the US Military does not need at this time.



Wait a second...we have the world's mightiest military, and two boys holding hands is going to somehow cause problems?



> We shall see. But don't go calling me names when you know nothing....



Of course, nobody here knows anything except you.  You're the only one here who has served in the military.  You're the only expert in the world on the subject.  The current heads of our military institutions are of course unknowning.



> Discrimination is discrimination, this is true, but there is still a wide difference.



If you don't understand how incredibly stupid a thing that was to say, then you should spend your time on things that don't require any thought.  Because you're obviously not good at it.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want the military for the most part to set their own rules on gays in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should we also allow the military to make its own rules to prohibit blacks, or women?
Click to expand...


Depends on the rule, just like for gays.



gekaap said:


> I don't think they should ban gays because of blackmail of gay soldiers.  It may not have happened every day, but apparently it has through the years lead to some pretty serious espionage.  They commit espionage or give up their careers, now that is not fair and it's an actual military reason I hold that view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to spout off BS like that, citation needed.  Many citations.
Click to expand...


I said it's...wait for it...not fair...to put a soldier in position to have to choose between sacrificing his career and supporting espionage.  Since that's not in conflict with anything you've argued, I'm not interested in your sending me on a search.  Sorry.


----------



## rightwinger

SFC Ollie said:


> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.



Same arguments were used in the late 40's

- it will ruin morale
- we will lose good people
- I do not want to shower with blacks
- let the military decide for themselves

Your right to serve your country should not be restricted because of the prejudices of others


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, so cervical cancer's not a women's disease either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said "gay or straight."  Said nothing about "male or female."  So, you've got nothing.
Click to expand...


Wrong quote, he said disease is disease.

You two are Dumb and Dumber, I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong, don't play word games.  Then again, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

BTW, here's another one for you.  Sickle cell anemia's primarily a black disease...


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> I said it's...wait for it...not fair...to put a soldier in position to have to choose between sacrificing his career and supporting espionage.  Since that's not in conflict with anything you've argued, I'm not interested in your sending me on a search.  Sorry.



So WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about espionage for?  Espionage has nothing to do with gays serving in the military.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it's...wait for it...not fair...to put a soldier in position to have to choose between sacrificing his career and supporting espionage.  Since that's not in conflict with anything you've argued, I'm not interested in your sending me on a search.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about espionage for?  Espionage has nothing to do with gays serving in the military.
Click to expand...


I said I do not support banning gays from the military and gave that as an example why.  I am going to say this one more time and I'm not responding to you on this point unless you process it and come up with a coherent point.

I oppose banning gays from the military.  I see no reason they have to tell.  So I actually think don't ask don't tell is the right policy today.  I also believe in the future it won't be as disruptive as it is today because societal attitudes are changing and probably in my lifetime the military will change the rule on it's own. But I see no reason gays need to say they are gay no matter how much you want them to.  If you want to argue with me, argue my view.


----------



## SFC Ollie

gekaap said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There we go again, Since when am I homophobic? If you actually knew anything about me you would already know that my stepson is gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're telling us that your stepson should not be able to serve in the military?  That if he did serve in the military he should be required to remain abstinent and that he should be prohibited from even talking to his mother about his sexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that this is a wise decision especially during time of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that people's constitutional rights should be ignored just because it's a time of war?
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second...we have the world's mightiest military, and two boys holding hands is going to somehow cause problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see. But don't go calling me names when you know nothing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, nobody here knows anything except you.  You're the only one here who has served in the military.  You're the only expert in the world on the subject.  The current heads of our military institutions are of course unknowning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination, this is true, but there is still a wide difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't understand how incredibly stupid a thing that was to say, then you should spend your time on things that don't require any thought.  Because you're obviously not good at it.
Click to expand...


You know what? When I make a statement, don't try to analyze it or read into it. I say exactly what i mean. You are trying real hard to make me say things that I didn't say or mean. Ever heard the term KISS? Keep it simple, stupid.


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, so cervical cancer's not a women's disease either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said "gay or straight."  Said nothing about "male or female."  So, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong quote, he said disease is disease.
> 
> You two are Dumb and Dumber, I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong, don't play word games.  Then again, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> 
> BTW, here's another one for you.  Sickle cell anemia's primarily a black disease...
Click to expand...


We may be dumb but we do not lie.
You clearly stated "for all the liberal desire to declare it a non gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease".
You said it Buster. 
Diseases do not have sexual orientation. There are no "gay" and "non gay" diseases fool.
Sickle cell anemia is genetic ands not contagious dumb ass. You need to quit while you are still just stumbling and bumbling.


----------



## Grace

If its wrong to ask a gay soldier if he is gay (it IS a sexual question), then it should be wrong to ask a straight soldier if he eats pussy.

Just sayin'.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said "gay or straight."  Said nothing about "male or female."  So, you've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong quote, he said disease is disease.
> 
> You two are Dumb and Dumber, I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong, don't play word games.  Then again, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> 
> BTW, here's another one for you.  Sickle cell anemia's primarily a black disease...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may be dumb but we do not lie.
> You clearly stated "for all the liberal desire to declare it a non gay disease, it always was a primarily gay disease".
> You said it Buster.
> Diseases do not have sexual orientation. There are no "gay" and "non gay" diseases fool.
> Sickle cell anemia is genetic ands not contagious dumb ass. You need to quit while you are still just stumbling and bumbling.
Click to expand...


Most of your posts are so incoherent I've given up on responding to them.  According to the CDC over 2/3 of all aids cases are homosexual contact.  And what 2% of the population is gay?  That's what I mean it's a gay disease.

As for you, I don't even know what you're arguing, you're going to have to clarify.  Maybe your mommy can help you phrase it so it makes sense, ask her for some help.


----------



## gekaap

Okay, good.  We've moved on past the BS of espionage.



kaz said:


> I oppose banning gays from the military.



You do realize that DADT did exactly that, right?  Under DADT any homosexual conduct was deemed incompatible with military service, and that simply telling one's own parents "Mom, Dad, I'm gay" was sufficient to get you kicked out, right?



> I see no reason they have to tell.



Nobody said that by repealing DADT gay people must disclose their sexuality.  The issue at hand is that heterosexual people were free to disclose their sexuality and their sexual exploits for all the world to hear, while gay people were forced not only to remain silent, but also to refrain from actions within the privacy of their own bedroom.



> So I actually think don't ask don't tell is the right policy today.



Never mind that it was unconstitutional, right?  Also never mind that the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell" was a complete misnomer.  I don't think you actually know anything about DADT other than the name.



> I also believe in the future it won't be as disruptive as it is today because societal attitudes are changing and probably in my lifetime the military will change the rule on it's own.



The military cannot change laws enacted by Congress.  So saying that the military will change the rule its own is like saying the military will lead itself without the President.  It does not have that authority to so do.  And lets be honest about what disrupts military actions.  Attacks from enemies, having bases bombed, ships getting sunk, having terrorists shooting AK47s at you....that's the kind of thing that disrupts the military.  Government shut downs that stop soldiers' pay disrupts the military.  Two boys holding hands does not.



> But I see no reason gays need to say they are gay no matter how much you want them to.  If you want to argue with me, argue my view.



You keep painting this false dilemma.  You're trying to make the issue out to be that Congress has enacted a law that requires billboards to go up, or requires all gay service members to make a speech professing their sexuality.  That has not happened.  Until you can be honest with your "view" there's nothing to argue.  You're looking a horse in the face and calling "WOLF!"  The glaring failings of your "view" speaks themselves itselves.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> You know what? When I make a statement, don't try to analyze it or read into it. I say exactly what i mean. You are trying real hard to make me say things that I didn't say or mean. Ever heard the term KISS? Keep it simple, stupid.



I'm not reading into anything.  I'm criticizing exactly what you've said.  The fact that what you are saying has consequences is not my fault.  You've said it, so own it.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> Okay, good.  We've moved on past the BS of espionage


I made the same argument the whole time.  The end of the BS is your actually reading it.  And dumb ass, I said espionage was an example in support of gays being allowed to be in the military.

You keep stating that it's Unconstitutional to prohibit gays from military service.  Where does it say that?  I've asked you that before to no answer.

As for the rest, I support don't ask don't tell, I'm not interested in running your rat holes that don't change that.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> show me wrong, don't play word games.



Actually, YOU still have to show that HIV is even prevalent in the military, much less that gay service members have any significant likelihood to be HIV positive over straight service members.


----------



## slukasiewski

rightwinger said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same arguments were used in the late 40's
> 
> - it will ruin morale
> - we will lose good people
> - I do not want to shower with blacks
> - let the military decide for themselves
> 
> Your right to serve your country should not be restricted because of the prejudices of others
Click to expand...


When/Where did you ever serve.

Nevermind. 

Never, is my guess. 

Good - than STFU regarding military issues, stupid.


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> When/Where did you ever serve.
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> Never, is my guess.
> 
> Good - than STFU regarding military issues, stupid.



OMG, I've seen the light.  Through your ears, that is.


----------



## rightwinger

slukasiewski said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell do people keep trying to compare gays with Blacks?
> 
> I'm sorry to inform you that one is a racist problem (Yes there is still racism out there) and the other is a cultural problem. (To say it one way)
> 
> At any rate there is no comparison.
> 
> And don't give me all the BS I've heard all the arguments, they do not match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same arguments were used in the late 40's
> 
> - it will ruin morale
> - we will lose good people
> - I do not want to shower with blacks
> - let the military decide for themselves
> 
> Your right to serve your country should not be restricted because of the prejudices of others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When/Where did you ever serve.
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> Never, is my guess.
> 
> Good - than STFU regarding military issues, stupid.
Click to expand...


Excuse me....do you have a point to make Trollski?


----------



## slukasiewski

rightwinger said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same arguments were used in the late 40's
> 
> - it will ruin morale
> - we will lose good people
> - I do not want to shower with blacks
> - let the military decide for themselves
> 
> Your right to serve your country should not be restricted because of the prejudices of others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When/Where did you ever serve.
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> Never, is my guess.
> 
> Good - than STFU regarding military issues, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me....do you have a point to make Trollski?
Click to expand...


Sure - keep your failed-to-serve nose out of military issues. 

Got it - stupid?


----------



## rightwinger

slukasiewski said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> When/Where did you ever serve.
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> Never, is my guess.
> 
> Good - than STFU regarding military issues, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me....do you have a point to make Trollski?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure - keep your failed-to-serve nose out of military issues.
> 
> Got it - stupid?
Click to expand...


Why?
 What right does a racist message board troll have to comment on the military?

You are a prime example of why we Should not listen to the opinions of ex-military.


----------



## WorldWatcher

kaz said:


> I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong,...



1.  Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus.  It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals.  It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals.  A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.

2.  The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.

3.  There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals.  In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.

4.  As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.

Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html


>>>>


----------



## gautama

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus.  It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals.  It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals.  A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.
> 
> 2.  The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.
> 
> 3.  There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals.  In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.
> 
> 4.  As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.
> 
> Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


WorldWatcher,

The key comment in your post with regards to the MILITARY/QUEER issue in the post is this:

"There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million)."

Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of fucking queers *NOT* bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!


----------



## gekaap

gautama said:


> Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of fucking queers *NOT* bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!



And yet, all you homophobes continue to refuse to provide any evidence that gay people _in the military_ have any significant rate of HIV infection in comparison to heterosexuals in the military.  One of the main reasons that HIV spreads through sexual contact is that people do not get tested, and so they don't even know they have the disease when they spread it.  On the other hand, people joining the military are immediately screened for HIV, and are screened on a regular basis.

Furthermore, all of this talk about HIV rates in gay MEN ignores the issue of gay women in the military.  Even if this HIV argument were given any merit, will you homophobes agree that at least gay women should be allowed to openly serve?


----------



## The T

*The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly. *

*No...they aren't. They want this to go away so they can get on with thier duties despite this distraction drummed up by do-gooder Statists.*


----------



## WorldWatcher

gautama said:


> WorldWatcher,
> 
> The key comment in your post with regards to the MILITARY/QUEER issue in the post is this:
> 
> "There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million)."
> 
> Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of fucking queers *NOT* bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!




1.  The military is already routinely screening on a regular basis and prior to deployement for HIV.  People are not allowed to deploy if they test positive.

2.  You can't catch queer by coming into contact with a homosexuals blood and having it enter your blood stream.

3.  You can catch HIV by coming into contact with a heterosexuals blood and having it enter your blood stream.

4.  A heterosexual visiting prostitutes while deployed and becoming infected would probably be a more likely source of battlefield infection.



>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is comparing sexual orientation to race, but comparing discrimination to discrimination. Just because one school of thought, homophobia, is personally supported by you and racism isn't, doesn't make you more right than the racists. (you're both wrong and you both think your views are justified)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There we go again, Since when am I homophobic? If you actually knew anything about me you would already know that my stepson is gay.
> 
> I do not believe that this is a wise decision especially during time of war.
> 
> I believe it will cause problems that the US Military does not need at this time.
> 
> We shall see. But don't go calling me names when you know nothing....
> 
> Discrimination is discrimination, this is true, but there is still a wide difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with Ollie on this 100% but do not believe him to be homophobic.
> He reminds me so much of another career military man, a man we call Vike that was 25 year Army. Vike now stands for the repeal but didn't before. Give Ollie time.
Click to expand...


And I must disagree with your assessment of homophobia. The woman that clutches her purse a little tighter when a black man gets in an elevator may not think herself a racist, but she is. There are degrees of everything, including homophobia and racism. 

His continued insistence that allowing gays to serve honestly will cause problems IS a degree of homophobia I'm afraid.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're still just making it up.  I said nothing about using the "f" word either.  Why don't you read my posts and respond to points I am making rather then making up points you want me to have made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that using the f-word for gay man is disrespectful and not using it isn't being politically correct. Your response was "Yeah it is".
> 
> What other conclusion am I to draw from that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to have to show me that post.  Something was misunderstood there.  I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "fag" in itself is either offensive or not offensive.  Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say.  You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html


----------



## yota5

I see it has been a busy day on this thread.  Some of you have posted some very good replies.  Others still insist on posting fantasy.  I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style.  I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids.  His article is accurate.  However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.  

"The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.

As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.

Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.

AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]

In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM &#8212; who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"

HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context.  This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors.  It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons.  That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood.  That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.  

Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene.  Would anyone care to guess why?  Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield.  A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist.  They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.  

From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.


----------



## Seawytch

gekaap said:


> You keep painting this false dilemma.  You're trying to make the issue out to be that Congress has enacted a law that requires billboards to go up, or requires all gay service members to make a speech professing their sexuality.  That has not happened.  Until you can be honest with your "view" there's nothing to argue.  You're looking a horse in the face and calling "WOLF!"  The glaring failings of your "view" speaks themselves itselves.



You hit the nail on the head. Really, if you don't want to know if someone is gay, don't fucking ask them. I've never just "told" someone out of the blue. If someone asks, I tell them and if they assume I am straight, I will often dissuade them of the notion. 

Seriously, if you don't want to know, don't be nosy.


----------



## Grace

With all due respect, yota....



> From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.



...you couldnt be further from the truth of what most here think or feel. We differ, yes. But the majority care very much for those in harms way, fighting wars, and rely on their brothers and sisters in arms to come home safe and stay safe while they are there. Regardeless of who is next to them shoulder to shoulder.


----------



## Political Junky

yota5 said:


> I see it has been a busy day on this thread.  Some of you have posted some very good replies.  Others still insist on posting fantasy.  I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style.  I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids.  His article is accurate.  However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.
> 
> "The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.
> 
> As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.
> 
> Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.
> 
> AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]
> 
> In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM &#8212; who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"
> 
> HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context.  This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors.  It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons.  That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood.  That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.
> 
> Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene.  Would anyone care to guess why?  Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield.  A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist.  They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.
> 
> From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.


Then we must not allow emergency workers to pick up accident victims or gunshot victims.


----------



## Seawytch

Yota, what do HIV statistics have to do with DADT or its repeal? As pointed out, ANYONE can get HIV. The straight soldier on leave in Africa is at greater risk for contracting the disease than the gay soldier. Also, gays ARE SERVING NOW. What changes when you _might_ KNOW they are gay instead of just suspecting they are?


----------



## The T

Point here is? leave the US SOLDIER, AIRMAN, MARINE, SAILOR, COAST GUARDSMAN,MERCHANT MARINE alone...and cease with the distrations until they FAIL to do their duty?

*SHEESH*


----------



## SFC Ollie

I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............

There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.

You asked for it you got it.



> Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
> 
> ·  In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
> 
> ·  A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
> 
> ·  In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
> 
> ·  In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]


Family Research Council


----------



## rightwinger

In general.....how do military marriages do?

Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?


----------



## The T

rightwinger said:


> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?


 
*MISSION FIRST* However the Military has services FOR married members FOR support...when their spouses are deployed...But you'd know that If you ever served wouldn't you?

Why do you ask?


----------



## Political Junky

SFC Ollie said:


> I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............
> 
> There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.
> 
> You asked for it you got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
> 
> ·  In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
> 
> ·  A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
> 
> ·  In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
> 
> ·  In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
Click to expand...

But you don't want them to be able to get married. Sounds strange, huh?
Family Research Council?... no thanks.


----------



## The T

Political Junky said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............
> 
> There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.
> 
> You asked for it you got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
> 
> · In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
> 
> · A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
> 
> · In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
> 
> · In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you don't want them to be able to get married. Sounds strange, huh?
> Family Research Council ... no thanks.
Click to expand...

 
Depends upon LOCAL LAW per the Ninth, and Tenth...and the States...doesn't it?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Just stating the facts.

More partners, more often.....

You may all draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Just stating the facts.
> 
> More partners, more often.....
> 
> You may all draw your own conclusions.



When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts.
> 
> More partners, more often.....
> 
> You may all draw your own conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
> If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
> Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.
Click to expand...


Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...

Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> I see it has been a busy day on this thread.  Some of you have posted some very good replies.  Others still insist on posting fantasy.  I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style.  I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids.  His article is accurate.  However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.
> 
> "The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.
> 
> As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.
> 
> Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.
> 
> AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]
> 
> In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM  who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"
> 
> HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context.  This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors.  It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons.  That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood.  That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.
> 
> Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene.  Would anyone care to guess why?  Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield.  A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist.  They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.
> 
> From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.



You act as though you are the only one here with family and friends on active duty in a combat zone now. What gives you the right to speak for everyone?
Anyone that disagrees with you we always hear from you the BULL SHIT about how we do not care about the lives or well being of American Service Men and Women. 
When a needed translator or medic is sent home because they are gay and you support that it IS YOU that does not give a shit about the well being of American Service Men and Women. The military has more than just combat troops. 
If you would get off your high horse you would acknowledge that.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts.
> 
> More partners, more often.....
> 
> You may all draw your own conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
> If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
> Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...
> 
> Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)
Click to expand...


And young military men do not have as many women as they can find???


----------



## Vast LWC

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



As a vet myself, I seriously feel that your oldest son probably has an opinion of the situation that is colored by his worldview and upbringing.

This is not a criticism of your son, just a statement that people often see what they expect to see in any given situation, based on their own personal experience.

Therefore, when he's hanging out with his buddies, who probably are of similar upbringing and share a similar worldview, and this is discussed, after a few drinks, this is the opinion that is probably expressed among them.

There is a good probability, therefore, that the personal experience of your son does not necessarily reflect the general opinion of the entire military.
Just a thought.


----------



## The T

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
> If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
> Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...
> 
> Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And young military men do not have as many women as they can find???
Click to expand...

 
As a pejorative in the Sense that YOU wish to LUMP all in the same boat?

All military men act as you seem to want to portray here?

*HINT*

_They don't..._


----------



## RachelMadcow

Democrats have always been pro-pervert


----------



## Gadawg73

Vast LWC said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a vet myself, I seriously feel that your oldest son probably has an opinion of the situation that is colored by his worldview and upbringing.
> 
> This is not a criticism of your son, just a statement that people often see what they expect to see in any given situation, based on their own personal experience.
> 
> Therefore, when he's hanging out with his buddies, who probably are of similar upbringing and share a similar worldview, and this is discussed, after a few drinks, this is the opinion that is probably expressed among them.
> 
> There is a good probability, therefore, that the personal experience of your son does not necessarily reflect the general opinion of the entire military.
> Just a thought.
Click to expand...


That is my take also. He has a fine son that respects his Dad and he should. I am sure he thinks for himself also but the respect for father carries the day. 
Not unusual at all.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
> If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
> Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...
> 
> Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And young military men do not have as many women as they can find???
Click to expand...


Always have, one nighters, same as anyone else, military or not. But the article talks about short term relationships. So I suppose the one nighters are included. I could be wrong.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............
> 
> There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.
> 
> You asked for it you got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
> 
> ·  In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
> 
> ·  A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
> 
> ·  In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
> 
> ·  In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
Click to expand...


And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation.  I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion.  But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter.


----------



## gekaap

rightwinger said:


> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?



That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle.



Shall we look at the "lifestyle" differences of blacks vs whites?  Oh yeah, you don't like to compare racial discrimination to orientation discrimination.  It doesn't fit well with your agenda, so you ignore that evidence that is inconvenient to you.


----------



## gekaap

The T said:


> As a pejorative in the Sense that YOU wish to LUMP all in the same boat?
> 
> All military men act as you seem to want to portray here?
> 
> *HINT*
> 
> _They don't..._



How is that any different, or less acceptable, then Ollie or yota doing the exact same thing in regards to gay people?  Especially when their entire arguments for gay people are based specifically on their prejudices against gay men only?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Im concerned  about the  missions troops are  sent on.


----------



## WorldWatcher

gekaap said:


> And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation.  I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion.  But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter.




Just wondering, how is someone supposed to provide HIV rates among military personnel by sexual orientation when DADT hasn't even been repealed yet?

Just doesn't seem like a fair question to me as the data would be meaningless.


>>>>


----------



## gautama

gekaap said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............
> 
> There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.
> 
> You asked for it you got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
> 
> ·  In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]
> 
> ·  A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
> 
> ·  In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]
> 
> ·  In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> Family Research Council
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation.  I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion.  But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter.
Click to expand...


GayCrap,

The last paragraph in this post is debunked:

The last paragraph:

"And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation.  I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion.  But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter."

This aforementioned paragraph is debunked by my response to WorldWatcher using his FACTUAL DATA from the reliable source (P30 of this thread):

"The key comment in your post with regards to the MILITARY/QUEER issue in the post is this:

"There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population *(primarily male homosexuals)* with HIV (~1.5 Million)." .........*THUS, THE HIV POPULATION, PROPORTIONALLY, ESTABLISHES THE QUEERS AS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE AIDS.  *

Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of fucking queers with HIV NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!


----------



## gekaap

WorldWatcher said:


> Just wondering, how is someone supposed to provide HIV rates among military personnel by sexual orientation when DADT hasn't even been repealed yet?
> 
> Just doesn't seem like a fair question to me as the data would be meaningless.



It is not my responsibility to provide for evidence for what someone else wants to claim.  They are the ones making the arguments, they are the ones with the responsibility to support those arguments with data.

Gathering such information is not so impossible as you might think, also.  Drug use is illegal, yet data is able to be collected regarding how wide spread drug usage is among the public, as well as studies done that measure the long term effects of usage.  The same could be done in the military, by way of anonymous surveys, etc.  Also, many other countries have policies that allow openly gay people to serve in the military.  Data from these militaries could be gathered and used to offer insight.  All in all, it's a very fair question, and it's a very fair criticism to point out that their entire arguments are devoid of any meaningful or relevant data, and based entirely on prejudice and speculation.


----------



## gautama

gekaap said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering, how is someone supposed to provide HIV rates among military personnel by sexual orientation when DADT hasn't even been repealed yet?
> 
> Just doesn't seem like a fair question to me as the data would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my responsibility to provide for evidence for what someone else wants to claim.  They are the ones making the arguments, they are the ones with the responsibility to support those arguments with data.
> 
> Gathering such information is not so impossible as you might think, also.  Drug use is illegal, yet data is able to be collected regarding how wide spread drug usage is among the public, as well as studies done that measure the long term effects of usage.  The same could be done in the military, by way of anonymous surveys, etc.  Also, many other countries have policies that allow openly gay people to serve in the military.  Data from these militaries could be gathered and used to offer insight.  All in all, it's a very fair question, and it's a very fair criticism to point out that their entire arguments are devoid of any meaningful or relevant data, and based entirely on prejudice and speculation.
Click to expand...


GayCRAP,

My post preceding your last post debunks your bullshit.


----------



## WorldWatcher

gautama said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population *(primarily male homosexuals)* with HIV (~1.5 Million)." .........*THUS, THE HIV POPULATION, PROPORTIONALLY, ESTABLISHES THE QUEERS AS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE AIDS.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you dishonestly snip out the rest of the quote showing a 22.5 million population where HIV has predominantly infected a heterosexual population.  Thus debunking you statement that it is most likely to be homosexuals that have AIDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of fucking queers with HIV NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

I do agree with Ollie and many that this issue is different than the discrimination against blacks. I know as I grew up in that and saw that up front. I was living in North Carolina and started the 1st grade in 1960. No blacks in my class as we were still segregated, not legally but they knew how to get around it. And the demostrations of blacks and the police brutality was all there. Watching locals cheer on abuse was something a 6 year old should not see. That spread to Tennessee where we moved in 1965. A completely integrated society but the ingrained social segregation was there. No black had a professional job at the University where I lived. 
My father worked for the College Entrance Examination Board in Sewanee TN then. He and a few other men would go to high schools in northern Alabama, Georgia and TN and attempt to allow blacks to take the SAT. Local school boards, principals and mobs of white men would not allow it. Threats of death were made. ****** was the word of choice. I saw this until we moved to Georgia in 1968. That high school was integrated but no black came from a family with a professional job anywhere. Blacks were a step behind socially. I was taught to respect blacks but I was a minority. "Boy" was the common label most all white males at my high school called all black males to their face. A few blacks played sports and my teammates and myself, except a few, treated them as equals from the start. 
Seeing what I saw being raised in the South and being raised by a man that was in the military and saw how integration and the respect for the black man was fair and just modeled my opinion on gay folks. My father, the Marine Captain, 2nd Marines, Saipan, Guam and Okinawa changed and accepted gays late in his life. He favored the repeal as he was a Goldwater Republican for 50 years. Dad died last Memorial Day at age 88. Dad believed in equality for all. He hated discrimination and said it spread if we allowedit anywhere. No one should be discriminated against be they gay, white, black or whatever.


----------



## grunt11b

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it. 
They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.


----------



## Gadawg73

grunt11b said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
Click to expand...


Where is Congress, "activist judges", Sotomeyer and the Supreme Court in all of this?
None of that is relevant in any of this. 
You forgot to mention one dude. Admiral Mullen.
He IS MILITARY. 
It is "precedent", not president.


----------



## grunt11b

Gadawg73 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is Congress, "activist judges", Sotomeyer and the Supreme Court in all of this?
> None of that is relevant in any of this.
> You forgot to mention one dude. Admiral Mullen.
> He IS MILITARY.
> It is "precedent", not president.
Click to expand...

 
 Thanks for the grammatical lesson, I forgot how to spell it. None of them are relevant *YET*. The activist judges are now being put into place by Obama "His last two appointments" which are on the supreme court. All of them will come into play later on down the road. And yes, Mullins is as much at fault as the rest of them.
 I bet the Germans where the same way as you are right now until Hitler had his military turn the guns inward. If you don't think it can happen, you obviously don't study history.
 Alot of Americans right now are thinking "It could never happen here", believe me...yes it can, and the crazies in DC are relying on you to think that it can't.


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...
> 
> Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And young military men do not have as many women as they can find???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Always have, one nighters, same as anyone else, military or not. But the article talks about short term relationships. So I suppose the one nighters are included. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


We can start with the fact that The Family Research Counsel's "studies" have been debunked ten ways to Sunday time and again. They either use flawed data or they intentionally misrepresent other people's data. The FRC is vehemently anti-gay so to expect a fair assessment of ANYTHING gay or lesbian from them is ridiculous. 

Secondly, who fucking cares unless you are jealous that someone is getting more tail than you are. Of course gay MEN are going to be more promiscuous than heterosexual men. It isn't for heterosexual men's lack of trying. Straight men would be just as promiscuous as gay men are...if women let them. 

As for the length of their relationships...you don't think that has anything to do with the way society views and treats their relationships? We aren't exactly promoting monogamy by not allowing gays and lesbians to enter into a legal marriage now are we? Society tells gays and lesbians that their relationships aren't worthy and don't deserve recognition and then are shocked when gays can easily walk away from a relationship. 

What does any of this have to do with gays and lesbians serving honestly? All the arguments I've seen seem to advocate getting rid of gays and lesbians from the military altogether because none of them seem to be operating on the FACT that gays and lesbians are serving now. The only thing that will be changing is that the military won't be discharging them for their private, consenting adult behavior.


----------



## Gadawg73

grunt11b said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Congress, "activist judges", Sotomeyer and the Supreme Court in all of this?
> None of that is relevant in any of this.
> You forgot to mention one dude. Admiral Mullen.
> He IS MILITARY.
> It is "precedent", not president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the grammatical lesson, I forgot how to spell it. None of them are relevant *YET*. The activist judges are now being put into place by Obama "His last two appointments" which are on the supreme court. All of them will come into play later on down the road. And yes, Mullins is as much at fault as the rest of them.
> I bet the Germans where the same way as you are right now until Hitler had his military turn the guns inward. If you don't think it can happen, you obviously don't study history.
> Alot of Americans right now are thinking "It could never happen here", believe me...yes it can, and the crazies in DC are relying on you to think that it can't.
Click to expand...


I R Republican.


----------



## grunt11b

Gadawg73 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Congress, "activist judges", Sotomeyer and the Supreme Court in all of this?
> None of that is relevant in any of this.
> You forgot to mention one dude. Admiral Mullen.
> He IS MILITARY.
> It is "precedent", not president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the grammatical lesson, I forgot how to spell it. None of them are relevant *YET*. The activist judges are now being put into place by Obama "His last two appointments" which are on the supreme court. All of them will come into play later on down the road. And yes, Mullins is as much at fault as the rest of them.
> I bet the Germans where the same way as you are right now until Hitler had his military turn the guns inward. If you don't think it can happen, you obviously don't study history.
> Alot of Americans right now are thinking "It could never happen here", believe me...yes it can, and the crazies in DC are relying on you to think that it can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I R Republican.
Click to expand...


 Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.


----------



## Seawytch

gekaap said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a pejorative in the Sense that YOU wish to LUMP all in the same boat?
> 
> All military men act as you seem to want to portray here?
> 
> *HINT*
> 
> _They don't..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any different, or less acceptable, then Ollie or yota doing the exact same thing in regards to gay people?  Especially when their entire arguments for gay people are based specifically on their prejudices against gay men only?
Click to expand...


Their entire arguments are also based on some fantasy that gays and lesbians are not already serving.


----------



## Seawytch

grunt11b said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
Click to expand...


Wow...now THAT is a new conspiracy theory. Yikes!


----------



## High_Gravity

If I were still in the service and deployed overseas to Afghanistan I can tell you this, the sexual orientation of my fellow Soldiers would be the LAST thing on my mind.


----------



## bodecea

gekaap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


The things I saw on deployment.............


And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............


----------



## grunt11b

Seawytch said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...now THAT is a new conspiracy theory. Yikes!
Click to expand...


 History my friend, it would not be the first time it happened, the only thing different about America is we have a constitution protecting our rights, so therefore the left have to dismantle that constitution a little bit at a time. It's taken them 100 years to get this far, and they still have a little ways to go. The only way they can dismantle the constitution is through judicial activism. Which you seen when they enforced a law on the military about gays. The military falls under UCMJ, it has it's own laws and legal system, it was designed like that by the founders so that a tyrannical government would not be able to use it against it's own people. 
 Think what you want, but I "And many other people that are paying attention" know exactly what is going on.


----------



## grunt11b

bodecea said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
Click to expand...


 When I was at Fort Campbell they would kick spouses out of housing if they where found to be cheating on a deployed loved one. It was awesome.


----------



## bodecea

grunt11b said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and* told congress that they have no authority over the military, *and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
Click to expand...




  Now that's some funny stuff right there.....


----------



## grunt11b

bodecea said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and* told congress that they have no authority over the military, *and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some funny stuff right there.....
Click to expand...


They can vote to go to war, yes. But they cannot expect to write legislation and make it law within the military. Maybe I should have clarified that for you.


----------



## SFC Ollie

gekaap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
Click to expand...


Its human nature, alot of the times these same things are going on anyways when the Military member is around but when they are deployed, its just more open and blatant. Besides, I had sex with a married woman in California when her husband was in Texas looking for a house for her and their family, so civilians are just as guilty in this as the Military folks.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
Click to expand...


I hear ya. Since I was one of the few "single" women on the ship (of course I wasn't single, but in a long term relationship with my current spouse), I had a number of married men proposition me while deployed. Fucking straights can't keep it in their pants can they?


----------



## High_Gravity

grunt11b said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was at Fort Campbell they would kick spouses out of housing if they where found to be cheating on a deployed loved one. It was awesome.
Click to expand...


That is awesome, at Vandenberg Air Force Base they let the whores stay on base until the service member files a divorce, and even after that they get 30 days before they have to leave, they totallk take the side of the civilians on that base, and if the Military member is caught cheating? forget about it.


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya. Since I was one of the few "single" women on the ship (of course I wasn't single, but in a long term relationship with my current spouse), I had a number of married men proposition me while deployed. Fucking straights can't keep it in their pants can they?
Click to expand...


I think men in general can't keep it in their pants SeaWytch.


----------



## Seawytch

grunt11b said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...now THAT is a new conspiracy theory. Yikes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History my friend, it would not be the first time it happened, the only thing different about America is we have a constitution protecting our rights, so therefore the left have to dismantle that constitution a little bit at a time. It's taken them 100 years to get this far, and they still have a little ways to go. The only way they can dismantle the constitution is through judicial activism. Which you seen when they enforced a law on the military about gays. The military falls under UCMJ, it has it's own laws and legal system, it was designed like that by the founders so that a tyrannical government would not be able to use it against it's own people.
> Think what you want, but I "And many other people that are paying attention" know exactly what is going on.
Click to expand...


Um, just for the record, DADT was repealed through Congress not the judicial system. Nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory.


----------



## grunt11b

High_Gravity said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya. Since I was one of the few "single" women on the ship (of course I wasn't single, but in a long term relationship with my current spouse), I had a number of married men proposition me while deployed. Fucking straights can't keep it in their pants can they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think men in general can't keep it in their pants SeaWytch.
Click to expand...


I can,until the next time.


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general.....how do military marriages do?
> 
> Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.
Click to expand...


Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my fucking office.


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my fucking office.
Click to expand...


Well to be fair civilians go home after they work their shift, civilians don't have to live together in tents or on navy ships, where I work people just book the motel a few blocks away to get their freak on.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The things I saw on deployment.............
> 
> 
> And the things that spouses do while their loved one is on deployment...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya. Since I was one of the few "single" women on the ship (of course I wasn't single, but in a long term relationship with my current spouse), I had a number of married men proposition me while deployed. Fucking straights can't keep it in their pants can they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think men in general can't keep it in their pants SeaWytch.
Click to expand...


That's the point, Amigo. Straight men would be JUST AS promiscuous as gay men are...if women let them. How come us lesbians always get left out of these conversations? 

Well, there was that one guy that thought lesbians should be able to join the military so that guys could try to "convert" them. I think it was referred to as "corrective rape".


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya. Since I was one of the few "single" women on the ship (of course I wasn't single, but in a long term relationship with my current spouse), I had a number of married men proposition me while deployed. Fucking straights can't keep it in their pants can they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think men in general can't keep it in their pants SeaWytch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point, Amigo. Straight men would be JUST AS promiscuous as gay men are...if women let them. How come us lesbians always get left out of these conversations?
> 
> *Well, there was that one guy that thought lesbians should be able to join the military so that guys could try to "convert" them. I think it was referred to as "corrective rape".*
Click to expand...


You are correct, I think men are just men, regardless of sexual orientation. As far as the last part of your post, that makes no sense. Women are way more appealing than men are, so I don't see too many lesbians being "converted", sexuality is not a religion.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my fucking office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well to be fair civilians go home after they work their shift, civilians don't have to live together in tents or on navy ships, where I work people just book the motel a few blocks away to get their freak on.
Click to expand...


Baby, you need to work with some better people 

People try to get away with shit while they are deployed, no doubt about it. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation and NONE of it has to do with gays being able to serve honestly, fuck whatever consenting adult they want to fuck and NOT get discharged for it.


----------



## gekaap

grunt11b said:


> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.



Just like an idiot infantryman.  Don't know shit, but think you got it all figured out.    That was almost amusing.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> As far as the last part of your post, that makes no sense. Women are way more appealing than men are, so I don't see too many lesbians being "converted", sexuality is not a religion.



Here's the story: Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight | The Raw Story


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the last part of your post, that makes no sense. Women are way more appealing than men are, so I don't see too many lesbians being "converted", sexuality is not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the story: Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight | The Raw Story
Click to expand...


Makes no damn sense, that policy is headed for failure.


----------



## grunt11b

gekaap said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
> They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like an idiot infantryman.  Don't know shit, but think you got it all figured out.    That was almost amusing.
Click to expand...


Coming from someone who offers no legitimate rebuttal. And contrary to popular belief, there are more college degrees floating around Infantry battalions then there are anywhere else. Now you could argue that's because there are more infantryman and it's a numbers thing, I can give you that much. But I would also bet that you could not memorize and implement the FM 7-6 flawlessly, I would also bet that you could not call in an 8 digit grid coordinate under pressure to put down artillery to save your friends asses either. 
 If you're not infantry, you just support us.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very good point.  In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my fucking office.
Click to expand...


So you have nothing to back up your statement. Thank you.


----------



## gekaap

grunt11b said:


> They can vote to go to war, yes. But they cannot expect to write legislation and make it law within the military. Maybe I should have clarified that for you.



Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.



Indeed, some of us spent a few years in the military, and witnessed with our own eyes the slutfest.


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my fucking office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be fair civilians go home after they work their shift, civilians don't have to live together in tents or on navy ships, where I work people just book the motel a few blocks away to get their freak on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby, you need to work with some better people
> 
> People try to get away with shit while they are deployed, no doubt about it. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation and NONE of it has to do with gays being able to serve honestly, fuck whatever consenting adult they want to fuck and NOT get discharged for it.
Click to expand...


Well people are just people, this kind of thing happens no matter where you work, even in the church. When I was deployed to Kuwait back in 07 before I got out, they had strict rules absolutely no sexual contact for anyone in the Military on that base, regardless of orientation, even married couples were not allowed. The Army lets Military couples be together and they can have sex, but not the Air Force. There were so many situations where people were caught, one guy was caught off base getting a bj from a female airman, he drove a vehicle right outside the base and pulled off the side of the road, I think the Kuwaitis caught him, so you could imagine the outrage there. A Lt Col throwing out his trash in the evening stumbled across a female airman getting it doggystyle inside the dumpster. Bottom line is people have sexual needs and they are going to find ways to satisfy them, regardless of sexuality.


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my fucking office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have nothing to back up your statement. Thank you.
Click to expand...


I just gave you some examples of what I saw during my 20 years of active duty...and those instances were just in my last year before retirement. I won't even get into what I experienced as an OOD at a training center. The crap that people tried to get away with in the barracks...oh Lord! I can assure you that I've not seen ANYTHING comparable in my civilian life that I encountered while in the service.


----------



## grunt11b

gekaap said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...


----------



## Seawytch

grunt11b said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, by that theory, DADT should have never been enacted in the first place.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

grunt11b said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um....may I ask....who created and has the authority to change the UCMJ?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is priceless, it is....
Click to expand...


----------



## grunt11b

Seawytch said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, by that theory, DADT should have never been enacted in the first place.
Click to expand...


 Like I said before, judicial activism, and weak leadership at the pentagon.


----------



## bodecea

grunt11b said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, by that theory, DADT should have never been enacted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before, judicial activism, and weak leadership at the pentagon.
Click to expand...


Please.  DO go on.....


----------



## grunt11b

If I am wrong, I will admit it, But I would like to know how I am wrong. Can someone post me a link with anything proving me to be wrong? I am not being a smartass, just asking honestly if someone will prove me wrong so that I know I am wrong, then I will admit it. 
 Until that happens, I dont see how I am wrong here.


----------



## gekaap

grunt11b said:


> Coming from someone who offers no legitimate rebuttal.



You want me to rebut you?  You're running around yelling "The Martians are coming" and you think that I have to rebut that shit?  It's you who has to provide evidence of your position, and you can't do that because your position isn't worth yesterday's MRE.  Hands across America everyone, it's time to pick up the trash.



> And contrary to popular belief, there are more college degrees floating around Infantry battalions then there are anywhere else.



And as so many conservatives on this board will remind you, having a degree doesn't make you any less of an idiot.



> But I would also bet that you could not memorize and implement the FM 7-6 flawlessly, I would also bet that you could not call in an 8 digit grid coordinate under pressure to put down artillery to save your friends asses either.
> If you're not infantry, you just support us.



Tell that to the medic the next time they are bandaging your dumbass up for doing something stupid just to try to get your rocks off and prove how much of a man you think you are.  Typical infantryman, inflating your own self, thinking that you're the greatest thing since sliced bread.  That you alone are all that matters.  You're so big, bad, and tough.  But you can't handle two boys holding hands.


----------



## gekaap

grunt11b said:


> If I am wrong, I will admit it, But I would like to know how I am wrong. Can someone post me a link with anything proving me to be wrong? I am not being a smartass, just asking honestly if someone will prove me wrong so that I know I am wrong, then I will admit it.
> Until that happens, I dont see how I am wrong here.



It is not our responsibility to prove you wrong.  It is you who has to provide evidence of your position.  Of course, that will be impossible because the constitution explicitly proves you wrong, as I have already pointed out.


----------



## Gadawg73

grunt11b said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the grammatical lesson, I forgot how to spell it. None of them are relevant *YET*. The activist judges are now being put into place by Obama "His last two appointments" which are on the supreme court. All of them will come into play later on down the road. And yes, Mullins is as much at fault as the rest of them.
> I bet the Germans where the same way as you are right now until Hitler had his military turn the guns inward. If you don't think it can happen, you obviously don't study history.
> Alot of Americans right now are thinking "It could never happen here", believe me...yes it can, and the crazies in DC are relying on you to think that it can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I R Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.
Click to expand...


I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
Is that fake or not?


----------



## gekaap

grunt11b said:


> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.



You are a fucking idiot.  You really should not have opened your mouth because you proved that you have no idea what the constitution says.



			
				US Constitution Art I Sec 8 said:
			
		

> The Congress shall have Power To...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.


----------



## bodecea

Gadawg73 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I R Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
> Is that fake or not?
Click to expand...


you do realize he's a tad confused....he thinks Congress has nothing to do with the UCMJ and should have no business telling the military anything.


----------



## grunt11b

> Tell that to the medic the next time they are bandaging your dumbass up for doing something stupid just to try to get your rocks off and prove how much of a man you think you are. Typical infantryman, inflating your own self, thinking that you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. That you alone are all that matters. You're so big, bad, and tough. But you can't handle two boys holding hands.



 You're the one who started taking jabs over MOS, so I think this might be hypocritical of you inflating your own ego. 
 Also, two boys holding hands is not going to help anyone out in a firefight.


----------



## grunt11b

bodecea said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
> Is that fake or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize he's a tad confused....he thinks Congress has nothing to do with the UCMJ and should have no business telling the military anything.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I think you clearly missed the point I was getting at. 
This horse has been beaten too much. time to move on.


----------



## bodecea

grunt11b said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
> Is that fake or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you do realize he's a tad confused....he thinks Congress has nothing to do with the UCMJ and should have no business telling the military anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I think you clearly missed the point I was getting at.
> This horse has been beaten too much. time to move on.
Click to expand...


No way...you were very, very clear in stating that Congress had no right to tell the military what to do and had no authority over the UCMJ....shall I quote your posts saying that?   


This is getting amusing....could be fun all day.


----------



## gautama

WorldWatcher said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population *(primarily male homosexuals)* with HIV (~1.5 Million)." .........*THUS, THE HIV POPULATION, PROPORTIONALLY, ESTABLISHES THE QUEERS AS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE AIDS.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you dishonestly snip out the rest of the quote showing a 22.5 million population where HIV has predominantly infected a heterosexual population.  Thus debunking you statement that it is most likely to be homosexuals that have AIDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of fucking queers with HIV NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher,
> 
> Listen arsehole, when you accuse me of *"dishonestly* snipping out the rest of the quote", the rest of the quote was:
> 
> ".......in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals "
> 
> Please note that it applies to *SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA .....* THAT'S WHY I SNIPPED IT OUT......IT WAS IRRELEVANT !!!
> 
> So, stick that up your money-making arse and smoke it.
> 
> As to your final sentence in your post:
> 
> "Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War."
> 
> Obviously these are not allowed to deploy ...... the concern is for the fucking queers acquiring AIDS *after* they are deployed.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

gautama said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you dishonestly snip out the rest of the quote showing a 22.5 million population where HIV has predominantly infected a heterosexual population.  Thus debunking you statement that it is most likely to be homosexuals that have AIDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher,
> 
> Listen arsehole, when you accuse me of *"dishonestly* snipping out the rest of the quote", the rest of the quote was:
> 
> ".......in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals "
> 
> Please note that it applies to *SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA .....* THAT'S WHY I SNIPPED IT OUT......IT WAS IRRELEVANT !!!
> 
> So, stick that up your money-making arse and smoke it.
> 
> As to your final sentence in your post:
> 
> "Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War."
> 
> Obviously these are not allowed to deploy ...... the concern is for the fucking queers acquiring AIDS *after* they are deployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a greater chance of Hetero's getting AIDS during deployment with the prostitutes in ports of call....we had lots of briefings on this problem how everyone was focusing on the gays and left the barn door wide open, inadvertently giving the impression that straight sex was perfectly safe.   Thailand comes to mind as a BIG problem...at least it was in the late 80s.
Click to expand...


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> gautama said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher,
> 
> Listen arsehole, when you accuse me of *"dishonestly* snipping out the rest of the quote", the rest of the quote was:
> 
> ".......in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals "
> 
> Please note that it applies to *SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA .....* THAT'S WHY I SNIPPED IT OUT......IT WAS IRRELEVANT !!!
> 
> So, stick that up your money-making arse and smoke it.
> 
> As to your final sentence in your post:
> 
> "Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War."
> 
> Obviously these are not allowed to deploy ...... the concern is for the fucking queers acquiring AIDS *after* they are deployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's a greater chance of Hetero's getting AIDS during deployment with the prostitutes in ports of call....we had lots of briefings on this problem how everyone was focusing on the gays and left the barn door wide open, inadvertently giving the impression that straight sex was perfectly safe.   *Thailand comes to mind as a BIG problem...at least it was in the late 80s.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last I heard it was still like that, with all the sex tourists going to that place I wouldn't touch any of those women with a 10 foot pole.
Click to expand...


----------



## grunt11b

I stand corrected. I myself was misinformed.


----------



## yota5

grunt11b said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate.  One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military.  He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard.  Things haven't changed on the liberal side of the ball since I served so that was to be expected.  .  All that I have to say is that folks like mr. gekaap, aren't worthy of spit shinning the shoes of the most junior private.
> 
> Grunt11b, has served, and has a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply.  I salute you sir.  You are a true American Patriot.  Thank you for your service to this country.
> 
> I would only add one thing to Grunt11b's reply.  I still think that all "dickweed Washington politicians" should be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and strapped into a seat that is bolted to the front bumper of an MRAP.  After being driven through the AO for at least 3 months.  If that were to happen I think that a profound change in Washington's attitude, and decision making process in relation to the military would become evident.
> 
> I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball.  Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you.  Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion.  Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot.  That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies.  But, leave the troops alone.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

yota5's unfounded fears that his son may somehow turn gay if he is forced to serve with them are once again clouding his hate filled rhetoric.

If yota5's son wants to turn gay there is nothing in DADT that will stop him


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read the constitution.  Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
> Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate.  One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military.  He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard.  Things haven't changed on the liberal side of the ball since I served so that was to be expected.  .  All that I have to say is that folks like mr. gekaap, aren't worthy of spit shinning the shoes of the most junior private.
> 
> *Grunt11b, has served, and has a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.  Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply.  I salute you sir.  You are a true American Patriot.  Thank you for your service to this country.*
Click to expand...


Interesting....even Grunt11b admits now that he was wrong....you seem to be of the frame of mind that people have only served if they agree with your opinon on DADT.   Rest assured....I served for 21 years and am now retired.   And I totally disagree with you.....you will now probably say I didn't serve.   That seems to be your M.O.



> I would only add one thing to Grunt11b's reply.  I still think that all "dickweed Washington politicians" should be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and strapped into a seat that is bolted to the front bumper of an MRAP.  After being driven through the AO for at least 3 months.  If that were to happen I think that a profound change in Washington's attitude, and decision making process in relation to the military would become evident.
> 
> I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball.  Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you.  Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion.  Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot.  That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies.  But, leave the troops alone.
> 
> Have a nice day.


----------



## gekaap

yota5 said:


> The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate.  One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military.



I have such a "contemptuous" view of the military that I stepped up and volunteered for service.  And I now stand firm in supporting protecting the rights of our men and women in uniform.  That sounds very "contemptuous" indeed.



> He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard.



I hear those opinions all of the time, which is why I know that what you are saying is full of shit.



> Things haven't changed on the liberal side of the ball since I served so that was to be expected.  .  All that I have to say is that folks like mr. gekaap, aren't worthy of spit shinning the shoes of the most junior private.



It's quite sad that you consider people who stand up and speak in favor of protecting the rights of American citizens, especially those citizens who serve our country in the military, as unworthy.  You are a disgrace not only to the service, but to our entire country.  You have no respect for our military personnel or the freedom they help protect.



> Grunt11b, has served, and has a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.



I've served as well.  But that doesn't really matter much to this subject, because service in the military does not automatically make one right or wrong.  You're such a narcissist that I would venture to suggest that you suffer from a disease called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.



> Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply.



  If you call that accurate and perceptive, then I don't know what to tell you.  Even he was forced to admit that he was wrong.



> I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball.  Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you.  Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion.  Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot.  That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies.  But, leave the troops alone.
> 
> Have a nice day.



This here shows that you are not here to discuss anything.  You're here to throw an extremist bitchfit, like a little child who doesn't get his way and cries to his mommy, and then punches a little girl in the face when crying doesn't get him the attention he wants.  You are pathetic.  A waste of flesh.  Someone should have taught your mother how to swallow.


----------



## kaz

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus.  It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals.  It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals.  A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.
> 
> 2.  The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.
> 
> 3.  There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals.  In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.
> 
> 4.  As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.
> 
> Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


OK, fair enough.  In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals.  Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.

I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data.  It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country.  Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy.  I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact.  And that fact is irrefutable.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that using the f-word for gay man is disrespectful and not using it isn't being politically correct. Your response was "Yeah it is".
> 
> What other conclusion am I to draw from that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to show me that post.  Something was misunderstood there.  I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "fag" in itself is either offensive or not offensive.  Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say.  You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html
Click to expand...


My God, you have zero ability to detect sarcasm, do you?


----------



## yota5

"Interesting....even Grunt11b admits now that he was wrong....you seem to be of the frame of mind that people have only served if they agree with your opinon on DADT. Rest assured....I served for 21 years and am now retired. And I totally disagree with you.....you will now probably say I didn't serve. That seems to be your M.O."  (bodecea)

Good day bodecea.  Those of us who serve, and who have served have certain core values ingrained into our persona's.  You've probably noticed that active duty, and veterans alike place high value in Loyalty, Integrity, Honor, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Personal Courage.  

Therefore it doesn't surprise me that Grunt11b, has admitted his error.  No one is right 100% of the time.  I can tell you that I too am mistaken at times.  That is why I will admit to my errors as well.  It comes down to the issue of trust.  Service men and women place a high value on that commodity.  Liars aren't tolerated.

Trust is the highest compliment that one soldier can pay to another.  Along with trust the concept of team is paramount.  Military core values are missing from the civilian rank and file.  That is why you may have a hard time following what I'm about to say. 

In the military it's all about the common well being of the whole.  Team!  This is the foundation of esprit de corp/ morale.  Team, along with a professional NCO corps is what sets the American military apart from all others.  That sense of team is what sets veterans apart from the civilian rank and file.  I would trust Grunt11b, but I can't say that I'd trust many of you who've responded to this thread.  

Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team.  That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military.   

By the way Bod, let me know how you make out at the rest area?  I'll bet that you'll have a great time.


----------



## kaz

yota5 said:


> I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style



Even though I've tended to be on your side, I see absolutely nothing wrong or deviant in any way about being gay.  Why do you care what consenting adults do between themselves?  You're not gay, fine.  But don't pass judgment on others.  My issue is only that we send 18 year old kids into places like Iraq and Afghanistan and I think social attitude changes should be driven somewhere else and go to the military once it's happened.  They have enough on their minds.  Sadly for the Left, that only incents them all the further to start there.


----------



## kaz

yota5 said:


> Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team.  That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military



I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point.  I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement.  That argument cannot be used for "black."  But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way?  What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?


----------



## yota5

gekaap said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate.  One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have such a "contemptuous" view of the military that I stepped up and volunteered for service.  And I now stand firm in supporting protecting the rights of our men and women in uniform.  That sounds very "contemptuous" indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear those opinions all of the time, which is why I know that what you are saying is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite sad that you consider people who stand up and speak in favor of protecting the rights of American citizens, especially those citizens who serve our country in the military, as unworthy.  You are a disgrace not only to the service, but to our entire country.  You have no respect for our military personnel or the freedom they help protect.
> 
> 
> 
> I've served as well.  But that doesn't really matter much to this subject, because service in the military does not automatically make one right or wrong.  You're such a narcissist that I would venture to suggest that you suffer from a disease called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you call that accurate and perceptive, then I don't know what to tell you.  Even he was forced to admit that he was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball.  Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you.  Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion.  Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot.  That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies.  But, leave the troops alone.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This here shows that you are not here to discuss anything.  You're here to throw an extremist bitchfit, like a little child who doesn't get his way and cries to his mommy, and then punches a little girl in the face when crying doesn't get him the attention he wants.  You are pathetic.  A waste of flesh.  Someone should have taught your mother how to swallow.
Click to expand...


Wow!  Talk about a bitch fit.  But then I realize that liberals are as fearful of truth as a vampire is fearful of the cleansing rays of a bright sunlit day.  Faced with truth most liberals feel threatened, and are compelled to over react.  

You served?  I've never met active duty or vet personnel who would accept a clown avatar for any reason.  I think that would have something to do with credibility, and self respect issues. 

Oh well to each his own.  Have fun at the rest area.  I'm sure you'll have a great time.


----------



## sinister59

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus.  It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals.  It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals.  A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.
> 
> 2.  The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.
> 
> 3.  There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals.  In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.
> 
> 4.  As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.
> 
> Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough.  In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals.  Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.
> 
> I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data.  It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country.  Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy.  I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact.  And that fact is irrefutable.
Click to expand...


what a peace of shit . you believe its a non white disease ? 

go light you cross o0n your neighbor's lawn .


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> "Interesting....even Grunt11b admits now that he was wrong....you seem to be of the frame of mind that people have only served if they agree with your opinon on DADT. Rest assured....I served for 21 years and am now retired. And I totally disagree with you.....you will now probably say I didn't serve. That seems to be your M.O."  (bodecea)
> 
> Good day bodecea.  Those of us who serve, and who have served have certain core values ingrained into our persona's.  You've probably noticed that active duty, and veterans alike place high value in Loyalty, Integrity, Honor, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Personal Courage.
> 
> Therefore it doesn't surprise me that Grunt11b, has admitted his error.  No one is right 100% of the time.  I can tell you that I too am mistaken at times.  That is why I will admit to my errors as well.  It comes down to the issue of trust.  Service men and women place a high value on that commodity.  Liars aren't tolerated.
> 
> Trust is the highest compliment that one soldier can pay to another.  Along with trust the concept of team is paramount.  Military core values are missing from the civilian rank and file.  That is why you may have a hard time following what I'm about to say.
> 
> In the military it's all about the common well being of the whole.  Team!  This is the foundation of esprit de corp/ morale.  Team, along with a professional NCO corps is what sets the American military apart from all others.  That sense of team is what sets veterans apart from the civilian rank and file.  I would trust Grunt11b, but I can't say that I'd trust many of you who've responded to this thread.
> 
> Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team.  That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military.
> 
> *By the way Bod, let me know how you make out at the rest area?  I'll bet that you'll have a great time.*



What a shame that you would destroy such a good, well thought out post with such childishness.   But it seems to be what you do.


----------



## yota5

kaz said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team.  That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point.  I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement.  That argument cannot be used for "black."  But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way?  What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?
Click to expand...


Kaz, I have always been considered a respected, reliable team mate.  That is an earned  reputation.  How about you?  

I believe that gays should be allowed to lead their own lives in a law abiding manner in the civilian sector.  That is their right as U.S. Citizens.  However serving in the military isn't a right.  Military service is a privilege that demands high standards.  Sexual deviance is not an acceptable standard.  The privilage of military service is refused for many reasons.  Sexual deviance is just one of those reasons.  Kaz, I think that if you truly understood the impact of team concept in the military you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.  

One last thing where did this black thing come from.  I've served with black soldiers that I counted as my friends, and whom I would trust with my life.  They in turn would trust me with theirs.  We called these folks soldiers.  They were only given a color component when dealt with narrow minded civilians.  Is this black thing a desperate, racist attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that sexual deviants shouldn't be serving openly in the military?

Have a nice day.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> OK, fair enough.  In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals.  Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.
> 
> I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data.  It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country.  Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy.  I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact.  And that fact is irrefutable.



And yet you continue to refuse to seek any data that are specific to the military.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Interesting....even Grunt11b admits now that he was wrong....you seem to be of the frame of mind that people have only served if they agree with your opinon on DADT. Rest assured....I served for 21 years and am now retired. And I totally disagree with you.....you will now probably say I didn't serve. That seems to be your M.O."  (bodecea)
> 
> Good day bodecea.  Those of us who serve, and who have served have certain core values ingrained into our persona's.  You've probably noticed that active duty, and veterans alike place high value in Loyalty, Integrity, Honor, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Personal Courage.
> 
> Therefore it doesn't surprise me that Grunt11b, has admitted his error.  No one is right 100% of the time.  I can tell you that I too am mistaken at times.  That is why I will admit to my errors as well.  It comes down to the issue of trust.  Service men and women place a high value on that commodity.  Liars aren't tolerated.
> 
> Trust is the highest compliment that one soldier can pay to another.  Along with trust the concept of team is paramount.  Military core values are missing from the civilian rank and file.  That is why you may have a hard time following what I'm about to say.
> 
> In the military it's all about the common well being of the whole.  Team!  This is the foundation of esprit de corp/ morale.  Team, along with a professional NCO corps is what sets the American military apart from all others.  That sense of team is what sets veterans apart from the civilian rank and file.  I would trust Grunt11b, but I can't say that I'd trust many of you who've responded to this thread.
> 
> Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team.  That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military.
> 
> *By the way Bod, let me know how you make out at the rest area?  I'll bet that you'll have a great time.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a shame that you would destroy such a good, well thought out post with such childishness.   But it seems to be what you do.
Click to expand...


Sorry about that Bod.  I just reread my reply.  That was over the top.   There is no excuse for that.  Please accept my apology.


----------



## High_Gravity

What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?



Apparently straight soldiers/sailors concerned that gay soldiers/sailors will not be able to resist them.

Women soldiers/sailors everywhere are laughing.


----------



## Spoonman

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.


  I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.


----------



## slukasiewski

High_Gravity said:


> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?



Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...


----------



## rightwinger

High_Gravity said:


> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?



His son will knowingly hang out with gays and may catch "the ghey"


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
Click to expand...



Judging by Obama's performance to date, it's obvious any idiot can become President of the U.S.


----------



## slukasiewski

rightwinger said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His son will knowingly hang out with gays and may catch "the ghey"
Click to expand...


When did you catch "The Ghey," or were you born that way?


----------



## rightwinger

Spoonman said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
Click to expand...


Tell me about it

I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....

And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His son will knowingly hang out with gays and may catch "the ghey"
Click to expand...



It's "Teh ghey"....don't you know anything about The Gay Agenda?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His son will knowingly hang out with gays and may catch "the ghey"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you catch "The Ghey," or were you born that way?
Click to expand...


Watch out, rightwinger....Gh0ster's hitting on you.


----------



## slukasiewski

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
Click to expand...




Pssst.... hey brainiac, 

"The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."

Get it - ?? JOINT RESOLUTION. 

Something Obama Hussein didn't get prior-to invading Libya. 

Resume drooling on yourself.


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by Obama's performance to date, it's obvious any idiot can become President of the U.S.
Click to expand...

all you need is a race card and a few million idiots to follow you.  Obama had both. he is half black and there are a shit load of libs out there waiting to baaaaah and mooooo


----------



## Spoonman

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
Click to expand...


At least when Bush goes to war he follows the rules and gets congressional approval first.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by Obama's performance to date, it's obvious any idiot can become President of the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all you need is a race card and a few million idiots to follow you.  Obama had both. he is half black and there are a shit load of libs out there waiting to baaaaah and mooooo
Click to expand...


I agree - and it'll be just as bad when the first fag or carpetymuncher is elected to the White House. Hopefully we'll never see that happen. Obama's incompetence is award winning as it is!


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least when Bush goes to war he follows the rules and gets congressional approval first.
Click to expand...


And at least when he SERVED in the military - he served HONORABLY. He didn't commit a felony on his application by lying.... like gheys do.


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently straight soldiers/sailors concerned that gay soldiers/sailors will not be able to resist them.
> 
> Women soldiers/sailors everywhere are laughing.
Click to expand...


But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by Obama's performance to date, it's obvious any idiot can become President of the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> all you need is a race card and a few million idiots to follow you.  Obama had both. he is half black and there are a shit load of libs out there waiting to baaaaah and mooooo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree - and it'll be just as bad when the first fag or carpetymuncher is elected to the White House. Hopefully we'll never see that happen. Obama's incompetence is award winning as it is!
Click to expand...


Hey, I could even deal with a cute carpet muncher in the oval office


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> all you need is a race card and a few million idiots to follow you.  Obama had both. he is half black and there are a shit load of libs out there waiting to baaaaah and mooooo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - and it'll be just as bad when the first fag or carpetymuncher is elected to the White House. Hopefully we'll never see that happen. Obama's incompetence is award winning as it is!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I could even deal with a cute carpet muncher in the oval office
Click to expand...


Cute yes, that would be ok. But no bull-dyke types, you know short hair-do's and tattoos, acting as if they had a penis.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by Obama's performance to date, it's obvious any idiot can become President of the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all you need is a race card and a few million idiots to follow you.  Obama had both. he is half black and there are a shit load of libs out there waiting to baaaaah and mooooo
Click to expand...


Ah.  The Race Card Card.


----------



## slukasiewski

High_Gravity said:


> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??



They'll now be able to shower together aboard ship.
It's really all about water conservation friend.


----------



## High_Gravity

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
Click to expand...


Alot of people liet at the MEPS about doing drugs as well.


----------



## High_Gravity

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll now be able to shower together aboard ship.
> It's really all about water conservation friend.
Click to expand...


They already are showering together.


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently straight soldiers/sailors concerned that gay soldiers/sailors will not be able to resist them.
> 
> Women soldiers/sailors everywhere are laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
Click to expand...


Their perception as to how attractive they are to gay soldiers/sailors.   As I said...women soldiers/sailors are laughing over this.


----------



## slukasiewski

High_Gravity said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alot of people liet at the MEPS about doing drugs as well.
Click to expand...


I know. They're in the same boat a fags, thieves, etc. All criminals...


----------



## Mr Natural

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently straight soldiers/sailors concerned that gay soldiers/sailors will not be able to resist them.
> 
> Women soldiers/sailors everywhere are laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
Click to expand...


The simpletonians won't be able to live in denial anymore.


----------



## slukasiewski

High_Gravity said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll now be able to shower together aboard ship.
> It's really all about water conservation friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already are showering together.
Click to expand...


And fudgepacking. Yes, we know. What a filthy lifestyle.


----------



## slukasiewski

Mr Clean said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently straight soldiers/sailors concerned that gay soldiers/sailors will not be able to resist them.
> 
> Women soldiers/sailors everywhere are laughing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The simpletonians won't be able to live in denial anymore.
Click to expand...


You're just pissed you couldn't come out of the closet when you were in faggot.


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently straight soldiers/sailors concerned that gay soldiers/sailors will not be able to resist them.
> 
> Women soldiers/sailors everywhere are laughing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their perception as to how attractive they are to gay soldiers/sailors.   *As I said...women soldiers/sailors are laughing over this.*
Click to expand...


I don't blame them, I don't hear that many women complaining about serving along Lesbians as I do men hating on gay men, wonder why?


----------



## Mr Natural

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their perception as to how attractive they are to gay soldiers/sailors.   *As I said...women soldiers/sailors are laughing over this.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't blame them, I don't hear that many women complaining about serving along Lesbians as I do men hating on gay men, wonder why?
Click to expand...


The more they complain, the gayer they are.


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll now be able to shower together aboard ship.
> It's really all about water conservation friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already are showering together.
Click to expand...


Navy showers....not exactly romantic.


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll now be able to shower together aboard ship.
> It's really all about water conservation friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already are showering together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Navy showers....not exactly romantic.
Click to expand...


When I was in we really only showered together in basic and than it was in and out, and everyone was so tired from running drills and PT, no one cared about anyones junk.


----------



## rightwinger

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least when Bush goes to war he follows the rules and gets congressional approval first.
Click to expand...


Yes...Lies and False intel can do that


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there are already gay soldiers/sailors in the service, so whats really changing??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The simpletonians won't be able to live in denial anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just pissed you couldn't come out of the closet when you were in faggot.
Click to expand...

  You try so hard....it's funny!


----------



## Mr Natural

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'll now be able to shower together aboard ship.
> It's really all about water conservation friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already are showering together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Navy showers....not exactly romantic.
Click to expand...


Oh, but give 'em time and they'll be in there with their scented bath oils and lotions and fancy shower curtains.

Shower time will become one big Gay-O-Rama sex romp.


----------



## yota5

slukasiewski said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more concerned about having an idiot for a commander in chief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst.... hey brainiac,
> 
> "The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
> 
> Get it - ?? JOINT RESOLUTION.
> 
> Something Obama Hussein didn't get prior-to invading Libya.
> 
> Resume drooling on yourself.
Click to expand...


The following video will clear up any doubt over where the liberals stood during the lead up to OIF.      [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc]YouTube - Democrats, WMD&#39;s & The Iraq War[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His son will knowingly hang out with gays and may catch "the ghey"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's "Teh ghey"....don't you know anything about The Gay Agenda?
Click to expand...


I stand corrected


----------



## Spoonman

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least when Bush goes to war he follows the rules and gets congressional approval first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...Lies and False intel can do that
Click to expand...

 if only the libs in congress were more than monday morning quaterbacks and could actually participate in the game you might have a point.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst.... hey brainiac,
> 
> "The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
> 
> Get it - ?? JOINT RESOLUTION.
> 
> Something Obama Hussein didn't get prior-to invading Libya.
> 
> Resume drooling on yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The following video will clear up any doubt over where the liberals stood during the lead up to OIF.      [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc]YouTube - Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War[/ame]
Click to expand...



The majority of Democrats voted against that worthless invasion that cost 4000 lives unnecessarily

And you worry about gays?


----------



## High_Gravity

Mr Clean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already are showering together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy showers....not exactly romantic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but give 'em time and they'll be in there with their scented bath oils and lotions and fancy shower curtains.
> 
> Shower time will become one big Gay-O-Rama sex romp.
Click to expand...


The sad thing, there are people out there who truly believe that.


----------



## High_Gravity

Are there are any women posters who are against gays serving openly? just curious, its been all guys so far.


----------



## Mr Natural

High_Gravity said:


> Are there are any women posters who are against gays serving openly? just curious, its been all guys so far.



Just the guys who are insecure about their own sexuality.


----------



## High_Gravity

Mr Clean said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there are any women posters who are against gays serving openly? just curious, its been all guys so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the guys who are insecure about their own sexuality.
Click to expand...


So having gays openly in the service is too tempting for them?


----------



## Mr Natural

High_Gravity said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there are any women posters who are against gays serving openly? just curious, its been all guys so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the guys who are insecure about their own sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So having gays openly in the service is too tempting for them?
Click to expand...


Apparently.


----------



## slukasiewski

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it
> 
> I still can't believe Bush sacrificed 4000 soldiers to invade Iraq....
> 
> And we worry about gays?  Show me where gay soldiers/sailors have killed 4000 of their fellow soldiers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least when Bush goes to war he follows the rules and gets congressional approval first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...Lies and False intel can do that
Click to expand...


Are you as stupid in real life as Norton was on the Honeymooners?


----------



## slukasiewski

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst.... hey brainiac,
> 
> "The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War."
> 
> Get it - ?? JOINT RESOLUTION.
> 
> Something Obama Hussein didn't get prior-to invading Libya.
> 
> Resume drooling on yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following video will clear up any doubt over where the liberals stood during the lead up to OIF.      [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc]YouTube - Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Democrats voted against that worthless invasion that cost 4000 lives unnecessarily
> 
> And you worry about gays?
Click to expand...


Invasion? The only thing you've ever invaded is another man's ass. Why don't you enlist in the military? You're free to do so now.


----------



## slukasiewski

High_Gravity said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there are any women posters who are against gays serving openly? just curious, its been all guys so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the guys who are insecure about their own sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So having gays openly in the service is too tempting for them?
Click to expand...


I can see it now - fags "swooshing" across the mess decks, powdering their asses in the showers, buying lipsick and panty liners in the ship's store. 

I am glad I am out. 

Back in my day, fags were blanket partied and thrown over the side....


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following video will clear up any doubt over where the liberals stood during the lead up to OIF.      YouTube - Democrats, WMD's & The Iraq War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of Democrats voted against that worthless invasion that cost 4000 lives unnecessarily
> 
> And you worry about gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion? The only thing you've ever invaded is another man's ass. Why don't you enlist in the military? You're free to do so now.
Click to expand...

How odd.   You want to dwell on the sexual.


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...



That's illogical question begging.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the guys who are insecure about their own sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So having gays openly in the service is too tempting for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see it now - fags "swooshing" across the mess decks, powdering their asses in the showers, buying lipsick and panty liners in the ship's store.
> 
> I am glad I am out.
> 
> Back in my day, fags were blanket partied and thrown over the side....
Click to expand...


That's right...you've confessed to cold blooded murder.......(in large enough groups against one gay sailor....so you'd feel safe)


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical question begging.
Click to expand...


It's not question begging. It's a factual statement.


----------



## Mr Natural

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the guys who are insecure about their own sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So having gays openly in the service is too tempting for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see it now - fags "swooshing" across the mess decks, powdering their asses in the showers, buying lipsick and panty liners in the ship's store.
> 
> I am glad I am out.
> 
> Back in my day, fags were blanket partied and thrown over the side....
Click to expand...


Yeah, good thing you got out before you were "outed".


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> It's not question begging. It's a factual statement.



No, it's question begging.  You say that gay people should not be in the military because they cannot be trusted, because they lie in order to get in.  That line of reasoning can only be valid if the prohibitions on getting in are themselves valid.  Thus, you are begging the question.

Also, there is no truth to your premises anyway.  There is no screening for sexual orientation in the recruitment process.  Nobody asks you if you are gay.  You are merely advised that homosexual conduct is considered incompatible with military service.


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not question begging. It's a factual statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's question begging.  You say that gay people should not be in the military because they cannot be trusted, because they lie in order to get in.  That line of reasoning can only be valid if the prohibitions on getting in are themselves valid.  Thus, you are begging the question.
> 
> Also, there is no truth to your premises anyway.  There is no screening for sexual orientation in the recruitment process.  Nobody asks you if you are gay.  You are merely advised that homosexual conduct is considered incompatible with military service.
Click to expand...


You are asked if you have ever engaged in a homo act when you apply, brainiac. 
If you have and you check "NO," you've just lied, and if caught, could be charged with fraudulant enlistment. 

Had you ever enlisted, you know such a basic fact. 

Idiot.


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
Click to expand...



Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.

If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie.  I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".



>>>>


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> You are asked if you have ever engaged in a homo act when you apply, brainiac.
> If you have and you check "NO," you've just lied, and if caught, could be charged with fraudulant enlistment.
> 
> Had you ever enlisted, you know such a basic fact.
> 
> Idiot.



Completely untrue.  I know that when I enlisted I was never asked if I was gay, and neither was anyone I know.  Part of the DADT law as that it was ILLEGAL for anyone to ask about another person's sexual orientation.


----------



## High_Gravity

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.
> 
> If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie.  I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Actually I think you are correct, after don't ask don't tell I think they stopped asking if people were gay in the initial enlistment, I can't remember if I was asked that looking back...


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.
> 
> If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie.  I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asked if you have ever engaged in a homo act when you apply, brainiac.
> If you have and you check "NO," you've just lied, and if caught, could be charged with fraudulant enlistment.
> 
> Had you ever enlisted, you know such a basic fact.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  I know that when I enlisted I was never asked if I was gay, and neither was anyone I know.  Part of the DADT law as that it was ILLEGAL for anyone to ask about another person's sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


What did you enlist in? The Salvation Army?


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> What did you enlist in? The Salvation Army?



Yep, that's it.  You got me.  

Your attempt at an ad hominem will not detract from the fact that you have been proven wrong, and you have no response of substance to offer.


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you enlist in? The Salvation Army?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's it.  You got me.
> 
> Your attempt at an ad hominem will not detract from the fact that you have been proven wrong, and you have no response of substance to offer.
Click to expand...


Read post 601 dumb ass

Try keeping up


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> Read post 601 dumb ass
> 
> Try keeping up



I read it, and it's still untrue.  What you are claiming would be illegal.  And your continued attempts to get abusive only further highlight how ignorant you are on the matter.


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read post 601 dumb ass
> 
> Try keeping up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it, and it's still untrue.  What you are claiming would be illegal.  And your continued attempts to get abusive only further highlight how ignorant you are on the matter.
Click to expand...


Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it. 

Case closed... 

Next!


----------



## kaz

sinister59 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus.  It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals.  It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals.  A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.
> 
> 2.  The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.
> 
> 3.  There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals.  In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.
> 
> 4.  As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.
> 
> Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough.  In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals.  Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.
> 
> I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data.  It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country.  Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy.  I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact.  And that fact is irrefutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a peace of shit . you believe its a non white disease ?
> 
> go light you cross o0n your neighbor's lawn .
Click to expand...


OK, fine.  Gays and straights have the same chance of getting AIDS.  It's homophobic to think that just because gays are 2% of the population and have 2 thirds of the cases of AIDS that there is any correlation between being gay and getting AIDS.

Only liberals need to argue like this.  Facts are less important then liberal ideology.  If a fact doesn't support your view, you ignore that and just go to ad hominem attacks.  You're a loser.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.

But this thread has gone to shit.

I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....

Enjoy.....


----------



## kaz

yota5 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team.  That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point.  I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement.  That argument cannot be used for "black."  But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way?  What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz, I have always been considered a respected, reliable team mate.  That is an earned  reputation.  How about you?
> 
> I believe that gays should be allowed to lead their own lives in a law abiding manner in the civilian sector.  That is their right as U.S. Citizens.  However serving in the military isn't a right.  Military service is a privilege that demands high standards.  Sexual deviance is not an acceptable standard.  The privilage of military service is refused for many reasons.  Sexual deviance is just one of those reasons.  Kaz, I think that if you truly understood the impact of team concept in the military you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> One last thing where did this black thing come from.  I've served with black soldiers that I counted as my friends, and whom I would trust with my life.  They in turn would trust me with theirs.  We called these folks soldiers.  They were only given a color component when dealt with narrow minded civilians.  Is this black thing a desperate, racist attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that sexual deviants shouldn't be serving openly in the military?
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


First on the black that was an analogy, I was in no way calling you a racist.  I'm saying though that someone who didn't like blacks could make the same argument you did about homosexuals.  It would be disruptive.  The difference is that when gays are gay, they do not in any way affect you.  I see no reason they need to go around in the military saying they are gay, and I see no reason you have to pass judgment on what they do in private between consenting adults calling them sexual deviants.  Why don't you practice your own morality and leave others to theirs?  Especially your teammates.

As for your comments on sexual deviants what about heterosexuals who have oral or anal sex? What if they have a threesome?  What about pre-marital sex?  Are those sexual deviants too?  If so, shall we ferret them out too?  How do we decide?  I have no issue with gays, I do have an issue with impeding the military by driving social issues through it and that is what I see the left doing here.  In the end, if you are going to alienate people like me who actually want to support you doing your mission and keeping social agendas out of it, you'd better get used to gays openly fighting along side you.  

I expect gays to keep their agenda out of it, but I expect you to keep yours out as well and focus on the mission, defending your country.  I don't want to pick, I want politics out of it.  But if you're saying I have to, you aren't going to like the outcome.  I just want you both to keep your business to yourselves that isn't military.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....



When would be better timing, if I may ask?


----------



## High_Gravity

kaz said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point.  I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement.  That argument cannot be used for "black."  But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way?  What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz, I have always been considered a respected, reliable team mate.  That is an earned  reputation.  How about you?
> 
> I believe that gays should be allowed to lead their own lives in a law abiding manner in the civilian sector.  That is their right as U.S. Citizens.  However serving in the military isn't a right.  Military service is a privilege that demands high standards.  Sexual deviance is not an acceptable standard.  The privilage of military service is refused for many reasons.  Sexual deviance is just one of those reasons.  Kaz, I think that if you truly understood the impact of team concept in the military you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> One last thing where did this black thing come from.  I've served with black soldiers that I counted as my friends, and whom I would trust with my life.  They in turn would trust me with theirs.  We called these folks soldiers.  They were only given a color component when dealt with narrow minded civilians.  Is this black thing a desperate, racist attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that sexual deviants shouldn't be serving openly in the military?
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First on the black that was an analogy, I was in no way calling you a racist.  I'm saying though that someone who didn't like blacks could make the same argument you did about homosexuals.  It would be disruptive.  The difference is that when gays are gay, they do not in any way affect you.  I see no reason they need to go around in the military saying they are gay, and I see no reason you have to pass judgment on what they do in private between consenting adults calling them sexual deviants.  Why don't you practice your own morality and leave others to theirs?  Especially your teammates.
> 
> *As for your comments on sexual deviants what about heterosexuals who have oral or anal sex? What if they have a threesome?  What about pre-marital sex?  Are those sexual deviants too?  If so, shall we ferret them out too?*  How do we decide?  I have no issue with gays, I do have an issue with impeding the military by driving social issues through it and that is what I see the left doing here.  In the end, if you are going to alienate people like me who actually want to support you doing your mission and keeping social agendas out of it, you'd better get used to gays openly fighting along side you.
> 
> I expect gays to keep their agenda out of it, but I expect you to keep yours out as well and focus on the mission, defending your country.  I don't want to pick, I want politics out of it.  But if you're saying I have to, you aren't going to like the outcome.  I just want you both to keep your business to yourselves that isn't military.
Click to expand...


Exactly, you don't have to be gay to be a sexual deviant.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough.  In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals.  Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.
> 
> I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data.  It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country.  Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy.  I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact.  And that fact is irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you continue to refuse to seek any data that are specific to the military.
Click to expand...


Why would I do that since none of my points regarding the military had anything to do with AIDS?  Finding data on the military is homework you assigned me that I don't see the relevance of.  Unfortunately for you I don't concede you have the power to assign me homework.


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> Next!



Another logical fallacy.  Arguing from ignorance.


----------



## bodecea

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another logical fallacy.  Arguing from ignorance.
Click to expand...


Why even bother with an admitted cold blooded killer.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> Why would I do that since none of my points regarding the military had anything to do with AIDS?  Finding data on the military is homework you assigned me that I don't see the relevance of.  Unfortunately for you I don't concede you have the power to assign me homework.



All of the talk about HIV rates, and whatever demographics it may or may not infect with greater or lesser frequency (which you've done alot of talking about) are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  If you want to talk about rates of HIV infection in the military and origins of infection, then you'd be saying something relevant.  But so far EVERYTHING you have said about HIV is irrelevant to the subject.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another logical fallacy.  Arguing from ignorance.
Click to expand...


I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is.  And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book.  Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that since none of my points regarding the military had anything to do with AIDS?  Finding data on the military is homework you assigned me that I don't see the relevance of.  Unfortunately for you I don't concede you have the power to assign me homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the talk about HIV rates, and whatever demographics it may or may not infect with greater or lesser frequency (which you've done alot of talking about) are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  If you want to talk about rates of HIV infection in the military and origins of infection, then you'd be saying something relevant.  But so far EVERYTHING you have said about HIV is irrelevant to the subject.
Click to expand...


Since I was responding to a point on AIDS, why didn't you object to the person who actually raised it rather then me to responding to it?  It was a liberal, wasn't it?  That's why.  Maybe it was you.   But to criticize me for responding to a point as being off topic and not the person who did it is typical for your agenda driven nonsense you post on every topic you post


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is.  And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book.  Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.



In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond, so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction.  That's also a logical fallacy.

I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly.  The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land.  But that's neither here nor there.


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.
> 
> If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie.  I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.
Click to expand...



It used to.  But hasn't for years and years.  Now there are no questions on orientation or sex acts, so if they aren't asked they didn't like.  That's what DADT was all about.



>>>>


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> Since I was responding to a point on AIDS, why didn't you object to the person who actually raised it rather then me to responding to it?  It was a liberal, wasn't it?  That's why.  Maybe it was you.   But to criticize me for responding to a point as being off topic and not the person who did it is typical for your agenda driven nonsense you post on every topic you post



Maybe you jumped in too quickly without understanding what you were getting into.  The entire question in this thread of who does or does not get HIV has centered on whether allowing gay people in the military poses a meaningful risk of spreading HIV to others.  So, by jumping into that part of the discussion, you joined the context as well.  Thus I was right to respond to you within that context, and point out that ANY DISCUSSION in this thread on the matter is irrelevant if it does not address the issue specifically within that context.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is.  And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book.  Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond
Click to expand...

Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with.  I give you half a point for a rim shot though.



gekaap said:


> so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction.  That's also a logical fallacy.


It's called an ad hominem attack, which yes is a logical fallacy except that I don't apply them to your arguments.



gekaap said:


> I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly.  The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land.  But that's neither here nor there.


You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> The entire question in this thread of who does or does not get HIV has centered on whether allowing gay people in the military poses a meaningful risk of spreading HIV to others



So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it.  Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood.  You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is.  And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book.  Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond, so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction.  That's also a logical fallacy.
> 
> I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly.  The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land.  But that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...


Your conclusions are idiotic.


----------



## kaz

slukasiewski said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is.  And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book.  Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond, so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction.  That's also a logical fallacy.
> 
> I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly.  The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land.  But that's neither here nor there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conclusions are idiotic.
Click to expand...


In fairness he is an idiot, what did you expect?  Rubber biscuit?


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with.  I give you half a point for a rim shot though.



I have nothing of substance to support my conclusions?  I've been quite clear about my arguments.  One person's son is not representative of the entire US military.  The military is an institution that is supposed to protect freedom.  Soldiers are supposed to be ready and willing to risk life and limb to protect each other and save each other if necessary.  Many gay people have served in the military admirably.  HIV infects people of all sexual orientations and there is no evidence that gay people in the combat zone are more likely than straight people to be HIV positive.  All the arguments about gay soldiers possibly being infected with HIV are exclusively levied against men only to the exclusion of providing any argument regarding gay women serving in the military.  The kinds of relationship and sexual practices that exist within the military are not comparable to civilian populations, thus statistics from civilian populations are not applicable to the military population.  Those same practices create at least as great a risk of straight male soldiers contracting HIV than gay soldiers, if not moreso.  The leaders of our military have gone on record as saying that repealing DADT won't harm our military.

All those things being considered, I conclude that there is no meaningful concern among military personnel regarding the repeal of DADT outside of prejudice and bias, and that there is no meaningful harm that it will cause.  If you consider that to be absent of substance, then you're either completely incapable of rational thought, or you're simply too determined to not see it.



> It's called an ad hominem attack, which yes is a logical fallacy except that I don't apply them to your arguments.



That makes alot of sense.  Because YOU don't think that it should be a logical fallacy if directed at my arguments, it's no longer a logical fallacy.  



> You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.



So anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand.  That's incredibly egocentric and dogmatic.  But like I said, it's also neither here nor there for this discussion.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it.  Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood.  You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?



How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived.  You're starting to ramble incoherently now.


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.
> 
> If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie.  I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It used to.  But hasn't for years and years.  Now there are no questions on orientation or sex acts, so if they aren't asked they didn't like.  That's what DADT was all about.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly. 

That's a felony, if convicted...


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.
> 
> That's a felony, if convicted...



No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it.  Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood.  You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived.  You're starting to ramble incoherently now.
Click to expand...


It's hard to take you seriously with that picture of Ronald MacDonald in your avatar. 
Why don't you change it up to something closer to your real personality. I'm sure you can't find a "Bumbling Idiot" avatar somewhere on the Internets...


----------



## gekaap

slukasiewski said:


> It's hard to take you seriously with that picture of Ronald MacDonald in your avatar.
> Why don't you change it up to something closer to your real personality. I'm sure you can't find a "Bumbling Idiot" avatar somewhere on the Internets...



Yet more attempts at ad hominems.  You are unable to address the substance of my arguments, thus you explicitly call into question myself as a person, on so superficial a basis as my avatar.  As if your avatar is just so impressive anyway.


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.
> 
> That's a felony, if convicted...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.
Click to expand...


Obviously, in addition to being an idiot, you can't read English? 
You need it dumbed down further or posted in your native tongue, Arabic?


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with.  I give you half a point for a rim shot though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing of substance to support my conclusions?  I've been quite clear about my arguments.  One person's son is not representative of the entire US military.  The military is an institution that is supposed to protect freedom.  Soldiers are supposed to be ready and willing to risk life and limb to protect each other and save each other if necessary.  Many gay people have served in the military admirably.  HIV infects people of all sexual orientations and there is no evidence that gay people in the combat zone are more likely than straight people to be HIV positive.  All the arguments about gay soldiers possibly being infected with HIV are exclusively levied against men only to the exclusion of providing any argument regarding gay women serving in the military.  The kinds of relationship and sexual practices that exist within the military are not comparable to civilian populations, thus statistics from civilian populations are not applicable to the military population.  Those same practices create at least as great a risk of straight male soldiers contracting HIV than gay soldiers, if not moreso.  The leaders of our military have gone on record as saying that repealing DADT won't harm our military.
> 
> All those things being considered, I conclude that there is no meaningful concern among military personnel regarding the repeal of DADT outside of prejudice and bias, and that there is no meaningful harm that it will cause.  If you consider that to be absent of substance, then you're either completely incapable of rational thought, or you're simply too determined to not see it.
Click to expand...

You've offered no argument at all to support why you want them to tell other then you want them to and you don't see any reason they shouldn't.



gekaap said:


> It's called an ad hominem attack, which yes is a logical fallacy except that I don't apply them to your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes alot of sense.  Because YOU don't think that it should be a logical fallacy if directed at my arguments, it's no longer a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that logical fallacies don't need to be connected to logical arguments?  Interesting argument that is.



gekaap said:


> You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand.  That's incredibly egocentric and dogmatic.  But like I said, it's also neither here nor there for this discussion.
Click to expand...


Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand.  You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you


----------



## slukasiewski

gekaap said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to take you seriously with that picture of Ronald MacDonald in your avatar.
> Why don't you change it up to something closer to your real personality. I'm sure you can't find a "Bumbling Idiot" avatar somewhere on the Internets...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more attempts at ad hominems.  You are unable to address the substance of my arguments, thus you explicitly call into question myself as a person, on so superficial a basis as my avatar.  As if your avatar is just so impressive anyway.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Glad you like mine.
When you changing yours up?


----------



## slukasiewski

kaz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with.  I give you half a point for a rim shot though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing of substance to support my conclusions?  I've been quite clear about my arguments.  One person's son is not representative of the entire US military.  The military is an institution that is supposed to protect freedom.  Soldiers are supposed to be ready and willing to risk life and limb to protect each other and save each other if necessary.  Many gay people have served in the military admirably.  HIV infects people of all sexual orientations and there is no evidence that gay people in the combat zone are more likely than straight people to be HIV positive.  All the arguments about gay soldiers possibly being infected with HIV are exclusively levied against men only to the exclusion of providing any argument regarding gay women serving in the military.  The kinds of relationship and sexual practices that exist within the military are not comparable to civilian populations, thus statistics from civilian populations are not applicable to the military population.  Those same practices create at least as great a risk of straight male soldiers contracting HIV than gay soldiers, if not moreso.  The leaders of our military have gone on record as saying that repealing DADT won't harm our military.
> 
> All those things being considered, I conclude that there is no meaningful concern among military personnel regarding the repeal of DADT outside of prejudice and bias, and that there is no meaningful harm that it will cause.  If you consider that to be absent of substance, then you're either completely incapable of rational thought, or you're simply too determined to not see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've offered no argument at all to support why you want them to tell other then you want them to and you don't see any reason they shouldn't.
> 
> 
> So you're saying that logical fallacies don't need to be connected to logical arguments?  Interesting argument that is.
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand.  That's incredibly egocentric and dogmatic.  But like I said, it's also neither here nor there for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand.  You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you
Click to expand...


He seems quite dense.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> You've offered no argument at all to support why you want them to tell other then you want them to and you don't see any reason they shouldn't.



I never said that I "want them to tell."  To the contrary, I have already explained that you are arguing a false dilemma.  The repeal of DADT is not equal to a legislative mandate that gay people take out billboards or otherwise declare their orientation.  The phrase "don't ask, don't tell" is a misnomer, because what it actually did was prohibit people from BEING gay in the military.  So much as kissing one's S/O of 20 years in the privacy of one's own home was grounds for discharge under the DADT policy.  Visiting one's parents and telling them you were gay was grounds for discharge.  By repealing DADT, Congress is allowing gay people to serve in the military without having to tell anyone anything.  It leaves the person's orientation as a private matter, whereas under DADT it was a government matter.



> So you're saying that logical fallacies don't need to be connected to logical arguments?  Interesting argument that is.



Uh, logical fallacies AREN'T connected to logical arguments.  They are ILLOGICAL arguments.



> Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand.  You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you



That is in fact what you've said.  You said that if I don't agree with you regarding Atlas Shrugged, I must not understand it.  It's your own words, don't blame me for them.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it.  Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood.  You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived.  You're starting to ramble incoherently now.
Click to expand...


You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it.  So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it.  So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.



AND STILL you have no evidence to back up your allegation that a gay soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be HIV positive than a straight soldier.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand.  You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is in fact what you've said.  You said that if I don't agree with you regarding Atlas Shrugged, I must not understand it.  It's your own words, don't blame me for them.
Click to expand...


You say you have substance, so let's focus on this.  I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged.  How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand?  This is typical of how you argue.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it.  So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND STILL you have no evidence to back up your allegation that a gay soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be HIV positive than a straight soldier.
Click to expand...


Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases.  That is actually "evidence."  What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> You say you have substance, so let's focus on this.  I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged.  How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand?  This is typical of how you argue.



WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?

You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say you have substance, so let's focus on this.  I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged.  How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand?  This is typical of how you argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?
> 
> You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?
Click to expand...


Have you ever looked at your avatar?  And note you again dodged the question.  You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case.  That is how you argue.  Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.
> 
> That's a felony, if convicted...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, in addition to being an idiot, you can't read English?
> You need it dumbed down further or posted in your *native tongue, Arabic?*
Click to expand...



Oh look!   Clever.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it.  Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood.  You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived.  You're starting to ramble incoherently now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it.  So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee *with the lace curtains* or with the *neatest backpack* or who's *wearing pink socks* and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.
Click to expand...


Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military.   Now it's clear you are not.   

Had me going for a second there....yuk!  yuk!


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, in addition to being an idiot, you can't read English?
> You need it dumbed down further or posted in your *native tongue, Arabic?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look!   Clever.
Click to expand...


I'm with you on this one.  I don't think gekaap's an idiot who can't read English, I think he's an idiot who can read English


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases.  That is actually "evidence."  What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?



And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military.  The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world.  In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged, along with far greater sexual promiscuity, to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission).  Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.  Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed.  If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived.  You're starting to ramble incoherently now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it.  So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee *with the lace curtains* or with the *neatest backpack* or who's *wearing pink socks* and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military.   Now it's clear you are not.
> 
> Had me going for a second there....yuk!  yuk!
Click to expand...


I was serious there originally.  But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it.  If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it.  So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee *with the lace curtains* or with the *neatest backpack* or who's *wearing pink socks* and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military.   Now it's clear you are not.
> 
> Had me going for a second there....yuk!  yuk!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was serious there originally.  But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it.  If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.
Click to expand...


No, you weren't serious.   It's pretty evident by your comments.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say you have substance, so let's focus on this.  I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged.  How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand?  This is typical of how you argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?
> 
> You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever looked at your avatar?  And note you again dodged the question.  You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case.  That is how you argue.  Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.
Click to expand...


Did he bring up his avatar first?


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.


For you that was a good argument, but you end with this, which kills your credibility and points to agenda.  Critical thinking makes people question.  You raise good questions and reasons that civilian stats could vary from military ones. To say that and say those are good reasons to doubt that civilian statistics would carry over into the military in the same way would have been completely logical.  But no, you had to overreach and concluded that as a fact you'd proven they are irrelevant, which you did not do and shows your argument was only leading to a pre-selected conclusion.

I agree though you raise reasons that civilian statistics may not carry over, but your agenda's still thinly veiled and you don't address the basic question why they need to tell other then you want them to.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military.   Now it's clear you are not.
> 
> Had me going for a second there....yuk!  yuk!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was serious there originally.  But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it.  If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you weren't serious.   It's pretty evident by your comments.
Click to expand...


Right, they didn't lead to the inherent truth of liberalism, they couldn't have been serious.  My bad.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?
> 
> You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever looked at your avatar?  And note you again dodged the question.  You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case.  That is how you argue.  Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did he bring up his avatar first?
Click to expand...


No


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever looked at your avatar?  And note you again dodged the question.  You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case.  That is how you argue.  Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did he bring up his avatar first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...


Now, isn't that interesting.


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> I agree though you raise reasons that civilian statistics may not carry over, but your agenda's still thinly veiled and you don't address the basic question why they need to tell other then you want them to.



You continue to repeat this false premise over and over and over again.  Repealing DADT is not about requiring gay people to go on record about their orientation.  It is about allowing people's orientation remain a private matter where the government cannot encroach.  It's about removing an unconstitutional law that made it illegal for a service member to discuss their orientation in the privacy of their own home with their family.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was serious there originally.  But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it.  If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you weren't serious.   It's pretty evident by your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, they didn't lead to the inherent truth of liberalism, they couldn't have been serious.  My bad.
Click to expand...


Fine...curtains on humvees....serious.


----------



## SFC Ollie

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases.  That is actually "evidence."  What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military.  The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world.  In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged, along with far greater sexual promiscuity, to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission).  Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.  Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed.  If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Whose fucking Military were you in? You did not describe the military I served in, that's for damned sure.


----------



## gekaap

SFC Ollie said:


> Whose fucking Military were you in? You did not describe the military I served in, that's for damned sure.



Well then I guess you were asleep for a very long time.  Or maybe you just bought into the bill of goods that is sold to pass the facade?


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases.  That is actually "evidence."  What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military.  The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world.  In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged, along with far greater sexual promiscuity, to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission).  Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.  Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed.  If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose fucking Military were you in? You did not describe the military I served in, that's for damned sure.
Click to expand...


Yeah no doubt, that sounds more like life at a swingers ranch, not Military service.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he bring up his avatar first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, isn't that interesting.
Click to expand...


He's the one who kept raising "who" raised an argument, I responded to his points but didn't make that argument, so no, it's not very interesting.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree though you raise reasons that civilian statistics may not carry over, but your agenda's still thinly veiled and you don't address the basic question why they need to tell other then you want them to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to repeat this false premise over and over and over again.  Repealing DADT is not about requiring gay people to go on record about their orientation.  It is about allowing people's orientation remain a private matter where the government cannot encroach.  It's about removing an unconstitutional law that made it illegal for a service member to discuss their orientation in the privacy of their own home with their family.
Click to expand...


DADT is only to my knowledge being used to say don't ask don't tell, not for the other things you say could happen.  If you want to change those other things, I'm OK with that, but you are not arguing for that, you are arguing for them to actually tell.

And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you weren't serious.   It's pretty evident by your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, they didn't lead to the inherent truth of liberalism, they couldn't have been serious.  My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine...curtains on humvees....serious.
Click to expand...


Do you even follow your own posts?  You said you thought I was serious, you guess not based on this one, I said I was originally but it was a waste of time, you said no I wasn't, now your point is the one you already said I wasn't serious on.  I don't care if you think I was serious or not, but if you read my posts across the board I'm consistently serious for serious posts and not serious for non-serious posts.


----------



## gekaap

High_Gravity said:


> Yeah no doubt, that sounds more like life at a swingers ranch, not Military service.



You were in the Navy, right?  My best friend was in the Navy, she made it sound even worse over there than the Army.  

Okay, back to being serious, I'm really not trying to say that everyone in the military behaves in this way or that way.  I'm just trying to contrast the prevalence of behaviors in the military lifestyle vs civilian lifestyles.


----------



## SFC Ollie

gekaap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases.  That is actually "evidence."  What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military.  The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world.  In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged,Bullshit, Marriage is marriage and the military does not condone infidelity, The UCMJ strickly forbids adultery. along with far greater sexual promiscuity,Kids away from home for the first time, yeah they go out and get in trouble. to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission).  Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.Condoms were dispensed at the medical dispensary.  Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed.  If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Your BS is nothing more than that. The Military never encouraged infidelity and certainly didn't encourage visiting Hookers. I was the operations sergeant in a training unit, After in processing every Monday morning I would turn the females over to their Drill Sergeants, I would then tell the young men all about the bars down on Broad Street. How they could go down there and when they came back to base they would have an empty wallet and a hard dick. No we did not encourage the behavior you are claiming. Again, what military were you in?


----------



## High_Gravity

gekaap said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no doubt, that sounds more like life at a swingers ranch, not Military service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were in the Navy, right?  My best friend was in the Navy, she made it sound even worse over there than the Army.
> 
> Okay, back to being serious, I'm really not trying to say that everyone in the military behaves in this way or that way.  I'm just trying to contrast the prevalence of behaviors in the military lifestyle vs civilian lifestyles.
Click to expand...


I was in the Air Force but things have changed bro, I almost got served up with a court martial for having an affair when I was still in and some guy at our base was busted in rank for bringing a prostitute to his house on base, the Military has gotten alot more conservative.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases.  That is actually "evidence."  What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military.  The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world.  In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged,Bullshit, Marriage is marriage and the military does not condone infidelity, The UCMJ strickly forbids adultery. along with far greater sexual promiscuity,Kids away from home for the first time, yeah they go out and get in trouble. to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission).  Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.Condoms were dispensed at the medical dispensary.  Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed.  If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your BS is nothing more than that. The Military never encouraged infidelity and certainly didn't encourage visiting Hookers. I was the operations sergeant in a training unit, After in processing every Monday morning I would turn the females over to their Drill Sergeants, I would then tell the young men all about the bars down on Broad Street. How they could go down there and when they came back to base they would have an empty wallet and a hard dick. No we did not encourage the behavior you are claiming. Again, what military were you in?
Click to expand...


Ollie is 100% right, service men are getting hemmed up left and right for adultery right now in the service.


----------



## eots

yota5 said:


> i had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the cinc.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of hiv infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier i could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of aids.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world


----------



## gekaap

kaz said:


> DADT is only to my knowledge being used to say don't ask don't tell, not for the other things you say could happen.



And therein lies part of the problem.  Like I said, "don't ask, don't tell" is a misnomer.  Under the DADT policy homosexual conduct remained "incompatible" with military service and was grounds for discharge.  Conduct includes not only explicit homosexual activity, but any behavior that suggests a propensity to POSSIBLY engage in homosexual conduct _at a later time_, to include any statements about being gay.  The UCMJ does not only apply to military personnel when they are "on the clock" if you will, but at all times.  What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom was grounds for discharge.  If your parents were visiting, and you sat in your living room and told them you were gay, and your CO happened to be walking by the window and overheard, you were suddenly at risk of discharge.



> If you want to change those other things, I'm OK with that, but you are not arguing for that, you are arguing for them to actually tell.



No, I'm not arguing for that.  Never once have I said that I want gay service members to go on record and publicly state their orientation.  What I want is for our laws to honor the free speech rights of our service members, and for the gay men and women who serve in the military to be free to live their personal lives as they see fit, and to enjoy the same opportunities to pursue their sex lives and loving relationships as they see fit, without government intrusion and without the intrusion of bigotry or prejudice.  I was in the service with people who were gay, and those people were and are honorable servants to their country.  They deserve to be treated equally.



> And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.



Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October).  The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech.  The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.


----------



## kaz

gekaap said:


> And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October).  The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech.  The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.
Click to expand...


I've asked you like four times.  And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated.  There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired.  The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass.  And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government.  Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself.  That's what the people said in creating the government.  Only a liberal could pull that twist off.


----------



## slukasiewski

eots said:


> i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world



That's about all they're good for. 

Turning down racks at night is another job they can do.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about all they're good for.
> 
> Turning down racks at night is another job they can do.
Click to expand...


Sure....keep that fantasy going.


----------



## eots

bodecea said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about all they're good for.
> 
> Turning down racks at night is another job they can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure....keep that fantasy going.
Click to expand...


YA THERE NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL..WHAT WAS I THINKING

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_EvWJ6R6c&feature=related]YouTube - NYC Gay Pride Parade 2007[/ame]


----------



## Seawytch

grunt11b said:


> Also, two boys holding hands is not going to help anyone out in a firefight.



And you really think that gay soldiers in a firefight are going to be holding hands? Do you have any intention of being taken seriously?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to show me that post.  Something was misunderstood there.  I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "fag" in itself is either offensive or not offensive.  Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say.  You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God, you have zero ability to detect sarcasm, do you?
Click to expand...


And how was sarcasm indicated at all? Just to be clear, you agree that NOT calling someone the f-word for gay man is not being politically correct, but just plain respectful?


----------



## Seawytch

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...
Click to expand...


Apparently you are completely ignorant of what DADT did. Nobody has been asked if they are gay since 1993.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already are showering together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy showers....not exactly romantic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in we really only showered together in basic and than it was in and out, and everyone was so tired from running drills and PT, no one cared about anyones junk.
Click to expand...


Totally. In fact, if you REALLY want to pick out the gay guy (or lesbian for that matter) in a communal shower, they are the ones facing the wall, washing and getting the hell out.


----------



## Seawytch

slukasiewski said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not question begging. It's a factual statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's question begging.  You say that gay people should not be in the military because they cannot be trusted, because they lie in order to get in.  That line of reasoning can only be valid if the prohibitions on getting in are themselves valid.  Thus, you are begging the question.
> 
> Also, there is no truth to your premises anyway.  There is no screening for sexual orientation in the recruitment process.  Nobody asks you if you are gay.  You are merely advised that homosexual conduct is considered incompatible with military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asked if you have ever engaged in a homo act when you apply, brainiac.
> If you have and you check "NO," you've just lied, and if caught, could be charged with fraudulant enlistment.
> 
> Had you ever enlisted, you know such a basic fact.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Not since 1993 when DADT was enacted. When I joined in 1983, I was not asked if I was gay, but if I had ever engaged in "homosexual activity". Since, at that time, I had never tastefully decorated an apartment, I was able to answer that "no" I had never engaged in homosexual activity (oh, and I'd never had sex either).


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When would be better timing, if I may ask?
Click to expand...


Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It used to.  But hasn't for years and years.  Now there are no questions on orientation or sex acts, so if they aren't asked they didn't like.  That's what DADT was all about.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.
> 
> That's a felony, if convicted...
Click to expand...



Feel free to go back 16 years and investigate anyone that enlisted prior to that time to determine if they committed a "gay act".

Seems like a waste of time though since the vast majority of the present military will have joined after 1995 would have fallen under DADT and they would never have been asked if they committed a "gay act".

Remember that standard of proof will be that the committed a "gay" act prior to 1995.


Good luck.


>>>>


----------



## SFC Ollie

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When would be better timing, if I may ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...
Click to expand...


Gee a social experiment while engaged in 2 wars. What a great idea....


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> When would be better timing, if I may ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee a social experiment while engaged in 2 wars. What a great idea....
Click to expand...


Gee...kicking perfectly capable people out who WANT to fight during 2 wars.  What a great idea.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> I see it has been a busy day on this thread.  Some of you have posted some very good replies.  Others still insist on posting fantasy.  I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style.  I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids.  His article is accurate.  However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.
> 
> "The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.
> 
> As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.
> 
> Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.
> 
> AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]
> 
> In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM  who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"
> 
> HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context.  This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors.  It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons.  That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood.  That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.
> 
> Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene.  Would anyone care to guess why?  Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield.  A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist.  They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.
> 
> From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.



Well they have dealt with it since the 80's so I bet they have got a handle on it. You should go back to your article ware it talks about the sex trade workers. They need to ban bleeding and sex in the armed forces for the safety of the troops.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military.  The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world.  In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged,Bullshit, Marriage is marriage and the military does not condone infidelity, The UCMJ strickly forbids adultery. along with far greater sexual promiscuity,Kids away from home for the first time, yeah they go out and get in trouble. to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission).  Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable.Condoms were dispensed at the medical dispensary.  Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed.  If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your BS is nothing more than that. The Military never encouraged infidelity and certainly didn't encourage visiting Hookers. I was the operations sergeant in a training unit, After in processing every Monday morning I would turn the females over to their Drill Sergeants, I would then tell the young men all about the bars down on Broad Street. How they could go down there and when they came back to base they would have an empty wallet and a hard dick. No we did not encourage the behavior you are claiming. Again, what military were you in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ollie is 100% right, service men are getting hemmed up left and right for adultery right now in the service.
Click to expand...


Real bad.


----------



## yota5

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....



The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie.  You know the drill.  They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin.  They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed.  Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars.  They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face.  It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.

On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service.  I find myself asking the same question you do.  What military did they serve in?  It sure wasn't the one that I served in either.  I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.  

Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right.  To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards.  Not everyone can serve.  Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard.  Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.


----------



## gautama

yota5 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie.  You know the drill.  They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin.  They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed.  Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars.  They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face.  It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.
> 
> On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service.  I find myself asking the same question you do.  What military did they serve in?  It sure wasn't the one that I served in either.  I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.
> 
> Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right.  To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards.  Not everyone can serve.  Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard.  Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.
Click to expand...


Fact of Life: No matter what one does. there's a fuck-up. 

Unfortunately, with Obama Bin Lyin, the POS makes sure that the fuck-up is built in.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October).  The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech.  The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked you like four times.  And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated.  There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired.  The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass.  And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government.  Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself.  That's what the people said in creating the government.  Only a liberal could pull that twist off.
Click to expand...


Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.

Sept 10, 2010:

_A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman._

Sept 3, 2010:

_A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._


----------



## Seawytch

slukasiewski said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> i would just make them cooks and hairdressers, garment makers and servers...just like in the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about all they're good for.
> 
> Turning down racks at night is another job they can do.
Click to expand...


I would imagine that you aren't aware that the first Marine wounded in the Iraq invasion was gay.


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> When would be better timing, if I may ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee a social experiment while engaged in 2 wars. What a great idea....
Click to expand...


Sorry, but it isn't an "experiment" anymore. It might have been an "experiment" over 20 years ago when the Israelis lifted their ban. It might even have still been an "experiment" when 10 or more other countries did it too. Now there are over a score of countries, many of which with cultures similar to our own, that have lifted their bans *without incident*. None of the "doom and gloom" you are "afraid" is going to happen, happened. NONE. Why do you think our troops are less professional than these other countries?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. When would it be better to STOP discharging hundreds of people a year simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? I'm thinking that NOW, when we can't afford to lose a single soldier, sailor or Marine would be the PERFECT time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee a social experiment while engaged in 2 wars. What a great idea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but it isn't an "experiment" anymore. It might have been an "experiment" over 20 years ago when the Israelis lifted their ban. It might even have still been an "experiment" when 10 or more other countries did it too. Now there are over a score of countries, many of which with cultures similar to our own, that have lifted their bans *without incident*. None of the "doom and gloom" you are "afraid" is going to happen, happened. NONE. Why do you think our troops are less professional than these other countries?
Click to expand...



I think realistically speaking there will be "incidents".  They will be relatively few and far between and in the grand scheme of things pretty minor.  But they will exist and they will come primarily from two sources:

1.  Extremists on the left that will manufacture an "incident" in an attempt to make the military command structure look bad and to paint a case for continued institutional discrimination against homosexuals.

and

2.  Extremists on the right that will manufacture an "incident" in an attempt to justify re-implementation of DADT and an "I told you so" moment.​


I just pray that both extreme sides of the ailse will let the true leaders in our military do their job and act like the professionals they truly are.



>>>>


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie.  You know the drill.  They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin.  They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed.  Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars.  They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face.  It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.
Click to expand...


An awful lot of speculation there...got evidence to back it up besides one son's opinion?



> On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service.  I find myself asking the same question you do.  What military did they serve in?  It sure wasn't the one that I served in either.  I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.



You never heard "What goes on deployment stays on deployment"?   You never heard "Wheels up, Rings off"?   You never saw an E-club the night AFTER a deployment started?   Color me sceptical.



> Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right.  To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards.  Not everyone can serve.  Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard.  Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.



And once again you are being asked...what is your definition of a "sexual deviant"?


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October).  The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech.  The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you like four times.  And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated.  There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired.  The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass.  And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government.  Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself.  That's what the people said in creating the government.  Only a liberal could pull that twist off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _*A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman*._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
Click to expand...


Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you like four times.  And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated.  There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired.  The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass.  And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government.  Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself.  That's what the people said in creating the government.  Only a liberal could pull that twist off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _*A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman*._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _*A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman*._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.
Click to expand...


I found during my time in that adultery was one of those "extra" charges thrown in if someone really stepped on it...and "fraternization" was usually really stepping on it.  For example the CO of the P-3 command sleeping with one of his LT Intell officers...another officer who got a poor fitrep turned them in.


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _*A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman*._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.
Click to expand...


I think they need to get out of private matters and I say this because the Military does absolutely nothing when the civilian spouse of a Military member is cheating, the civilian spouse can have a gangbang in your living room and there is absolutely nothing the Military can do, I talked to an Air Force legal aide on this and they said their hands are tied until the Military member files for divorce, and even than the dependent can stay on base for 30 days getting their freak on, it might be different from base to base but this is what I was told at Vandenberg Air Force Base, when there was rumours going around that I was cheating I was threatened to cut it out or I would lose some rank behind this, and possibly my career, they even contacted the woman I was cheating with and talked to her on the phone but she was smart enough to deny even knowing me.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God, you have zero ability to detect sarcasm, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how was sarcasm indicated at all?
Click to expand...


Seriously?  I called you Nancy to call you a sensitive girl about political correctness.  You seriously need that explained to you, Nancy?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of asking me to justify those comments before, but since you're asking now, the DADT policy was ruled unconstitutional back around November (maybe October).  The ruling cites the first amendment's prohibitions against Congress enacting any law that inhibits the freedom of speech.  The court found that any law that prohibits a gay service member from telling another person their orientation infringes upon the first amendment liberties of the person, and that there is no government interest served by that infringement upon liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you like four times.  And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated.  There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired.  The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass.  And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government.  Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself.  That's what the people said in creating the government.  Only a liberal could pull that twist off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
Click to expand...


The Courts find all sort of things in the Constitution that aren't there.  That you argue it's Unconstitutional because government said government is infringing on government's rights is patently ludicrous.  I want to know where in the Constitution that government employees have the the right to state they are gay in the Constitution.  Show me that, don't tell me what liberal judge magically found it there.

The war on drugs isn't there, intrastate commerce isn't there, the right to an abortion isn't there and government employees don't have free speech protection to state they aren't following government employment rules.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you like four times.  And that is a ridiculous ruling that's obviously politically motivated.  There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech by all sorts of employers that can get employees fired.  The first Amendment protects you from government prosecution, not from any employer canning your ass.  And what's even more preposterous is that soldiers are government.  Government is protected to speak freely from consequence from itself.  That's what the people said in creating the government.  Only a liberal could pull that twist off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Courts find all sort of things in the Constitution that aren't there.  That you argue it's Unconstitutional because government said government is infringing on government's rights is patently ludicrous. * I want to know where in the Constitution that government employees have the the right to state they are gay in the Constitution.*  Show me that, don't tell me what liberal judge magically found it there.
> 
> The war on drugs isn't there, intrastate commerce isn't there, the right to an abortion isn't there and government employees don't have free speech protection to state they aren't following government employment rules.
Click to expand...


First Amendment...free speech.   Same one that allows straight government employees say they are straight.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two different Federal District courts found DADT unconstitutional.
> 
> Sept 10, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in Tacoma, Wash., ruled Friday that the Air Force violated the constitutional rights of a decorated flight nurse when it discharged her in 2007 under the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" military policy after learning of an affair she was having with a married woman._
> 
> Sept 3, 2010:
> 
> _A federal judge in southern California ruled the policy unconstitutional as applied to all service members._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts find all sort of things in the Constitution that aren't there.  That you argue it's Unconstitutional because government said government is infringing on government's rights is patently ludicrous. * I want to know where in the Constitution that government employees have the the right to state they are gay in the Constitution.*  Show me that, don't tell me what liberal judge magically found it there.
> 
> The war on drugs isn't there, intrastate commerce isn't there, the right to an abortion isn't there and government employees don't have free speech protection to state they aren't following government employment rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment...free speech.   Same one that allows straight government employees say they are straight.
Click to expand...


The first Amendment protects the people from government, not government from government.  It protects them from being prosecuted, not from being fired.  The first Amendment wouldn't protect a private company from firing one of their employees over what they say in public, that it protects government employees from something that it doesn't protect private employees from is inane.  And no, the First Amendment doesn't protect straight employees from saying they are straight either.


----------



## yota5

A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.



No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military?   How about those translators?   How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love?  Because you think it's icky?  Seriously?


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military?   How about those translators?   How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love?  Because you think it's icky?  Seriously?
Click to expand...


Nice try Bod, but no cigar.  Try answering the question if you can.  Show me evidence where gays serving openly in the military will contribute to the combat readiness of any unit?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No more or less than it does now.*...but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military?   How about those translators?   How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love?  Because you think it's icky?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try Bod, but no cigar.  Try answering the question if you can.  Show me evidence where gays serving openly in the military will contribute to the combat readiness of any unit?
Click to expand...


Note my answer....let me make it bigger for  you .


----------



## Caroljo

High_Gravity said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn I almost got the kitchen sink tossed at me for having an affair while I was in the service, maybe I should have went to the Feds myself and accused the Military of violating my constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that starts a whole new discussion about whether or not the military should be getting involved in "private" matters. Major Witt wasn't simply charged with adultery, but discharged under DADT. In 20 years I only saw ONE GUY go to Mast for adultery and he was an officer sleeping with the wife of one of HIS men. He did not get a discharge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they need to get out of private matters and I say this because the Military does absolutely nothing when the civilian spouse of a Military member is cheating, the civilian spouse can have a gangbang in your living room and there is absolutely nothing the Military can do, I talked to an Air Force legal aide on this and they said their hands are tied until the Military member files for divorce, and even than the dependent can stay on base for 30 days getting their freak on, it might be different from base to base but this is what I was told at Vandenberg Air Force Base, when there was rumours going around that I was cheating I was threatened to cut it out or I would lose some rank behind this, and possibly my career, they even contacted the woman I was cheating with and talked to her on the phone but she was smart enough to deny even knowing me.
Click to expand...


This reminds me of when my son was stationed with the 101st Airborne a few years ago (he's now training for Special Forces).  His wife would tell us stories of what alot of the wives were doing while their husbands were in Iraq and it just made her sick.  They want the wives (or husbands) at home to stand by their soldier, they count on them being there when they get home...and my son knows of one guy that got off the plane and as soon as he was close to his wife he started beating her for messing around while he was gone.  The MP's let him go home once he settled down, and the next day he killed her.  

Oh - and if you go out and get a really bad sunburn...so bad you can't wear clothing over it, they can give you an article 15? for doing damage to military property!! wow!


----------



## Spoonman

yota5 said:


> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.



exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
Click to expand...


There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
Click to expand...


What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
Click to expand...

 why do libs always fail to answer a question but reply with another?  There is no benefit to changing the policy.  probably no harm to changing it, but there is a cost and a learning curve. So before anyone is willing to incur the costs let's here some military benefits.  Ok, balls in your court. don't drop it like usual


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.
Click to expand...

he can't. there is no benefit to doing it.  which is why he has to answer with a question.


----------



## Mr Natural

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There are and always have been gay people in the military*.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
Click to expand...



Of course there has been.

Why else would there be such an obsession with shoes and haircuts and the proper way to make a bed?


----------



## kaz

Mr Clean said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are and always have been gay people in the military*.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there has been.
> 
> Why else would there be such an obsession with shoes and haircuts and the proper way to make a bed?
Click to expand...

It's nice to see a liberal who hasn't lost his sense of humor.  In these days, rare indeed.  Amazing how the further left we go the more hysterical and angry the left become.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly, what is the benefit for making this change? Why should sexual preference even be an issue that is being pushed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.
Click to expand...


The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.

You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.

Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are and always have been gay people in the military*.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there has been.
> 
> Why else would there be such an obsession with shoes and haircuts and the proper way to make a bed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's nice to see a liberal who hasn't lost his sense of humor.  In these days, rare indeed.  Amazing how the further left we go the more hysterical and angry the left become.
Click to expand...


Really?   How sad you run into that.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.
> 
> You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.
> 
> Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.
Click to expand...

 The focus of the Military is not about social chit chat, it's about being a soldier and doing your duty. Since when did it become a country club or a sexual chat room.  Let's have a military benefit. A real reason why the armed forces should go through the expense of changing their policies.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are and always have been gay people in the military.  What is the benefit of making them continue to hide?   Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.
> 
> You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.
> 
> Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.
Click to expand...


I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either.  Why would they need to?

You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.
> 
> You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.
> 
> Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either.  Why would they need to?
> 
> You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.
Click to expand...

it has nothing to do with military operations. and it is not a justifyable reason to change military policy


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



Hey stupid......speaking as someone who IS career military (I retired 8 years ago), I can tell you that your post is full of shit.

Why?  Because........every 6 months, you get tested for HIV no matter what (at least I did until 2002).  It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.  If you're on active duty, you will get tested every 6 months.  Oh yeah.....if you ever pop positive on an HIV test, you are immediately sent to shore duty at one of a few hospitals that the Navy has designated for that purpose.

Oh yeah.........got news for you..........gays actually make better military types than straights do.  Wanna know why?  Because attention to detail (one of the military's favorite terms) is something they're good at.  How do I know?  Because for 20 years, I was a Personnelman, which meant that I had to do the worksheets every time advancement time came around for the whole command, and oh yeah........we have to factor in things like evaluations and personal (not unit) awards.  Gays generally had a higher eval average and more awards.  And........because I wasn't as bigoted as you or your child appear to be, all the people in each of my commands trusted me enough to tell me what was and wasn't true and going on.

Try again chumpsteak, both you and your spawn are bigoted assholes.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the benefit of them telling people their personal business?  Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.
> 
> You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.
> 
> Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  *There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either*.  Why would they need to?
> 
> You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.
Click to expand...

But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.
> 
> You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.
> 
> Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  *There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either*.  Why would they need to?
> 
> You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?
Click to expand...


Take your personal emotion out of it.  Give us a reason why the military should change it's policy. what is the benefit to them.  Your logic is like saying coke should stop marketing in red cans because red is a color of anger and it upsets some people


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A new day, and another load of liberal/ gay BS.  How surprising is that?  One question continues to be conveniently ignored. * How can gays serving openly in the military contribute to the combat effectiveness of the United States Military? * It will be interesting to see how Obama's rump rangers field this question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military?   How about those translators?   How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love?  Because you think it's icky?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try Bod, but no cigar.  Try answering the question if you can.  Show me evidence where gays serving openly in the military will contribute to the combat readiness of any unit?
Click to expand...


Because if they were allowed to serve openly, then they would also be able to take advantage of programs like Ombudsman, who maintain contact with the unit while it's deployed out of the States.  With that program, you can send messages back and forth, be kept appraised of the situation back home, let those at home know what you're doing and where you're at (if it's unclassified).



> United States NavyThe U.S. Navy implemented an ombudsman program in 1970, under the direction of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. Through the Navy Ombudsman Program, communication between the spouses of active duty personnel and the command is kept open, thereby improving the quality of life for everyone involved. The Navy command ombudsman is a volunteer position, with no special favors bestowed upon them.
> 
> The purpose of this program is to ensure the dependents of active duty personnel have a channel of resources for their needs and quality of life. A command ombudsman can guide you to the help you may need, before, during or after a deployment. The Navy Ombudsman undergoes almost constant training, and is bound by confidentiality in most cases, the exception being any hint of child abuse. An ombudsman meets with department heads aboard a naval installation to find out the latest news, and pass it on, including news on ship deployments, cutting down on potentially harmful gossip.



Ombudsmen in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're gay, you can't take advantage of a program like that, which impacts your ability to keep in contact with home, which in turn, impacts your morale and your ability to function at the same level as everyone else.


----------



## rightwinger

In truth, five years from now everyone will be wondering what the fuss was about


----------



## rightwinger

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  *There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either*.  Why would they need to?
> 
> You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.
> 
> 
> 
> But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your personal emotion out of it.  Give us a reason why the military should change it's policy. what is the benefit to them.  Your logic is like saying coke should stop marketing in red cans because red is a color of anger and it upsets some people
Click to expand...


In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces


----------



## sinister59

I wounder how many whiners here on this subject are active duty or gust assholes that hate gays ,


----------



## ABikerSailor

sinister59 said:


> I wounder how many whiners here on this subject are active duty or gust assholes that hate gays ,



Most of the whiners are just assholes that hate gays.  Many have never even served, so they don't even have a clue as to how things are done in the military.

Most of those who are okay with gays serving?  Many of them are actual ex military, and quite a few have served in leadership positions.

Bodeca comes readily to mind as one of the people who has served and is okay with gays in the military.

Incidentally, speaking as a 20 year vet myself, I'm cool with it as well.  And for the people who say that it would hurt the military due to people leaving because of the policy?  At most, maybe 2-5 percent would actually leave, but it would be more than made up for by the gays who actually want to serve, just haven't been able to enlist because of their orientation.


----------



## Grace

I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.


----------



## Montesquieu

As a vet myself (although not for twenty years) I ask them to stay in something like medical admin.

They're not wanted.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same benefit that straight people get by telling others about their personal business.....or rather, not having to hide or deceive about their personal business.
> 
> You seem to think that gay soldiers want the right to shout their gayness from the heights.   No, they want the SAME right that straight soldiers have to speak freely about their wives/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends...what they did over the weekend...in other words, everyday social chit chat without having to lie in order to save their career.
> 
> Unless you feel that no one has any business sharing their personal life, you would support straight sailors/soldiers being told to keep quiet too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  *There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either*.  Why would they need to?
> 
> You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?
Click to expand...


It's hard to debate you when you keep changing your position.  Try to pick one.  Now you're changing to it's not fair?  Life's not fair.  You may be onto something there.


----------



## Spoonman

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your personal emotion out of it.  Give us a reason why the military should change it's policy. what is the benefit to them.  Your logic is like saying coke should stop marketing in red cans because red is a color of anger and it upsets some people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
Click to expand...


Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> In truth, five years from now everyone will be wondering what the fuss was about



It may be ten, but other then quibbling about the exact time frame I agree.


----------



## kaz

sinister59 said:


> I wounder how many whiners here on this subject are active duty or gust assholes that hate gays ,



Hmm...so you're saying assholes hate gays?


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your personal emotion out of it.  Give us a reason why the military should change it's policy. what is the benefit to them.  Your logic is like saying coke should stop marketing in red cans because red is a color of anger and it upsets some people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
Click to expand...


My brother went to the Naval academy, served in Gulf War I.  My cousin is a career air force guy, also in Gulf War I and still in the military.  One thing I've never heard either of them ever describe the military as would be, "fair."


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more or less than it does now....but how does kicking willing and qualified soldiers/sailors out because of their sexuality contribute to the combat effectiveness of the U.S. military?   How about those translators?   How about all the trained and outstanding military members kicked out because of who they love?  Because you think it's icky?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Bod, but no cigar.  Try answering the question if you can.  Show me evidence where gays serving openly in the military will contribute to the combat readiness of any unit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if they were allowed to serve openly, then they would also be able to take advantage of programs like Ombudsman, who maintain contact with the unit while it's deployed out of the States.  With that program, you can send messages back and forth, be kept appraised of the situation back home, let those at home know what you're doing and where you're at (if it's unclassified).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States NavyThe U.S. Navy implemented an ombudsman program in 1970, under the direction of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. Through the Navy Ombudsman Program, communication between the spouses of active duty personnel and the command is kept open, thereby improving the quality of life for everyone involved. The Navy command ombudsman is a volunteer position, with no special favors bestowed upon them.
> 
> The purpose of this program is to ensure the dependents of active duty personnel have a channel of resources for their needs and quality of life. A command ombudsman can guide you to the help you may need, before, during or after a deployment. The Navy Ombudsman undergoes almost constant training, and is bound by confidentiality in most cases, the exception being any hint of child abuse. An ombudsman meets with department heads aboard a naval installation to find out the latest news, and pass it on, including news on ship deployments, cutting down on potentially harmful gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ombudsmen in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If you're gay, you can't take advantage of a program like that, which impacts your ability to keep in contact with home, which in turn, impacts your morale and your ability to function at the same level as everyone else.
Click to expand...


This program is not only for spouses


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your personal emotion out of it.  Give us a reason why the military should change it's policy. what is the benefit to them.  Your logic is like saying coke should stop marketing in red cans because red is a color of anger and it upsets some people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
Click to expand...


Here's the benefit you retarded colon jousting cock monkey.........



> Ombudsman Program Overview The Navy Family Ombudsman Program promotes healthy, self-reliant families.
> 
> Why the word Ombudsman? The word Ombudsman originated in Scandinavian countries and referred to safeguarding the rights of citizens. Today the concept of the Ombudsman is widely utilized in the fields of government, business and healthcare.
> 
> Navy Family Ombudsman Program OPNAVINST 1750.1F
> 
> History
> In 1970, Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr. then Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), created the Navy Family Ombudsman Program to improve communication between commands and the families of Sailors who served in them.
> 
> In 2006, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, CNO, re-emphasized the importance of the program and signed an updated instruction, highlighting the requirement that all Navy families have access to a Navy Family Ombudsman.
> 
> Ombudsman Roles
> The Ombudsman is a volunteer, appointed by the commanding officer, to serve as an information link between command leadership and Navy families. Ombudsmen are trained to disseminate information both up and down the chain of command, including official Department of the Navy and command information, command climate issues, local quality of life (QOL) improvement opportunities, and good deals around the community.
> 
> They also provide resource referrals when needed. They are instrumental in resolving family issues before the issues require extensive command attention.  The command ombudsman program is shaped largely by the commanding officers perceived needs of his/her command. The command ombudsman is appointed by and works under the guidance of the commanding officer who determines the priorities of the program, the roles and relationships of those involved in it, and the type and level of support it will receive.



Navy Ombudsman Program Overview - Fleet and Family Support Center

If you have a girlfriend you're living with and intend to marry?  She's able to take advantage of that program as well, pending the CO's approval.

If you're gay and living with someone?  You're shit outta luck.

Ever been deployed and worried about things back home, but you couldn't do anything about it because you were on cruise, you stopped getting mail?  I have, happened with my ex wife who decided to go screw around with an AOC while I was on shakedown cruise for the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73).  Came back and the bitch was living with him.

I tell ya what........it's really hard to concentrate on things while deployed if you're worried about back home.

Try again Shit Man.


----------



## Qball

IMEURU said:


> I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.



There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want. 

They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My brother went to the Naval academy, served in Gulf War I.  My cousin is a career air force guy, also in Gulf War I and still in the military.  One thing I've never heard either of them ever describe the military as would be, "fair."
Click to expand...

I spent 8 years in the Marines. Their focus was never my sexual orientation. Their focus is one thing - making sure everyone understands what the expectations of them are. You are trained for a purpose, and that isn't social chit chat.  You are securing a beachhead, no one is chit chatting about doing their partner.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Montesquieu said:


> As a vet myself (although not for twenty years) I ask them to stay in something like medical admin.
> 
> They're not wanted.



How long did you serve, and what branch?

I'm guessing only one enlistment.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the benefit you retarded colon jousting cock monkey.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ombudsman Program Overview The Navy Family Ombudsman Program promotes healthy, self-reliant families.
> 
> Why the word Ombudsman? The word Ombudsman originated in Scandinavian countries and referred to safeguarding the rights of citizens. Today the concept of the Ombudsman is widely utilized in the fields of government, business and healthcare.
> 
> Navy Family Ombudsman Program OPNAVINST 1750.1F
> 
> History
> In 1970, Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr. then Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), created the Navy Family Ombudsman Program to improve communication between commands and the families of Sailors who served in them.
> 
> In 2006, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, CNO, re-emphasized the importance of the program and signed an updated instruction, highlighting the requirement that all Navy families have access to a Navy Family Ombudsman.
> 
> Ombudsman Roles
> The Ombudsman is a volunteer, appointed by the commanding officer, to serve as an information link between command leadership and Navy families. Ombudsmen are trained to disseminate information both up and down the chain of command, including official Department of the Navy and command information, command climate issues, local quality of life (QOL) improvement opportunities, and good deals around the community.
> 
> They also provide resource referrals when needed. They are instrumental in resolving family issues before the issues require extensive command attention.  The command ombudsman program is shaped largely by the commanding officers perceived needs of his/her command. The command ombudsman is appointed by and works under the guidance of the commanding officer who determines the priorities of the program, the roles and relationships of those involved in it, and the type and level of support it will receive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Navy Ombudsman Program Overview - Fleet and Family Support Center
> 
> If you have a girlfriend you're living with and intend to marry?  She's able to take advantage of that program as well, pending the CO's approval.
> 
> If you're gay and living with someone?  You're shit outta luck.
> 
> Ever been deployed and worried about things back home, but you couldn't do anything about it because you were on cruise, you stopped getting mail?  I have, happened with my ex wife who decided to go screw around with an AOC while I was on shakedown cruise for the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73).  Came back and the bitch was living with him.
> 
> I tell ya what........it's really hard to concentrate on things while deployed if you're worried about back home.
> 
> Try again Shit Man.
Click to expand...


Your brother could be your point of contact, your mother, your best friend. It doesn't have to be a spouse. Gays are not exempt from taking advantage of the program


----------



## bodecea

Montesquieu said:


> As a vet myself (although not for twenty years) I ask them to stay in something like medical admin.
> 
> They're not wanted.



Funny how we are wanted enough until you find out that one little thing (totally legal) about us.   

Who is that truely a referendum on?   Us or You?


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually typically don't mean what you pull out of your ass.  *There is no "benefit" to straight people telling their personal business either*.  Why would they need to?
> 
> You are making the illogical argument BTW that because straights can tell they are straight they need to.  No one said that.
> 
> 
> 
> But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to debate you when you keep changing your position.  Try to pick one.  Now you're changing to it's not fair?  Life's not fair.  You may be onto something there.
Click to expand...


It is a question of being treated EQUALLY by the law...whether it is civilian or UCMJ law.   You have a problem with being treated equally under the law?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they do...all the time.   It's called being social.   Why do straights get to do it with no repercussions while if gays were to do the same thing, they can be kicked out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to debate you when you keep changing your position.  Try to pick one.  Now you're changing to it's not fair?  Life's not fair.  You may be onto something there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a question of being treated EQUALLY by the law...whether it is civilian or UCMJ law.   You have a problem with being treated equally under the law?
Click to expand...


Equal is not a formula, it's literal.  Gays have the exact same rules as straights.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My brother went to the Naval academy, served in Gulf War I.  My cousin is a career air force guy, also in Gulf War I and still in the military.  One thing I've never heard either of them ever describe the military as would be, "fair."
Click to expand...


And if either of them had been gay or if someone had said they were gay, under DADT, they would have been shitcanned regardless of their service.


----------



## bodecea

Qball said:


> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
Click to expand...


Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brother went to the Naval academy, served in Gulf War I.  My cousin is a career air force guy, also in Gulf War I and still in the military.  One thing I've never heard either of them ever describe the military as would be, "fair."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if either of them had been gay or if someone had said they were gay, under DADT, they would have been shitcanned regardless of their service.
Click to expand...

Got an answer yet of why this should be done? Or are you still just babbling?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brother went to the Naval academy, served in Gulf War I.  My cousin is a career air force guy, also in Gulf War I and still in the military.  One thing I've never heard either of them ever describe the military as would be, "fair."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if either of them had been gay or if someone had said they were gay, under DADT, they would have been shitcanned regardless of their service.
Click to expand...


My brother finished in the top 10% of his class at the naval academy, which is a big deal and allowed him to pick almost any job he wanted.  He picked nuclear subs.  He was at sub school in Orlando and they called him out of class and told him he was kicked out because he'd honestly admitted in his application he'd tried pot in high school.  He seriously only tried it.  Most people lie, they got to stay in.  For being honest, he had to go surface warfare, which is the last choice and you can do that if you go NROTC.  They asked, he was screwed.  Gays have the option of just shutting up.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
Click to expand...


And you have the right to tell them, hey, i'm not interested.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother went to the Naval academy, served in Gulf War I.  My cousin is a career air force guy, also in Gulf War I and still in the military.  One thing I've never heard either of them ever describe the military as would be, "fair."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if either of them had been gay or if someone had said they were gay, under DADT, they would have been shitcanned regardless of their service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got an answer yet of why this should be done? Or are you still just babbling?
Click to expand...


Why they should be shitcanned under DADT?   Nope...got no answer as to why that should be done.   No answer at all.  It's a horrible waste of manpower, skills, and training.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
Click to expand...


You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have the right to tell them, hey, i'm not interested.
Click to expand...


Didn't seem to work much when I was in....in fact, it would have been the equivalent of admitting I was gay to not be interested in their stories of sexual conquests....and that would have brought me to being discharged.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the benefit you retarded colon jousting cock monkey.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ombudsman Program Overview The Navy Family Ombudsman Program promotes healthy, self-reliant families.
> 
> Why the word Ombudsman? The word Ombudsman originated in Scandinavian countries and referred to safeguarding the rights of citizens. Today the concept of the Ombudsman is widely utilized in the fields of government, business and healthcare.
> 
> Navy Family Ombudsman Program OPNAVINST 1750.1F
> 
> History
> In 1970, Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr. then Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), created the Navy Family Ombudsman Program to improve communication between commands and the families of Sailors who served in them.
> 
> In 2006, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, CNO, re-emphasized the importance of the program and signed an updated instruction, highlighting the requirement that all Navy families have access to a Navy Family Ombudsman.
> 
> Ombudsman Roles
> The Ombudsman is a volunteer, appointed by the commanding officer, to serve as an information link between command leadership and Navy families. Ombudsmen are trained to disseminate information both up and down the chain of command, including official Department of the Navy and command information, command climate issues, local quality of life (QOL) improvement opportunities, and good deals around the community.
> 
> They also provide resource referrals when needed. They are instrumental in resolving family issues before the issues require extensive command attention.  The command ombudsman program is shaped largely by the commanding officers perceived needs of his/her command. The command ombudsman is appointed by and works under the guidance of the commanding officer who determines the priorities of the program, the roles and relationships of those involved in it, and the type and level of support it will receive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Navy Ombudsman Program Overview - Fleet and Family Support Center
> 
> If you have a girlfriend you're living with and intend to marry?  She's able to take advantage of that program as well, pending the CO's approval.
> 
> If you're gay and living with someone?  You're shit outta luck.
> 
> Ever been deployed and worried about things back home, but you couldn't do anything about it because you were on cruise, you stopped getting mail?  I have, happened with my ex wife who decided to go screw around with an AOC while I was on shakedown cruise for the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73).  Came back and the bitch was living with him.
> 
> I tell ya what........it's really hard to concentrate on things while deployed if you're worried about back home.
> 
> Try again Shit Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your brother could be your point of contact, your mother, your best friend. It doesn't have to be a spouse. Gays are not exempt from taking advantage of the program
Click to expand...


Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee.  Why?  Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth.  And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc. 

However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs.  Why?  Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.  

And..........how do I know so much about these programs?  Part of what my office did was run that program.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...
Click to expand...

Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have the right to tell them, hey, i'm not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't seem to work much when I was in....in fact, it would have been the equivalent of admitting I was gay to not be interested in their stories of sexual conquests....and that would have brought me to being discharged.
Click to expand...


ok, so now i get it. you're gay


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the benefit you retarded colon jousting cock monkey.........
> 
> 
> 
> Navy Ombudsman Program Overview - Fleet and Family Support Center
> 
> If you have a girlfriend you're living with and intend to marry?  She's able to take advantage of that program as well, pending the CO's approval.
> 
> If you're gay and living with someone?  You're shit outta luck.
> 
> Ever been deployed and worried about things back home, but you couldn't do anything about it because you were on cruise, you stopped getting mail?  I have, happened with my ex wife who decided to go screw around with an AOC while I was on shakedown cruise for the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73).  Came back and the bitch was living with him.
> 
> I tell ya what........it's really hard to concentrate on things while deployed if you're worried about back home.
> 
> Try again Shit Man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your brother could be your point of contact, your mother, your best friend. It doesn't have to be a spouse. Gays are not exempt from taking advantage of the program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee.  Why?  Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth.  And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.
> 
> However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs.  Why?  Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.
> 
> And..........how do I know so much about these programs?  Part of what my office did was run that program.
Click to expand...


When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me.    When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood.   Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
Click to expand...

well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have the right to tell them, hey, i'm not interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't seem to work much when I was in....in fact, it would have been the equivalent of admitting I was gay to not be interested in their stories of sexual conquests....and that would have brought me to being discharged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, so now i get it. you're gay
Click to expand...


Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.


----------



## Mr Natural

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
Click to expand...



But prayer takes up valuable school time that could otherwise be used for teaching.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
Click to expand...

They are treated exactly the same, they are subject to the same rules.  And you have yet to answer the question why for someone to go fight for their country it's necessary for them to tell people they put their pecker in butt holes.  When you can answer that question, we'll start going somewhere.


----------



## kaz

Mr Clean said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But prayer takes up valuable school time that could otherwise be used for teaching.
Click to expand...


We're talking about government schools, the time already wasn't used very well.  Maybe they can spend the time praying for a better education.  We don't really start to educate kids until college in this country.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have the right to tell them, hey, i'm not interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't seem to work much when I was in....in fact, it would have been the equivalent of admitting I was gay to not be interested in their stories of sexual conquests....and that would have brought me to being discharged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, so now i get it. you're gay
Click to expand...


I know I am, I'm very happy now that you mention it.  Life has been good.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are treated exactly the same, they are subject to the same rules.  And you have yet to answer the question why for someone to go fight for their country it's necessary for them to *tell people they put their pecker in butt holes.*  When you can answer that question, we'll start going somewhere.
Click to expand...


That is YOUR imagery.   

What would happen is some male sailor/soldier simply saying something like..."My boyfriend and I went to the beach this weekend."   or having a picture of his male spouse on his desk.    That's considered "telling".  That results in a discharge.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God, you have zero ability to detect sarcasm, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how was sarcasm indicated at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  I called you Nancy to call you a sensitive girl about political correctness.  You seriously need that explained to you, Nancy?
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?


----------



## Spoonman

Mr Clean said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But prayer takes up valuable school time that could otherwise be used for teaching.
Click to expand...


Teaching what? That man developed from some unknown missing link? or other unproven theories that are sold in as truths?


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> They are treated exactly the same, they are subject to the same rules.  And you have yet to answer the question why for someone to go fight for their country it's necessary for them to *tell people they put their pecker in butt holes.*  When you can answer that question, we'll start going somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is YOUR imagery.
> 
> What would happen is some male sailor/soldier simply saying something like..."My boyfriend and I went to the beach this weekend."   or having a picture of his male spouse on his desk.    That's considered "telling".  That results in a discharge.
Click to expand...

mmmmm I don't want to see that or hear that.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want everyone treated exactly the same.  Well, unless they are black and Republican, then screw them, or woman and Republican, screw them too.  Or if they are Christian, male, white or fucking rich, screw them all.  Yes, your sense of treating everyone the same is admirable...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  *Christians want the ability to pray in school.* Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
Click to expand...


Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't seem to work much when I was in....in fact, it would have been the equivalent of admitting I was gay to not be interested in their stories of sexual conquests....and that would have brought me to being discharged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, so now i get it. you're gay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.
Click to expand...


I nailed this really hot chick last night


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are treated exactly the same, they are subject to the same rules.  And you have yet to answer the question why for someone to go fight for their country it's necessary for them to *tell people they put their pecker in butt holes.*  When you can answer that question, we'll start going somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is YOUR imagery.
> 
> What would happen is some male sailor/soldier simply saying something like..."My boyfriend and I went to the beach this weekend."   or having a picture of his male spouse on his desk.    That's considered "telling".  That results in a discharge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mmmmm I don't want to see that or hear that.
Click to expand...


Do you say the same if some male sailor/soldier simply says something like..."My girlfriend and I went to the beach this weekend."  or having a picture of his female spouse on his desk?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, so now i get it. you're gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
Click to expand...


Nailed a really hot chick last night?  How much did you have to pay her?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, so now i get it. you're gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
Click to expand...


You're female, aren't you?


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  *Christians want the ability to pray in school.* Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.
Click to expand...

 sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game.  guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down.  that's a reality.  now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights?  they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how was sarcasm indicated at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  I called you Nancy to call you a sensitive girl about political correctness.  You seriously need that explained to you, Nancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?
Click to expand...


Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.

Want a tissue?


----------



## Mr Natural

Spoonman said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But prayer takes up valuable school time that could otherwise be used for teaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teaching what? That man developed from some unknown missing link? or other unproven theories that are sold in as truths?
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's right.  Real world stuff like science, math, history, not make believe.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're female, aren't you?
Click to expand...

yes, but i'm butch.  thus the name spoonMAN


----------



## slukasiewski

Mr Clean said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is America....they have to be treated equally under the law.   Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But prayer takes up valuable school time that could otherwise be used for teaching.
Click to expand...


Teaching what in public schools? 

Liberalism?

No thanks, 

Private school - worth every penny


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  *Christians want the ability to pray in school.* Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game.  guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down.  that's a reality.  now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights?  they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved
Click to expand...

Now if you wanted to pray to Allah or have a there is no God rally then that would have been just fine...


----------



## Spoonman

Mr Clean said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> But prayer takes up valuable school time that could otherwise be used for teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching what? That man developed from some unknown missing link? or other unproven theories that are sold in as truths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  Real world stuff like science, math, history, not make believe.
Click to expand...


ever listen to history as repeated by a liberal?  it doesn't get any more make believe than that


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching what? That man developed from some unknown missing link? or other unproven theories that are sold in as truths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  Real world stuff like science, math, history, not make believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ever listen to history as repeated by a liberal?  it doesn't get any more make believe than that
Click to expand...


Amen to that.............


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your personal emotion out of it.  Give us a reason why the military should change it's policy. what is the benefit to them.  Your logic is like saying coke should stop marketing in red cans because red is a color of anger and it upsets some people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
Click to expand...


Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, so now i get it. you're gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
Click to expand...


Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these...   And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're female, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, but i'm butch.  thus the name spoonMAN
Click to expand...


That's ok....with DADT gone away, you don't have to resort to subtrafuge anymore.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> I spent 8 years in the Marines. Their focus was never my sexual orientation. Their focus is one thing - making sure everyone understands what the expectations of them are. You are trained for a purpose, and that isn't social chit chat.  You are securing a beachhead, no one is chit chatting about doing their partner.



So you had no idea which of your shipmates was married or had children? No idea what so ever?


----------



## slukasiewski

The first thing to examine when looking at a faggot is integrity.

LIED on an military service application to sneak in to serve with normal people.

Enough said?


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I hadn't been gay, by expressing displeasure over hearing their sexual conquests, I would have been accused of being gay....which would, depending on the command, have resulted in being investigated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these...   And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?
Click to expand...


Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want.   If you were female, it would get you discharged.

Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering.  Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.


----------



## slukasiewski

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
Click to expand...


$50K is chump change in the government. 
Worth every penny to drum out homos...


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
Click to expand...


If they aren't bright enough to not mention the guy they drilled last night then they probably weren't going to stand up to the Taliban very well either, so it probably was a good thing.  BTW, the Taliban don't want to hear about the guy they drilled last night either...


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> The first thing to examine when looking at a faggot is integrity.
> 
> LIED on an military service application to sneak in to serve with normal people.
> 
> Enough said?



Before 1993, ONLY if you already had gay sex.   Since most enlist at 17/18, that's not necessarily a give.

After 1993, that question was not asked.

But...feel free to go on with your weak storyline.


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, they should change their policy because it is the right thing to do. Just like integration of the forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
Click to expand...


they should have been charged back the cost of their training


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Equal is not a formula, it's literal.  Gays have the exact same rules as straights.


Wrong. DADT did NOT apply to heterosexuals, only to gays and lesbians. Stop being ridiculous, Nancy. 


If gays and straights served under the *exact* same rules and regulations, then you wouldn't have base housing, dependent pay or anything of the like. Anyone wearing a wedding ring would be instantly discharged. No pictures of your spouse in your wallet, helmet or on your desk. Nothing, zip, zilch. 

Yeah, let's apply DADT to straights and see how long the policy would last.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $50K is chump change in the government.
> Worth every penny to drum out homos...
Click to expand...


I'm guessing that you did not like being shown up by the gay sailors getting better evals than you.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I nailed this really hot chick last night
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these...   And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want.   If you were female, it would get you discharged.
> 
> Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering.  Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.
Click to expand...


Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight.  I wasn't in the military, yet I somehow doubt that.


----------



## slukasiewski

50K to discharge a homo? 

How much does it cost to hospitalize and treat a full blown AIDS-infested polesmoker?


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your brother could be your point of contact, your mother, your best friend. It doesn't have to be a spouse. Gays are not exempt from taking advantage of the program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee.  Why?  Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth.  And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.
> 
> However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs.  Why?  Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.
> 
> And..........how do I know so much about these programs?  Part of what my office did was run that program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me.    When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood.   Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".
Click to expand...


Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal is not a formula, it's literal.  Gays have the exact same rules as straights.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. DADT did NOT apply to heterosexuals, only to gays and lesbians. Stop being ridiculous, Nancy.
> 
> 
> If gays and straights served under the *exact* same rules and regulations, then you wouldn't have base housing, dependent pay or anything of the like. Anyone wearing a wedding ring would be instantly discharged. No pictures of your spouse in your wallet, helmet or on your desk. Nothing, zip, zilch.
> 
> Yeah, let's apply DADT to straights and see how long the policy would last.
Click to expand...

Now that would be a really funny experiment.   I'd pay to see that tried out.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee.  Why?  Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth.  And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.
> 
> However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs.  Why?  Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.
> 
> And..........how do I know so much about these programs?  Part of what my office did was run that program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me.    When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood.   Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.
Click to expand...



It was a dicey time.   If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the military benefit     Coke should take the sugar and caffiene out of their product because it's the right thing to do too.  Let's get real here ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they should have been charged back the cost of their training
Click to expand...


No, they shouldn't have been discharged in the first place. It is a ludicrous policy that has met its end. Get over it. If you can't get over it and are serving, get the fuck out. Simple as that.


----------



## slukasiewski

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these...   And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want.   If you were female, it would get you discharged.
> 
> Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering.  Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight.  I wasn't in the military, yet I somehow doubt that.
Click to expand...


Of course they pretended to be straight (lied) to get in. 
We wouldn't have accepted them otherwise. No one wants to serve with a polesmoker/carpet muncher. 

It's filthy....


----------



## slukasiewski

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they should have been charged back the cost of their training
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they shouldn't have been discharged in the first place. It is a ludicrous policy that has met its end. Get over it. If you can't get over it and are serving, get the fuck out. Simple as that.
Click to expand...


When/where did you serve asswipe?


----------



## Grace

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it DOES have to be a spouse or fiancee.  Why?  Simple......it costs money to send message traffic back and forth.  And, there are other programs that can help with stuff like car repairs, house repairs, etc.
> 
> However.......if you're gay, you cannot use these programs.  Why?  Because you'd be kicked out under DADT.
> 
> And..........how do I know so much about these programs?  Part of what my office did was run that program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me.    When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood.   Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal is not a formula, it's literal.  Gays have the exact same rules as straights.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. DADT did NOT apply to heterosexuals, only to gays and lesbians. Stop being ridiculous
Click to expand...

If you don't know what literal means, why don't you Google it before showing you're a moron?  My God liberals are lazy.  The law is literal, not figurative.  Here you go, lazy ass, I'll help you.  Literal | Define Literal at Dictionary.com



Seawytch said:


> Nancy


Bam, now that's what I'm talking about.  I love it when liberals use my own insults back on me.  There can be no greater admission you have nothing, so you have to use mine.



Seawytch said:


> If gays and straights served under the *exact* same rules and regulations, then you wouldn't have base housing, dependent pay or anything of the like. Anyone wearing a wedding ring would be instantly discharged. No pictures of your spouse in your wallet, helmet or on your desk. Nothing, zip, zilch.
> 
> Yeah, let's apply DADT to straights and see how long the policy would last.


They do have the exact same regulations, you actually don't want them to.


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  I called you Nancy to call you a sensitive girl about political correctness.  You seriously need that explained to you, Nancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.
> 
> Want a tissue?
Click to expand...


Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:

When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.


----------



## slukasiewski

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.
> 
> Want a tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:
> 
> When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.
Click to expand...



You're really simple.  That's it.


----------



## Qball

bodecea said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMEURU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the whole thing sad. Literally. Men and women..what they prefer in the bedroom..being judged on how they serve their country, look out for their brothers and sisters in arms, dying, suffering, trying to survive...and treated like a sub human all due to sex drive. Shameful. Sad. Disgusting. ANGRY for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
Click to expand...


If you were in the military, you could tell them that. I'd love to see the response you'd have gotten, but I mean, you could still say it. Like it or not, homosexuality is deviant in that most people aren't gay. So it's unlikely that they would ever consider someone talking about an opposite-sex spouse as being inappropriate. But you knew that.

"Equal treatment" isn't entirely important to the military. I don't think it's a virtue unless you can rationalize it. Wanting to be as forthcoming about your sexual endeavors as all those ungrateful straight people doesn't strike me as a good reason, but YMMV.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my wife had our daughter...we had to hold our breath and hope nothing happened to either of us for the six years until we were both retired to start adoption procedures for me.    When the state worker asked why we waited six years, we said "military" and she immediately understood.   Just the adoption procedure itself would have been considered "telling".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was a dicey time.   If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.
Click to expand...


Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.

Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  *Christians want the ability to pray in school.* Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game.  guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down.  that's a reality.  now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights?  they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if anyone complained or not, it is a publicly led prayer at a public school which clearly violates the separation of church and state. Your High School could have simply said "we will now take a moment for private prayer or contemplation" and no laws would be violated. It is when it is a publicly led prayer that you get into "troubled waters".


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  *Christians want the ability to pray in school.* Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game.  guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down.  that's a reality.  now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights?  they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved
Click to expand...


What you mean to say is that the football team at your local high school had to stop ORGANIZED PUBLIC prayer of only one denomination.   No one can stop prayer in school...I see football players take a knee and pray all the time...before, during and after a game.

So, explain to us why...to you...

This:   ORGANIZED PUBLIC School-led prayer of one denomination

equals

That:  prayer


----------



## slukasiewski

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a dicey time.   If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.
> 
> Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?
Click to expand...


You're right. Liar. Plain and simple.

A dishonorable douche.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...how about the cost of discharging perfectly qualified individual simply for the consenting adult they have relations with? It cost the military over $50,000 for each individual kicked out under the policy. According to the same GAO report that gave us that figure, 39% of the people discharged were in *critical* occupations such as infantryman and security forces (not to mention all those ARABIC translators that got kicked out).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $50K is chump change in the government.
> Worth every penny to drum out homos...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that you did not like being shown up by the gay sailors getting better evals than you.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah...SNAP!!


----------



## slukasiewski

Gays serving. 

Dishonorable. 

Pretty much cut and dry.

Case closed...


NEXT !!!!


----------



## slukasiewski

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> $50K is chump change in the government.
> Worth every penny to drum out homos...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that you did not like being shown up by the gay sailors getting better evals than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah...SNAP!!
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, snap? 
How does a faggot excel in an eval after he's NJP'd and discharged for sucking cock aboard ship?

Braindead much? 

Snap... 

Idiot.


----------



## Gadawg73

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game.  guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down.  that's a reality.  now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights?  they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you mean to say is that the football team at your local high school had to stop ORGANIZED PUBLIC prayer of only one denomination.   No one can stop prayer in school...I see football players take a knee and pray all the time...before, during and after a game.
> 
> So, explain to us why...to you...
> 
> This:   ORGANIZED PUBLIC School-led prayer of one denomination
> 
> equals
> 
> That:  prayer
Click to expand...


Prayer has never been taken out of any school in America. 
A Christian victim myth.
Any student can pray at any time anywhere in any public school all they want.


----------



## Seawytch

slukasiewski said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.
> 
> Want a tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:
> 
> When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're really simple.  That's it.
Click to expand...


LOL...this from the guy whose posts consist of "FAG, ARG!"


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, Nancy. Is not using the f-word for gay man simply being respectful or being "PC"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.
> 
> Want a tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:
> 
> When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.
Click to expand...


Actually you can use those words and be respectful and you can not use those words and be disrespectful.  Respect isn't the words you use.

My best friend is black, but I don't use "the n word."  While I know it would have no affect and he wouldn't be offended, there is no benefit either.  Why do something which is probably neutral, could be negative, but would never be positive?  But it's because of people like you who hysterically use words to political purpose.  You're trying to make the "f word" the new "n word" for the same politically correct bull shit you liberals pull all the time where words are to be used as political tools to justify socialism.

You're gay, I call you Nancy, but it's not because you like men but because you aren't one.  Giving words power in themselves is bull crap.  Man up and talk to people about content.  Don't get hysterical over any word, Nancy.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:
> 
> When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're really simple.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...this from the guy whose posts consist of "FAG, ARG!"
Click to expand...


I liked the "arg"...


----------



## Seawytch

slukasiewski said:


> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!



Funny, my *honorable* discharge says differently. 

It must really get your girl panties in a wad to know that DADT is gone now. Guess it is a good thing you are no longer serving eh?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, my *honorable* discharge says differently.
> 
> It must really get your girl panties in a wad to know that DADT is gone now. Guess it is a good thing you are no longer serving eh?
Click to expand...


So out of curiosity, since W was honorably discharged do you consider his service to have been honorable?


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.
> 
> Want a tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:
> 
> When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you can use those words and be respectful and you can not use those words and be disrespectful.  Respect isn't the words you use.
> 
> My best friend is black, but I don't use "the n word."  While I know it would have no affect and he wouldn't be offended, there is no benefit either.  Why do something which is probably neutral, could be negative, but would never be positive?  But it's because of people like you who hysterically use words to political purpose.  You're trying to make the "f word" the new "n word" for the same politically correct bull shit you liberals pull all the time where words are to be used as political tools to justify socialism.
> 
> You're gay, I call you Nancy, but it's not because you like men but because you aren't one.  Giving words power in themselves is bull crap.  Man up and talk to people about content.  Don't get hysterical over any word, Nancy.
Click to expand...


Who is getting hysterical? I just wanted clarification on your thoughts, which were unclear. The f-word to a gay man is exactly the same as using the n-word to someone who is black. It is disrespectful and ignorant, period. 

Oh and my real name IS Nancy...


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, my *honorable* discharge says differently.
> 
> It must really get your girl panties in a wad to know that DADT is gone now. Guess it is a good thing you are no longer serving eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So out of curiosity, since W was honorably discharged do you consider his service to have been honorable?
Click to expand...


Sure.


----------



## Gadawg73

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have answered the question.  First with sarcasm, then when you didn't get it I told you that words to me are in themselves neither PC or non PC.  Nor is not using it.  I don't know what PC even means other then it's an excuse for liberals to express hypocritical and pompous indignation and score cheap political points.
> 
> Want a tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you dodged around a lot on the question. Simply stated:
> 
> When you don't use words like the n-word or the f-word (for gay man), it is not being politically correct, but respectful. It REALLY is as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you can use those words and be respectful and you can not use those words and be disrespectful.  Respect isn't the words you use.
> 
> My best friend is black, but I don't use "the n word."  While I know it would have no affect and he wouldn't be offended, there is no benefit either.  Why do something which is probably neutral, could be negative, but would never be positive?  But it's because of people like you who hysterically use words to political purpose.  You're trying to make the "f word" the new "n word" for the same politically correct bull shit you liberals pull all the time where words are to be used as political tools to justify socialism.
> 
> You're gay, I call you Nancy, but it's not because you like men but because you aren't one.  Giving words power in themselves is bull crap.  Man up and talk to people about content.  Don't get hysterical over any word, Nancy.
Click to expand...


A friend of mine is a black retired Judge and now practices law again. I forward all of the ****** jokes I get and crazy Obama pictures sent on the internet all the time. Sent one yesterday with a monkey with a sign that said "Don't label us as *******" Sent it to him and he LOLed me back. But NOT everyone is the same and NOT everyone can be put into a square or round hole and be labled as "liberal" or "conservative" which is what you always do. 
You want to make up the rules of what everyone else should do and then you also want to make up the rules on why that person supposedly reacts the way they do as if everyone is cut from the same mold. Not everyone has opinions of things for political reasons yet that is your generic knee jerk response to anyone and everyone that disagrees with you on this specific issue. 
I am a conservative Republican having voted since 1972. My opinions on this issue have absolutely nothing to do with the politics of either party. Most of the conservatives I know feel exactly the same way. Knee jerk reactions is not what we do.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Who is getting hysterical? I just wanted clarification on your thoughts, which were unclear. The f-word to a gay man is exactly the same as using the n-word to someone who is black. It is disrespectful and ignorant, period.


No, it's not the same.



Seawytch said:


> Oh and my real name IS Nancy...



That's funny.  So you're with me on liking the boobies.  Maybe we can meet up and chase some skirt together.  Actually I'm married too, so the only skirt I'll be chasing is my wife, but I reserve the right to chase skirt.  Or at least talk about it.  Well, when my wife's not there.

Hmm...kinda gay aren't I?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, my *honorable* discharge says differently.
> 
> It must really get your girl panties in a wad to know that DADT is gone now. Guess it is a good thing you are no longer serving eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So out of curiosity, since W was honorably discharged do you consider his service to have been honorable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.  But liberals all the time have a clear double standard there, which is why I asked.

Bush to me was like Obama, he sucked on his own horrible performance as President, his past has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians have the right to pray in school all they want.   No one has ever stopped that.  You , unfortunately, have been misled in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry dude, the football team at our local highschool was forced to stop saying prayers at the beginning of the game.  guess what. no one on the team complained. some douchebag who didn't even have a kid in school did. yet they were shut down.  that's a reality.  now how did that take away from teaching time? how did that infringe on anyones rights?  they did it by choice and no one complained who was involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if you wanted to pray to Allah or have a there is no God rally then that would have been just fine...
Click to expand...


Have they really held those at  your school?   At any school you've heard of?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching what? That man developed from some unknown missing link? or other unproven theories that are sold in as truths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's right.  Real world stuff like science, math, history, not make believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ever listen to history as repeated by a liberal?  it doesn't get any more make believe than that
Click to expand...


Such as...?


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too, I like a good vagina and pair of these...   And I can even say that if I were in the military, how cool is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want.   If you were female, it would get you discharged.
> 
> Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering.  Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight.
Click to expand...


No.   My theory is that a fair amount of the macho talk is gays trying to cover up...not that they drive the conversation.



> I wasn't in the military,



Ah.



> yet I somehow doubt that.


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid......speaking as someone who IS career military (I retired 8 years ago), I can tell you that your post is full of shit.
> 
> Why?  Because........every 6 months, you get tested for HIV no matter what (at least I did until 2002).  It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.  If you're on active duty, you will get tested every 6 months.  Oh yeah.....if you ever pop positive on an HIV test, you are immediately sent to shore duty at one of a few hospitals that the Navy has designated for that purpose.
> 
> Oh yeah.........got news for you..........gays actually make better military types than straights do.  Wanna know why?  Because attention to detail (one of the military's favorite terms) is something they're good at.  How do I know?  Because for 20 years, I was a Personnelman, which meant that I had to do the worksheets every time advancement time came around for the whole command, and oh yeah........we have to factor in things like evaluations and personal (not unit) awards.  Gays generally had a higher eval average and more awards.  And........because I wasn't as bigoted as you or your child appear to be, all the people in each of my commands trusted me enough to tell me what was and wasn't true and going on.
> 
> Try again chumpsteak, both you and your spawn are bigoted assholes.
Click to expand...


Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.   "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.  

As far as gays having a higher evaluation then a straight soldier I'll say BS again.  Under DADT if you were getting evaluated as a gay service member you were being out processed with an undesirable discharge.  Before DADT, if you were found out to be a sexual deviant you were out processed with an undesirable discharge.  The results were the same.  If you had really worked in personnel for 20 years you would have known that.  

I have also noticed that none of you have been able to present any evidence on how having gays serve openly in the military would improve the combat readiness of any unit.  That isn't surprising.  Having  gays in any unit will only diminish established high standards. I have to admit that seeing you all dance around the subject has been comical.  

Since none of you could answer my last question maybe you'll have better luck with this question.  How can the word gay be realistically related to sexual deviance?  What is gay about being a sexual deviant?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> 50K to discharge a homo?
> 
> How much does it cost to hospitalize and treat a full blown AIDS-infested polesmoker?



How many soldiers/sailors hospitalized with AIDS? 

How many of them caught it overseas from prostitutes?

How many caught it from gay sex?

Statistics please.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want.   If you were female, it would get you discharged.
> 
> Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering.  Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight.  I wasn't in the military, yet I somehow doubt that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they pretended to be straight (lied) to get in.
> We wouldn't have accepted them otherwise. No one wants to serve with a polesmoker/carpet muncher.
> 
> It's filthy....
Click to expand...


And yet, you sure think about it a lot and pepper your language with references to gay sex a lot.   An awful lot.


----------



## bodecea

Qball said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no gay test prior to DADT repeal. They simply said that homosexuals can't divulge the fact that they're homosexuals. If they don't admit to it, they can serve honorably for as long as they want.
> 
> They can't judge you on shit you don't divulge in the first place. Don't ASK, don't TELL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then straights should be don't ask, don't tell too.  I don't want to hear about your girlfriend.  I don't want to hear about your date.  I don't want to hear about your marriage.   I don't want to see pictures of your wife and kids.   I don't want to hear you tell about who you picked up at the bar.   If I do hear about them, you can be discharged.   It's equal treatment under the UCMJ and DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were in the military, you could tell them that. I'd love to see the response you'd have gotten, but I mean, you could still say it. Like it or not, homosexuality is deviant in that most people aren't gay. So it's unlikely that they would ever consider someone talking about an opposite-sex spouse as being inappropriate. But you knew that.
> 
> "Equal treatment" isn't entirely important to the military. I don't think it's a virtue unless you can rationalize it. Wanting to be as forthcoming about your sexual endeavors as all those ungrateful straight people doesn't strike me as a good reason, but YMMV.
Click to expand...


Actually, equal treatment is very important to the military.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under DADT, if you were male you could say that all you want.   If you were female, it would get you discharged.
> 
> Of course, under DADT, some males saying that were just covering.  Now they don't have to....which makes me wonder how much of that macho talk will melt away now that the gay soldier/sailors don't have to try to out-macho everyone else for cover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   My theory is that a fair amount of the macho talk is gays trying to cover up...not that they drive the conversation.
Click to expand...

You sounded stronger then that the first time.  But no matter, so you think they were trying to cover up because of DADT?  I doubt that.



bodecea said:


> I wasn't in the military,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet I somehow doubt that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[/quote]
I always said that


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with us. My partner could not legally adopt our children until I had retired. Up to that point she had zero legal standing as their parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a dicey time.   If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.
> 
> Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?
Click to expand...


I did not come out til I was in the military....I did not meet my wife til we were both in the military.   We both love the military and our country and chose to continue to serve.   Too bad some people take that as a bad thing.   What kind of world is it where they say the things that are being said to those who CHOOSE to serve this country in the military?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...so your theory is the military macho talk was driven by gays pretending they were straight.  I wasn't in the military, yet I somehow doubt that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they pretended to be straight (lied) to get in.
> We wouldn't have accepted them otherwise. No one wants to serve with a polesmoker/carpet muncher.
> 
> It's filthy....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, you sure think about it a lot and pepper your language with references to gay sex a lot.   An awful lot.
Click to expand...


Yet I never see this sensitivity to how liberals phrase their arguments to non-liberals.  A standard not applied to yourself isn't a standard, it's a weapon


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a dicey time.   If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.
> 
> Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. Liar. Plain and simple.
> 
> A dishonorable douche.
Click to expand...


Gh0ster is one of those people who can't seem to understand love of country and service to one's country regardless of sexual orientation.

He spends his time watching, not doing.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that you did not like being shown up by the gay sailors getting better evals than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah...SNAP!!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, snap?
> How does a faggot excel in an eval after he's NJP'd and discharged for sucking cock aboard ship?
> 
> Braindead much?
> 
> Snap...
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


We see what you like to think and talk about...we get it.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a dicey time.   If something had happened to my wife, I would have had NO legal rights to our daughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.
> 
> Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not come out til I was in the military....I did not meet my wife til we were both in the military.   We both love the military and our country and chose to continue to serve.   Too bad some people take that as a bad thing.   What kind of world is it where they say the things that are being said to those who CHOOSE to serve this country in the military?
Click to expand...


I don't know, but it's not a fair world and there is nothing fair about the left.  I'm sick of defending the rich just because I don't think they should be singled out.  My wife calls me prejudiced against Christians while liberals say I'm prejudiced for them.  A black has zero right to not be a liberal. Or a Hispanic, or a woman, or a gay, they belong to the Democrats and are destroyed if they aren't.  Blacks will not only defend the right of a black to not be Democrat, they'll take the lead in destroying them.  Same with women and Hispanics, it's pathetic.

Maybe when I see you take issue with someone for for singling out Palin or Buchannan in what is clearly sex driven because you're a woman or gay or whatever before you're a Democrat you'll start to have more credibility.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid......speaking as someone who IS career military (I retired 8 years ago), I can tell you that your post is full of shit.
> 
> Why?  Because........every 6 months, you get tested for HIV no matter what (at least I did until 2002).  It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.  If you're on active duty, you will get tested every 6 months.  Oh yeah.....if you ever pop positive on an HIV test, you are immediately sent to shore duty at one of a few hospitals that the Navy has designated for that purpose.
> 
> Oh yeah.........got news for you..........gays actually make better military types than straights do.  Wanna know why?  Because attention to detail (one of the military's favorite terms) is something they're good at.  How do I know?  Because for 20 years, I was a Personnelman, which meant that I had to do the worksheets every time advancement time came around for the whole command, and oh yeah........we have to factor in things like evaluations and personal (not unit) awards.  Gays generally had a higher eval average and more awards.  And........because I wasn't as bigoted as you or your child appear to be, all the people in each of my commands trusted me enough to tell me what was and wasn't true and going on.
> 
> Try again chumpsteak, both you and your spawn are bigoted assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.  * "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.
> *
Click to expand...


Navy doesn't have MOS, we've got ratings...Rating + paygrade = Rate.   Personnelman or PN is indeed a rating, similar to Yeoman or YN and is in the Seaman catagory.   




> As far as gays having a higher evaluation then a straight soldier I'll say BS again.



Well, you didn't even know what a Personnelman was and you didn't even know that the Navy doesn't have MOS....so I'm not exactly concerned about what YOU consider BS.   


> Under DADT if you were getting evaluated as a gay service member you were being out processed with an undesirable discharge.


Not true again.   YOu would be discharged based on your evals.  If you earned an Honorable Discharge, you got an honorable discharge even tho it was involuntary.   You sure you were in the military?   You're not too good on knowing what goes on.


> Before DADT, if you were found out to be a sexual deviant you were out processed with an undesirable discharge.  The results were the same.  If you had really worked in personnel for 20 years you would have known that.



Wrong again....it was an administrative discharge (very quick) but based on your evals.   If you earned an honorable discharge, that's what you got.  

I know this because I was an Admin Division officer before DADT and an Admin Dept Head and XO under DADT.   You're not doing too well on knowing what really went on, are you?



> I have also noticed that none of you have been able to present any evidence on how *having gays serve openly in the military would improve the combat readiness of any unit.*  That isn't surprising.  Having  gays in any unit will only diminish established high standards. I have to admit that seeing you all dance around the subject has been comical.



 You don't think allowing your soldiers to be honest will improve their morale and therefore their combat readiness?

You don't think KEEPING soldiers who might otherwise be kicked out for just being gay would improve combat readiness?

Really? 



> Since none of you *could answer my last question* maybe you'll have better luck with this question.  How can the word gay be realistically related to sexual deviance?  What is gay about being a sexual deviant?


I just did.

And still waiting for you to define a sexual deviant....why do you keep avoiding that question?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.
> 
> Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. Liar. Plain and simple.
> 
> A dishonorable douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gh0ster is one of those people who can't seem to understand love of country and service to one's country regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> He spends his time watching, not doing.
Click to expand...


Ah, cool.  Like Chauncey the Gardner?


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they pretended to be straight (lied) to get in.
> We wouldn't have accepted them otherwise. No one wants to serve with a polesmoker/carpet muncher.
> 
> It's filthy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you sure think about it a lot and pepper your language with references to gay sex a lot.   An awful lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet I never see this sensitivity to how liberals phrase their arguments to non-liberals.  A standard not applied to yourself isn't a standard, it's a weapon
Click to expand...


Could you give an example of what you are talking about there?


----------



## Gunny

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military. * He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  *They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



The US Military is the political correctness testing ground for the US Gov't.  Real "hard" to do when you can order everyone to shut up or face bullshit charges.

Last I checked, the US Military and or service therein did NOT deprive me of my Constitutional 1st Amendment Right.  

We went through this same bullshit with "Women in Combat" (otherwise known as women are as good at being men as men), and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

It's all a bunch of leftwing, bullshit agenda that has watered down what was once the greatest fighting force on Earth.  

We can't even kick Third World country's asses anymore what with all the damned pansy-assed rules.


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you could have been named in the will as the guardian.  The real issue is if you had an ugly split up.
> 
> Did you not know the rules when you joined the military?  At what point did it surprise you that there were consequences to that decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not come out til I was in the military....I did not meet my wife til we were both in the military.   We both love the military and our country and chose to continue to serve.   Too bad some people take that as a bad thing.   What kind of world is it where they say the things that are being said to those who CHOOSE to serve this country in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, but it's not a fair world and there is nothing fair about the left.  I'm sick of defending the rich just because I don't think they should be singled out.  My wife calls me prejudiced against Christians while liberals say I'm prejudiced for them.  A black has zero right to not be a liberal. Or a Hispanic, or a woman, or a gay, they belong to the Democrats and are destroyed if they aren't.  Blacks will not only defend the right of a black to not be Democrat, they'll take the lead in destroying them.  Same with women and Hispanics, it's pathetic.
> 
> Maybe when I see you take issue with someone for for singling out Palin or Buchannan in what is clearly sex driven because you're a woman or gay or whatever before you're a Democrat you'll start to have more credibility.
Click to expand...


Does any of those examples refer to how the government must treat people equally under the law?


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you sure think about it a lot and pepper your language with references to gay sex a lot.   An awful lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet I never see this sensitivity to how liberals phrase their arguments to non-liberals.  A standard not applied to yourself isn't a standard, it's a weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you give an example of what you are talking about there?
Click to expand...


So you're looking for me to post every sweeping generalization and attack on this history of this board that was directed from the left to the right you didn't respond to?  Um..sure.

How bout you just show one where you chastised a liberal for the words they used ala your objection here


----------



## bodecea

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. Liar. Plain and simple.
> 
> A dishonorable douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gh0ster is one of those people who can't seem to understand love of country and service to one's country regardless of sexual orientation.
> 
> He spends his time watching, not doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, cool.  Like Chauncey the Gardner?
Click to expand...


Exactly...rep to you for picking up the reference.


----------



## kaz

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not come out til I was in the military....I did not meet my wife til we were both in the military.   We both love the military and our country and chose to continue to serve.   Too bad some people take that as a bad thing.   What kind of world is it where they say the things that are being said to those who CHOOSE to serve this country in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but it's not a fair world and there is nothing fair about the left.  I'm sick of defending the rich just because I don't think they should be singled out.  My wife calls me prejudiced against Christians while liberals say I'm prejudiced for them.  A black has zero right to not be a liberal. Or a Hispanic, or a woman, or a gay, they belong to the Democrats and are destroyed if they aren't.  Blacks will not only defend the right of a black to not be Democrat, they'll take the lead in destroying them.  Same with women and Hispanics, it's pathetic.
> 
> Maybe when I see you take issue with someone for for singling out Palin or Buchannan in what is clearly sex driven because you're a woman or gay or whatever before you're a Democrat you'll start to have more credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does any of those examples refer to how the government must treat people equally under the law?
Click to expand...


Gays are treated according to the exact same rules as straights.  You can argue "fair" but the law isn't about fair, it's about literal.  Straights can't talk about gay sex, gays can talk about heterosexual sex.  You can't use formulas, sorry.  You picked the topic of "the law."


----------



## bodecea

Gunny said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military. * He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  *They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Military is the political correctness testing ground for the US Gov't.  Real "hard" to do when you can order everyone to shut up or face bullshit charges.
> 
> Last I checked, the US Military and or service therein did NOT deprive me of my Constitutional 1st Amendment Right.
> 
> *We went through this same bullshit with "Women in Combat"* (otherwise known as women are as good at being men as men), and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
> 
> It's all a bunch of leftwing, bullshit agenda that has watered down what was once the greatest fighting force on Earth.
> 
> We can't even kick Third World country's asses anymore what with all the damned pansy-assed rules.
Click to expand...



I hardly call women being wiling to fight and die for this country and FINALLY being allowed to be armed and defend ourselves adequately "bullshit", Gunny.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Spoonman said:


> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.



Christians can pray in school.

I'm not sure where you are from but Christians are certainly allowed to pray in school, as a matter of fact if a school were to bar Christians from praying (when not disrupting others or interfering with school business) they place their federal funding in jeopardy from being withdrawn.

Now there are some Christians that want to require that others pray in school, but that is a different issue.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

slukasiewski said:


> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!




Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.


>>>>


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.
> 
> But this thread has gone to shit.
> 
> I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....
> 
> Enjoy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops aren't happy SFC Ollie.  You know the drill.  They've been ordered to stay silent on this issue, and are not supposed to make any disparaging remarks about the CinC Obama bin Lyin.  They do talk amongst themselves, and they feel betrayed.  Less then 1 % of our population is serving this country to fight in two wars.  They've given their all, and their bravery, and patriotism has been repaid with a kick in the face.  It isn't difficult to conclude that liberals are trying to destroy America's military might.
> 
> On this board we have a bunch of pin heads who've spun stories of sexual deviance during their alleged military service.  I find myself asking the same question you do.  What military did they serve in?  It sure wasn't the one that I served in either.  I find it amazing that these people are stupid enough to actually believe that we think they are telling the truth.
> 
> Serving in The United States Military is a privilege not a right.  To be accepted in service of this country you must meet high standards.  Not everyone can serve.  Being a sexual deviant isn't an acceptable standard.  Sexual deviants do not belong in the military.
Click to expand...


Another spotlight on your ignorance about the military and further proof you did not serve your country. General enlisted in any branch are not to make comments to the press without authorization on any matter. I knew that before I was done at meps. and on my way  to boot camp. I dont know anyone else in or out of the military who does not know that .


----------



## WorldWatcher

yota5 said:


> Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.   "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.




As has already been pointed out, the Navy does not have MOSs, they have NECs which stands for Navy Enlisted Classifications.

Details of which are contained in the NAVPERS 18068 series instructions.  The rating was Personnelmen, an individual in that rating was referred to as a Personnelman.


MANUAL OF NAVY ENLISTED MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATIONS AND OCCUPATIONS STANDARD
NAVPERS 18068 (2004)

NAVY ENLISTED OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR *PERSONNELMAN (PN)*

SCOPE OF RATING

*Personnelmen (PN)* perform clerical and administration duties involved in maintaining personnel records, preparing reports and accomplishing accounting procedures; counsel enlisted personnel concerning Navy ratings, training, advancement, educational opportunities, and the rights, benefits and advantages of a Navy career; utilize and maintain current publications and directives pertaining to personnel administration and operate associated ADP equipment. 

Navpers 18068f_manual of Navy Enlisted Manpower and Personnel Classifications and Occupations Standards_volume I_navy Enlisted Occupational Standards_january 2004​

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

bodecea said:


> Navy doesn't have MOS, we've got ratings...Rating + paygrade = Rate.   Personnelman or PN is indeed a rating, similar to Yeoman or YN and is in the Seaman catagory.




Not a correction, just an update.

What we knew as PN's were merged with the Disbursing Clerk (DC) rate into the Personnel Specialist (PS) rate in 2005.


>>>>


----------



## SFC Ollie

rightwinger said:


> In truth, five years from now everyone will be wondering what the fuss was about



I hope you are right.


----------



## SFC Ollie

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid......speaking as someone who IS career military (I retired 8 years ago), I can tell you that your post is full of shit.
> 
> Why?  Because........every 6 months, you get tested for HIV no matter what (at least I did until 2002).  It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.  If you're on active duty, you will get tested every 6 months.  Oh yeah.....if you ever pop positive on an HIV test, you are immediately sent to shore duty at one of a few hospitals that the Navy has designated for that purpose.
> 
> Oh yeah.........got news for you..........gays actually make better military types than straights do.  Wanna know why?  Because attention to detail (one of the military's favorite terms) is something they're good at.  How do I know?  Because for 20 years, I was a Personnelman, which meant that I had to do the worksheets every time advancement time came around for the whole command, and oh yeah........we have to factor in things like evaluations and personal (not unit) awards.  Gays generally had a higher eval average and more awards.  And........because I wasn't as bigoted as you or your child appear to be, all the people in each of my commands trusted me enough to tell me what was and wasn't true and going on.
> 
> Try again chumpsteak, both you and your spawn are bigoted assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.   "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.
> 
> As far as gays having a higher evaluation then a straight soldier I'll say BS again.  Under DADT if you were getting evaluated as a gay service member you were being out processed with an undesirable discharge.  Before DADT, if you were found out to be a sexual deviant you were out processed with an undesirable discharge.  The results were the same.  If you had really worked in personnel for 20 years you would have known that.
> 
> I have also noticed that none of you have been able to present any evidence on how having gays serve openly in the military would improve the combat readiness of any unit.  That isn't surprising.  Having  gays in any unit will only diminish established high standards. I have to admit that seeing you all dance around the subject has been comical.
> 
> Since none of you could answer my last question maybe you'll have better luck with this question.  How can the word gay be realistically related to sexual deviance?  What is gay about being a sexual deviant?
Click to expand...


I'm about 99.99% certain that ABS is a retired Sailor. Even though we don't agree on much, I'll give him credit for his service.


----------



## SFC Ollie

WorldWatcher said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can pray in school.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are from but Christians are certainly allowed to pray in school, as a matter of fact if a school were to bar Christians from praying (when not disrupting others or interfering with school business) they place their federal funding in jeopardy from being withdrawn.
> 
> Now there are some Christians that want to require that others pray in school, but that is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.


----------



## bodecea

WorldWatcher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Navy doesn't have MOS, we've got ratings...Rating + paygrade = Rate.   Personnelman or PN is indeed a rating, similar to Yeoman or YN and is in the Seaman catagory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a correction, just an update.
> 
> What we knew as PN's were merged with the Disbursing Clerk (DC) rate into the Personnel Specialist (PS) rate in 2005.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


No wonder...I retired in 1999.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, when it comes ot christians and athiests, is there equal treatment?  Christians want the ability to pray in school. Athiests want no prayer in school.  under the law, there is no prayer in school.  is that an equal ruling?  but that's the law and that's what is currently accepted as the fair solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can pray in school.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are from but Christians are certainly allowed to pray in school, as a matter of fact if a school were to bar Christians from praying (when not disrupting others or interfering with school business) they place their federal funding in jeopardy from being withdrawn.
> 
> Now there are some Christians that want to require that others pray in school, but that is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.
Click to expand...


That last is totally incorrect Ollie.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid......speaking as someone who IS career military (I retired 8 years ago), I can tell you that your post is full of shit.
> 
> Why?  Because........every 6 months, you get tested for HIV no matter what (at least I did until 2002).  It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.  If you're on active duty, you will get tested every 6 months.  Oh yeah.....if you ever pop positive on an HIV test, you are immediately sent to shore duty at one of a few hospitals that the Navy has designated for that purpose.
> 
> Oh yeah.........got news for you..........gays actually make better military types than straights do.  Wanna know why?  Because attention to detail (one of the military's favorite terms) is something they're good at.  How do I know?  Because for 20 years, I was a Personnelman, which meant that I had to do the worksheets every time advancement time came around for the whole command, and oh yeah........we have to factor in things like evaluations and personal (not unit) awards.  Gays generally had a higher eval average and more awards.  And........because I wasn't as bigoted as you or your child appear to be, all the people in each of my commands trusted me enough to tell me what was and wasn't true and going on.
> 
> Try again chumpsteak, both you and your spawn are bigoted assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.  * "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Navy doesn't have MOS, we've got ratings...Rating + paygrade = Rate.   Personnelman or PN is indeed a rating, similar to Yeoman or YN and is in the Seaman catagory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't even know what a Personnelman was and you didn't even know that the Navy doesn't have MOS....so I'm not exactly concerned about what YOU consider BS.
> Not true again.   YOu would be discharged based on your evals.  If you earned an Honorable Discharge, you got an honorable discharge even tho it was involuntary.   You sure you were in the military?   You're not too good on knowing what goes on.
> 
> 
> Wrong again....it was an administrative discharge (very quick) but based on your evals.   If you earned an honorable discharge, that's what you got.
> 
> I know this because I was an Admin Division officer before DADT and an Admin Dept Head and XO under DADT.   You're not doing too well on knowing what really went on, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have also noticed that none of you have been able to present any evidence on how *having gays serve openly in the military would improve the combat readiness of any unit.*  That isn't surprising.  Having  gays in any unit will only diminish established high standards. I have to admit that seeing you all dance around the subject has been comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think allowing your soldiers to be honest will improve their morale and therefore their combat readiness?
> 
> You don't think KEEPING soldiers who might otherwise be kicked out for just being gay would improve combat readiness?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of you *could answer my last question* maybe you'll have better luck with this question.  How can the word gay be realistically related to sexual deviance?  What is gay about being a sexual deviant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did.
> 
> And still waiting for you to define a sexual deviant....why do you keep avoiding that question?
Click to expand...


Let's do the personnel man thing first.  "Personnel Specialist (PS) provide enlisted personnel with information and counseling related to Navy occupations, opportunities for general education and job training, requirements for promotion, and rights and benefits. PS maintain and audit pay and personnel records of military personnel, determine military pay and travel entitlements and deductions. They prepare the financial/accounting reports related to individual pay and travel transactions and operate associated accounting systems. They also assist enlisted people and their families with special problems or personal hardships."  Personnel Specialist (PS) 

The personnel man rating is BS.  I would've accepted Personnel Specialist though. That is a Naval Pay rating.  Everyone who has served knows what his job description is, and how to spell it.  

Bod, you're gay.  Therefore I don't have to tell you what sexual deviation is.  You want the rest of the world to validate your existence by celebrating your homosexuality.  I believe as a civilian you should enjoy the auspices of the United States.  But, your rights of citizenship doesn't extend to service in the U.S. Military.  

It is no ones right to serve.  It is a privilege.  That is why not every one who applies gets in.  That is why many don't make it through basic, or advanced individual training.  Not everyone who wishes to become an elite troop is successful.  Many fail to become Marine Recon, Navy SEAL, Green Beret, or Army Ranger.  Not all of us can be fighter pilots, research scientists, or Surgeons.  These positions are earned by meeting or exceeding set standards.  Taking high standards away from a  military unit only diminishes the cohesiveness, and therefore the combat readiness of that unit.  Nothing good can come of that.  

The question still stands.  *How do gays serving openly in the military contribute to a units combat readiness?*


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.  * "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy doesn't have MOS, we've got ratings...Rating + paygrade = Rate.   Personnelman or PN is indeed a rating, similar to Yeoman or YN and is in the Seaman catagory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't even know what a Personnelman was and you didn't even know that the Navy doesn't have MOS....so I'm not exactly concerned about what YOU consider BS.
> Not true again.   YOu would be discharged based on your evals.  If you earned an Honorable Discharge, you got an honorable discharge even tho it was involuntary.   You sure you were in the military?   You're not too good on knowing what goes on.
> 
> 
> Wrong again....it was an administrative discharge (very quick) but based on your evals.   If you earned an honorable discharge, that's what you got.
> 
> I know this because I was an Admin Division officer before DADT and an Admin Dept Head and XO under DADT.   You're not doing too well on knowing what really went on, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think allowing your soldiers to be honest will improve their morale and therefore their combat readiness?
> 
> You don't think KEEPING soldiers who might otherwise be kicked out for just being gay would improve combat readiness?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of you *could answer my last question* maybe you'll have better luck with this question.  How can the word gay be realistically related to sexual deviance?  What is gay about being a sexual deviant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did.
> 
> And still waiting for you to define a sexual deviant....why do you keep avoiding that question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's do the personnel man thing first.  "Personnel Specialist (PS) provide enlisted personnel with information and counseling related to Navy occupations, opportunities for general education and job training, requirements for promotion, and rights and benefits. PS maintain and audit pay and personnel records of military personnel, determine military pay and travel entitlements and deductions. They prepare the financial/accounting reports related to individual pay and travel transactions and operate associated accounting systems. They also assist enlisted people and their families with special problems or personal hardships."  Personnel Specialist (PS)
> 
> The personnel man rating is BS.  I would've accepted Personnel Specialist though. That is a Naval Pay rating.  Everyone who has served knows what his job description is, and how to spell it.
> 
> Bod, you're gay.  Therefore I don't have to tell you what sexual deviation is.  You want the rest of the world to validate your existence by celebrating your homosexuality.  I believe as a civilian you should enjoy the auspices of the United States.  But, your rights of citizenship doesn't extend to service in the U.S. Military.
> 
> It is no ones right to serve.  It is a privilege.  That is why not every one who applies gets in.  That is why many don't make it through basic, or advanced individual training.  Not everyone who wishes to become an elite troop is successful.  Many fail to become Marine Recon, Navy SEAL, Green Beret, or Army Ranger.  Not all of us can be fighter pilots, research scientists, or Surgeons.  These positions are earned by meeting or exceeding set standards.  Taking high standards away from a  military unit only diminishes the cohesiveness, and therefore the combat readiness of that unit.  Nothing good can come of that.
> 
> The question still stands.  *How do gays serving openly in the military contribute to a units combat readiness?*
Click to expand...


How does it detract from it ?


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can pray in school.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are from but Christians are certainly allowed to pray in school, as a matter of fact if a school were to bar Christians from praying (when not disrupting others or interfering with school business) they place their federal funding in jeopardy from being withdrawn.
> 
> Now there are some Christians that want to require that others pray in school, but that is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last is totally incorrect Ollie.
Click to expand...


Not to my understanding. Maybe we need a new thread. This isn't the place.... Besides, I can be wrong...


----------



## sinister59

WorldWatcher said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey maggot, why is it that every time one of you sexual deviants log in you spout a bunch of BS about a military career that you never were privileged enough to enjoy.   "A personnelman", give me a break.  You don't even know how to spell the word.  The Army didn't have an MOS with that title, and I'll bet the Navy didn't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has already been pointed out, the Navy does not have MOSs, they have NECs which stands for Navy Enlisted Classifications.
> 
> Details of which are contained in the NAVPERS 18068 series instructions.  The rating was Personnelmen, an individual in that rating was referred to as a Personnelman.
> 
> 
> MANUAL OF NAVY ENLISTED MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATIONS AND OCCUPATIONS STANDARD
> NAVPERS 18068 (2004)
> 
> NAVY ENLISTED OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR *PERSONNELMAN (PN)*
> 
> SCOPE OF RATING
> 
> *Personnelmen (PN)* perform clerical and administration duties involved in maintaining personnel records, preparing reports and accomplishing accounting procedures; counsel enlisted personnel concerning Navy ratings, training, advancement, educational opportunities, and the rights, benefits and advantages of a Navy career; utilize and maintain current publications and directives pertaining to personnel administration and operate associated ADP equipment.
> 
> Navpers 18068f_manual of Navy Enlisted Manpower and Personnel Classifications and Occupations Standards_volume I_navy Enlisted Occupational Standards_january 2004​
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...

really the navy has not homosexuals ? they why again did the navy commission the Marine's ? was more then dancing going on .


----------



## WorldWatcher

SFC Ollie said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last is totally incorrect Ollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to my understanding. Maybe we need a new thread. This isn't the place.... Besides, I can be wrong...
Click to expand...



Government sponsored prayer is not allowed in schools.  The statement was that Christians are not allowed to pray in school.

Some try to classify the lack of government directed prayer as barring all prayer in schools, that is not true.

Please check this out -->> Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher

bodecea said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Navy doesn't have MOS, we've got ratings...Rating + paygrade = Rate.   Personnelman or PN is indeed a rating, similar to Yeoman or YN and is in the Seaman catagory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a correction, just an update.
> 
> What we knew as PN's were merged with the Disbursing Clerk (DC) rate into the Personnel Specialist (PS) rate in 2005.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wonder...I retired in 1999.
Click to expand...



Figured something like that, unlike some people that spout off about Navy Ratings without even doing a basic search before making himself look foolish.


>>>>


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians can pray in school.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are from but Christians are certainly allowed to pray in school, as a matter of fact if a school were to bar Christians from praying (when not disrupting others or interfering with school business) they place their federal funding in jeopardy from being withdrawn.
> 
> Now there are some Christians that want to require that others pray in school, but that is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last is totally incorrect Ollie.
Click to expand...


ok here's the deal dude.  Prayer is ok as long as you do it in silence.  you can be a christian and be free to express your faith as long as you keep it to yourself.  But don't do it out in the open or with a member of the faculty because you'll be shut down and and the teacher will be fired.    Be honest, are you really OK with that?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last is totally incorrect Ollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok here's the deal dude.  Prayer is ok as long as you do it in silence.  you can be a christian and be free to express your faith as long as you keep it to yourself.  But don't do it out in the open or with a member of the faculty because you'll be shut down and and the teacher will be fired.    Be honest, are you really OK with that?
Click to expand...



Actually, you can do it outloud all you want.   The school cannot direct you in prayer tho.   How is that so horrible?


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In truth, five years from now everyone will be wondering what the fuss was about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are right.
Click to expand...


And I believe you Ollie. You have actual concerns but your love of the military which you were a vital part of for your entire career wants it to work. You have concerns and believe it will be difficult but deep down your love of country comes first.
I have always sensed that about you. 

Ollie does not have the hatred towards gay folks like many here. Many would rather this fail and our military lose something just to prove they were right.


----------



## sinister59

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


how many gays were thrown out in bush's rain ? translators and other important fields in service in Iraq ? 3,000 I think . 

yet they military was excepting criminals instead .


----------



## WorldWatcher

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic but even a moment of silence has been done away with in most school districts. Prayer is not permitted at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last is totally incorrect Ollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok here's the deal dude.  Prayer is ok as long as you do it in silence.  you can be a christian and be free to express your faith as long as you keep it to yourself.  But don't do it out in the open or with a member of the faculty because you'll be shut down and and the teacher will be fired.    Be honest, are you really OK with that?
Click to expand...



The DOE guidance I linked to earlier no where says it has to be in silence to be Constitutionally protected prayer - ya I'm fine with that.

No one is going to "shut down" a faculty member praying with a student when they are at a non-school event.  Faculty not leading prayer with students at school or at school events - ya I'm fine with that.


Of course I'm of the opinion that proselytizing Religion is not a function public schools.  Schools should be neutral and respect the rights of students as long as the exercising of those rights do not interfere with the function of the school or with the ability of others to receive an education.  I could care less if a student wants to pray in school, however if they want to say a vocal prayer in the middle of Algebra class, that would be in issue.  If a student wants to say grace before lunch - say grace.  If the football team is supposed to muster at 18:00 for the big game and a group of the players wants to meet at 17:45 for a prayer - go for it.


>>>>


----------



## yota5

Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.

Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

"From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) separated over 13,000 active military servicemembers under its homosexual conduct policy."

For 2004-2009: "Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy."

For 1993-2003: "The total costs of DODs homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct."​

13,000 people, approximately 288.3 million dollars.  Countless man hours wasted, experienced personnel discharged, and replacement training required.  For those that were wondering, there is your reason why allowing homosexuals to serve under the same terms is probably a good idea.

If you read the reports you will find those numbers are an UNDER estimation of costs because different services tracked or failed to report information that would have caused those numbers to be even higher.


Link: GAO 2011: MILITARY PERSONNEL Personnel and Cost Data Associated with Implementing DODs Homosexual Conduct Policy
Link: GAO 2005: MILITARY PERSONNEL Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DODs Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated

>>>>


----------



## yota5

*how many gays were thrown out in bush's rain ? translators and other important fields in service in Iraq ? 3,000 I think .  yet they military was excepting criminals instead .*  (sinister59)

Interesting.  Now where is the link to the evidence that you used to arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## yota5

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> "From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) separated over 13,000 active military servicemembers under its homosexual conduct policy."
> 
> For 2004-2009: "Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy."
> 
> For 1993-2003: "The total costs of DODs homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct."​
> 
> 13,000 people, approximately 288.3 million dollars.  Countless man hours wasted, experienced personnel discharged, and replacement training required.  For those that were wondering, there is your reason why allowing homosexuals to serve under the same terms is probably a good idea.
> 
> If you read the reports you will find those numbers are an UNDER estimation of costs because different services tracked or failed to report information that would have caused those numbers to be even higher.
> 
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11170.pdf
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf
> 
> >>>>



A back ground check, and polygraphic testing at MEPS would save the USA millions wouldn't it?


----------



## sinister59

yota5 said:


> Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.
> 
> Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.



so what deviant about gays ? straights cause a lot of deviants during occupation of a country , old guys having "straight sex with under gage girls ? straight using anal sex to initiate new members ? and you call gays deviants ? really ? and yet being gay will cause the military action , not rape More pedophilia.


----------



## yota5

sinister59 said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.
> 
> Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what deviant about gays ? straights cause a lot of deviants during occupation of a country , old guys having "straight sex with under gage girls ? straight using anal sex to initiate new members ? and you call gays deviants ? really ? and yet being gay will cause the military action , not rape More pedophilia.
Click to expand...


You give new meaning to the term* "pin head."*


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

Time for bed.

I'll leave you all this evening with the words of the *Commandant of the United State Marine Corps*:


"We've not seen issues," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "There's not been anxiety over it from the forces in the field."

<SNIP>

Amos had been one of the strongest opponents of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell ban. Last year, he said his men would be distracted - possibly fatally - by allowing gays to serve.

But testifying alongside the chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Forces Thursday, Amos told the House Armed Services Committee that training of the rank and file was going smoothly.

"There hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback," Amos said.

"Young Marines," he said, "quite honestly, they're focused on the enemy."​
Read more: Openly gay soldiers to begin serving in summer: Pentagon; GOP critic compares DADT repeal to Alamo



>>>>


----------



## bodecea

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> Time for bed.
> 
> I'll leave you all this evening with the words of the *Commandant of the United State Marine Corps*:
> 
> 
> "We've not seen issues," said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. "There's not been anxiety over it from the forces in the field."
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Amos had been one of the strongest opponents of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell ban. Last year, he said his men would be distracted - possibly fatally - by allowing gays to serve.
> 
> But testifying alongside the chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Forces Thursday, Amos told the House Armed Services Committee that training of the rank and file was going smoothly.
> 
> "There hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback," Amos said.
> 
> "Young Marines," he said, "quite honestly, they're focused on the enemy."​
> Read more: Openly gay soldiers to begin serving in summer: Pentagon; GOP critic compares DADT repeal to Alamo
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>



Well, he hasn't spoken to yota's son yet.   Or maybe he's one of those gays yota goes on about and his opinion therefore doesn't count.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.
> 
> Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.



The established standards are very low for one thing.crips, bloods, and MS-13 members have been found to be openly serving as well as non English speakers so they have to keep there standards low so thees folks can get in. They are not the norm, but they are there and pose a greater danger of subverting our troops and hurting combat readiness then gays. You are also wrong about serving being a privilege. as long as you meet the criteria you can enlist.  Gays have been serving in the military since it has existed and there is yet to be a gang rape in the shower, and no complaints about fags with wood spanking it while a straight fellow isn't looking. You still haven't shown any proof that ending DADT will affect combat readiness. Just like when DADT was brought in there is buzz it would but it did not. It will be the same now. You also go on still about other people lying about there service yet you have screwed up on a butt load of small details like making unauthorized comments to the press, especially comments on political issues. That one is covered for the first time with new recruits before they leave the meps. center and every ware you go from that point on now that I think about it, there was also three other things on the little form that I signed that stuck out, 1 that I could be killed in training or while performing my job, 2 that my pay can be reduced without warning and 3 that I can be reduced to one meal a day. Me and the other kids there were also counseled on dont ask, dont tell. He said "im not asking, so dont tell me" and that was it. You would also know that to get a dishonorable discharge you need to do something pretty bad.


----------



## WorldWatcher

yota5 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> "From fiscal years 1994 through 2009, the Department of Defense (DOD) separated over 13,000 active military servicemembers under its homosexual conduct policy."
> 
> For 2004-2009: "Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy."
> 
> For 1993-2003: "The total costs of DODs homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct."​
> 
> 13,000 people, approximately 288.3 million dollars.  Countless man hours wasted, experienced personnel discharged, and replacement training required.  For those that were wondering, there is your reason why allowing homosexuals to serve under the same terms is probably a good idea.
> 
> If you read the reports you will find those numbers are an UNDER estimation of costs because different services tracked or failed to report information that would have caused those numbers to be even higher.
> 
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11170.pdf
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A back ground check, and polygraphic testing at MEPS would save the USA millions wouldn't it?
Click to expand...



Oh, that would be really bright.

Tester: "Are you a sexual deviant?"

Recruit: "No"

Tester: "Have you ever given or received oral sex with a male?"

Recruit: "No".

Tester: "Have you ever given or received oral sex with a woman?"

Recruit: "Yes"

Tester: "Have you ever performed sex in a position other than the missionary position?"

Recruit: "Yes"

Tester: "Have you ever performed sex with the lights on?"

Recruit: "Yes"

Tester: "Thank you.  Sorry, you are a sexual deviant and are not allowed to serve.  Have a nice day."​


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch

kaz said:


> Gays are treated according to the exact same rules as straights.  You can argue "fair" but the law isn't about fair, it's about literal.  Straights can't talk about gay sex, gays can talk about heterosexual sex.  You can't use formulas, sorry.  You picked the topic of "the law."



That's some pretty convoluted logic. DADT created a different rule/regulation/law for those that were gay or lesbian. This law did not apply to heterosexuals who could talk about things they did that weekend with their spouses. When asked if they were married, they could respond with the affirmative. They could talk about their kids, their spouse, their girlfriend/boyfriend freely. Gays and lesbians couldn't be seen too often in public with the same person without triggering an investigation. People were discharged when someone ELSE "told" for them.

Let's try it this way. Imagine that Congress passed a law stating that Protestants could not declare their Protestantness. They would be free to practice their religion in private, but if ANYONE found out they were Protestant, they would be discharged immediately. Pass the Constitutional smell test for you now?


----------



## slukasiewski

sinister59 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many gays were thrown out in bush's rain ? translators and other important fields in service in Iraq ? 3,000 I think .
> 
> yet they military was excepting criminals instead .
Click to expand...


Gee, I don't know how many were thown out under Bush's "rain." Why don't you post a link and show us dumbass...


----------



## slukasiewski

Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs? 

Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.

Get a fucking life...


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.
> 
> Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.



On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the *privilege* of serving? 

How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs?
> 
> Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.
> 
> Get a fucking life...



Does that worry you in some way?


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.
> 
> Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the *privilege* of serving?
> 
> How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?
Click to expand...


Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc.   Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.


----------



## Seawytch

slukasiewski said:


> Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs?
> 
> Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.
> 
> Get a fucking life...



Do you have any sense of irony at all Mr. "ARG"?


----------



## High_Gravity

Damn this thread is never ending.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every body has an opinion as to why gays should be allowed to serve in the military.  No body seems to have a substantive argument to back up their opinion.  Not one person has been able to tell me how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.
> 
> Wanting something doesn't give you  the right to obtain it.  You must earn it.  Earning something seems to be a concept that is lost to our society.  DADT doesn't give sexual deviants the right to serve.  It only meant that your commander couldn't ask what your sexual orientation is.  If your actions reveal sexual deviance you're gone.  It is just that simple.  Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.  No one has that right.  Only those of us who meet or exceed established standards are allowed to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the *privilege* of serving?
> 
> How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc.   Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.
Click to expand...


A qualified individual contributes to combat readiness, period. The consenting adult they kiss goodnight is completely irrelevant, gay or straight. Under DADT only one of them got discharged for it. That is now ending...happy day!


----------



## slukasiewski

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> On whether or not service in the military is right or a privilege, you are correct that it is a privilege. What reason do you have for denying qualified gays and lesbians the *privilege* of serving?
> 
> How does a heterosexual with a wife for whom he claims dependent pay and housing "contribute to a units combat readiness"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc.   Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A qualified individual contributes to combat readiness, period. The consenting adult they kiss goodnight is completely irrelevant, gay or straight. Under DADT only one of them got discharged for it. That is now ending...happy day!
Click to expand...


Happy day for who? Filthy pole-smokers?


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> Damn this thread is never ending.




This is nothing....now, if it goes on for another month or two.....


----------



## slukasiewski

High_Gravity said:


> Damn this thread is never ending.



The same faggots and carpet munchers are sustaining it daily with their filthy gay lifestyle views. Yeeeeeshck! Freaking disgusting! 

They must have real important jobs that allow them to post their drivel 24/7.


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn this thread is never ending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing....now, if it goes on for another month or two.....
Click to expand...


Actually this thread is rather pointless.

DADT is on it's way out. I doubt anything is going to stop that from happening.

All we can do is hope that RW is right and that in 5 years the controversy will be nothing.

Doesn't matter what any of us think today, it's what happens tomorrow that will matter...


----------



## High_Gravity

Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow or another, the military has determined that it is important for the combat readiness of the troops to take care of their families with base housing, services, etc.   Those are being denied to gay troops, ergo their combat readiness is impaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A qualified individual contributes to combat readiness, period. The consenting adult they kiss goodnight is completely irrelevant, gay or straight. Under DADT only one of them got discharged for it. That is now ending...happy day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy day for who? Filthy pole-smokers?
Click to expand...


There you are again, showing us what dominates your mind....gay sex.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn this thread is never ending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same faggots and carpet munchers are sustaining it daily with their filthy gay lifestyle views. Yeeeeeshck! Freaking disgusting!
> 
> They must have real important jobs that allow them to post their drivel 24/7.
Click to expand...


There you are again....showing us what's on your mind.   Gay sex.


----------



## WorldWatcher

High_Gravity said:


> Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?




The repeal of DADT has been approved, however the actual repeal is timeline based.  DOD is currently conducting tier training (targeted for troops, leaders, and high level staff) and making such modifications to policies and instructions as needed.  Once the Service Chiefs and SecDef sign-off that they are ready, they will submit to Congress notification, at that point the clock starts a 60-day countdown.  Once the 60-days pass, DADT will then be officially dead.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?



Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.


----------



## Samson

High_Gravity said:


> Damn this thread is never ending.



Meh..it has everything needed to distract the masses from real issues:

Sex, Violence.

Throwing together a debate about Gays and The Military is the modern equivalent of Nero throwing together Christians and Lions: Who will care why Rome is burning while we can get all worked up over something else?


----------



## bodecea

Samson said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn this thread is never ending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh..it has everything needed to distract the masses from real issues:
> 
> Sex, Violence.
> 
> Throwing together a debate about Gays and The Military is the modern equivalent of Nero throwing together Christians and Lions: Who will care why Rome is burning while we can get all worked up over something else?
Click to expand...


Or maybe those of us who are gay vets care about this issue.   Think that might be it?


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
Click to expand...


When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
Click to expand...


There was no special training when they did away with the WAC. Sexual Harassment training started about 5 years later.... As best I can recall...


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
Click to expand...


Before my time, but I know we still had issues for a while....google the race riot on the Kennedy...1975 I think.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no special training when they did away with the WAC. Sexual Harassment training started about 5 years later.... As best I can recall...
Click to expand...


We had sexual harassment training because of Tailhook '91.


----------



## Gadawg73

slukasiewski said:


> Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs?
> 
> Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.
> 
> Get a fucking life...



I own three corporations, have worked full time for 40 years, 30 as a licensed private detective.
The last time I saw something like you I flushed it.


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is DADT already gone or are they still ironing out the kinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
Click to expand...


Dad told me that the Corps had very few problems but poroblems they did have. 
The most common problem was he saw blacks put into units with a bad redneck LT. It was hell on those black soldiers. They did it on purpose and he stated it took a few years to sort that out. 
But of course the combat readiness has never been the same with blacks in the military. Mass defections and AWOL non stop to date. 
Damn *******. Next thing you know they will want to be able to marry white women, live in the same neighborhoods as us and be able to vote.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dad told me that the Corps had very few problems but poroblems they did have.
> The most common problem was he saw blacks put into units with a bad redneck LT. It was hell on those black soldiers. They did it on purpose and he stated it took a few years to sort that out.
> But of course the combat readiness has never been the same with blacks in the military. Mass defections and AWOL non stop to date.
> Damn *******. Next thing you know they will want to be able to marry white women, live in the same neighborhoods as us and be able to vote.
Click to expand...


I know right their so damn upitty, why cants they leaves us good white folk alones?


----------



## slukasiewski

Gadawg73 said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs?
> 
> Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.
> 
> Get a fucking life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three corporations, have worked full time for 40 years, 30 as a licensed private detective.
> The last time I saw something like you I flushed it.
Click to expand...


I am not impressed with your bullshit claims. 

Poser. 

You're nothing more than a  random idiot on the Internets...


----------



## slukasiewski

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Working on it....mostly the LMET type training, like they did on sexual harassment after Tailhook.   That took a while too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dad told me that the Corps had very few problems but poroblems they did have.
> The most common problem was he saw blacks put into units with a bad redneck LT. It was hell on those black soldiers. They did it on purpose and he stated it took a few years to sort that out.
> But of course the combat readiness has never been the same with blacks in the military. Mass defections and AWOL non stop to date.
> Damn *******. Next thing you know they will want to be able to marry white women, live in the same neighborhoods as us and be able to vote.
Click to expand...


Since when were  soldiers in the Marine Corps? 
Defections and AWOLS? What in the fuck are you blabbering about. 
For someone with three corporations you sound like an idiot. You're a private investigator? Go look  for a brain.


----------



## yota5

I see a lot of intellectualizing, should be, and wish I coulda.  Yet not one individual has given even one substantive reason as to how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.  Combat readiness is the only thing that matters.  Whether gays get into the service or not is meaningless.  What matters is that if combat readiness is impaired American national security is at risk.

Gays serving openly in the military will destroy a units cohesiveness.  The key components of trust, and respect will be eliminated.  Not all active duty personnel will agree with this statement.  There are gays lurking in the shadows.  12,500 gays have been discharge under DADT.  The reason that gays lurk in the shadows is because they aren't wanted.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell - How Many Gay Soldiers Have Been Discharged Under Don't Ask, Don't Tell


----------



## pinqy

yota5 said:


> Gays serving openly in the military will destroy a units cohesiveness.


 No it doesn't.  I've served with many homosexuals, always an open secret, and it's never had a negative effect on unit cohesiveness.  The only issues I've ever seen were on the part of people who disliked homosexuals trying to cause problems for them....never a problem with the gays or lesbians themselves.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> I see a lot of intellectualizing, should be, and wish I coulda.  Yet not one individual has given even one substantive reason as to how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.  Combat readiness is the only thing that matters.  Whether gays get into the service or not is meaningless.  What matters is that if combat readiness is impaired American national security is at risk.
> 
> Gays serving openly in the military will destroy a units cohesiveness.  The key components of trust, and respect will be eliminated.  Not all active duty personnel will agree with this statement.  There are gays lurking in the shadows.  12,500 gays have been discharge under DADT.  The reason that gays lurk in the shadows is because they aren't wanted.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell - How Many Gay Soldiers Have Been Discharged Under Don't Ask, Don't Tell



You have been answered...several times.   You just don't like the answers.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.

Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.

Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.

No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.

Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?



You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all night and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots. 

Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?

So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.

How romantic - you remember the date you met your first gay aboard ship. 

What a pole smoker.


----------



## Gadawg73

slukasiewski said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs?
> 
> Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.
> 
> Get a fucking life...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own three corporations, have worked full time for 40 years, 30 as a licensed private detective.
> The last time I saw something like you I flushed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not impressed with your bullshit claims.
> 
> Poser.
> 
> You're nothing more than a  random idiot on the Internets...
Click to expand...


OK, how about we both put up $50,000. We will let the attorney of your choice hold the $.
Then you can look at the Georgia Secretary of State Licensing Division under the Georgia Board of Private Detectives and Security Agencies. Go there now and see for yourself this is the government entity that licenses me. 
I bet you $50,000. that I have been licensed since 1981 and received my top tier agency license in 1985. Governor Perdue had me and a few others write the most recent test the Board gives. I was working criminal defense cases for trial lawyers when you were crying to mommie that the neighborhood kid was kicking your milk toast weak ass.
And I am that neighborhood kid X TWO.
Put up or shut up.
I doubt I will ever get it because your milk is weak and you are a candy ass chicken shit that is scared to back up your sissy claims and back up your claims. You will not take this bet because now you are exposed as the clown that you are. 

How does it feel to be shown as a FRAUD?


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all day and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots.
> 
> Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?
> 
> So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.
Click to expand...


Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.

My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.

I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.

Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.

I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all night and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots.
> 
> Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?
> 
> So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.
> 
> How romantic - you remember the date you met your first gay aboard ship.
> 
> What a pole smoker.
Click to expand...


Oh look.   You're working the imagery of gay sex into your posts again.   What a surprise.


----------



## bodecea

Gadawg73 said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own three corporations, have worked full time for 40 years, 30 as a licensed private detective.
> The last time I saw something like you I flushed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not impressed with your bullshit claims.
> 
> Poser.
> 
> You're nothing more than a  random idiot on the Internets...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, how about we both put up $50,000. We will let the attorney of your choice hold the $.
> Then you can look at the Georgia Secretary of State Licensing Division under the Georgia Board of Private Detectives and Security Agencies. Go there now and see for yourself this is the government entity that licenses me.
> I bet you $50,000. that I have been licensed since 1981 and received my top tier agency license in 1985. Governor Perdue had me and a few others write the most recent test the Board gives. I was working criminal defense cases for trial lawyers when you were crying to mommie that the neighborhood kid was kicking your milk toast weak ass.
> And I am that neighborhood kid X TWO.
> Put up or shut up.
> I doubt I will ever get it because your milk is weak and you are a candy ass chicken shit that is scared to back up your sissy claims and back up your claims. You will not take this bet because now you are exposed as the clown that you are.
> 
> How does it feel to be shown as a FRAUD?
Click to expand...


Georgia?   You're not that far from him then.   Sounds doable, easily doable.   I wonder if he'll take you up on that.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last is totally incorrect Ollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok here's the deal dude.  Prayer is ok as long as you do it in silence.  you can be a christian and be free to express your faith as long as you keep it to yourself.  But don't do it out in the open or with a member of the faculty because you'll be shut down and and the teacher will be fired.    Be honest, are you really OK with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you can do it outloud all you want.   The school cannot direct you in prayer tho.   How is that so horrible?
Click to expand...


And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> I see a lot of intellectualizing, should be, and wish I coulda.  Yet not one individual has given even one substantive reason as to how gays serving openly in the military will contribute to a units combat readiness.  Combat readiness is the only thing that matters.  Whether gays get into the service or not is meaningless.  What matters is that if combat readiness is impaired American national security is at risk.
> 
> Gays serving openly in the military will destroy a units cohesiveness.  The key components of trust, and respect will be eliminated.  Not all active duty personnel will agree with this statement.  There are gays lurking in the shadows.  12,500 gays have been discharge under DADT.  The reason that gays lurk in the shadows is because they aren't wanted.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell - How Many Gay Soldiers Have Been Discharged Under Don't Ask, Don't Tell



Something like 25 countries have lifted their bans on gays serving honestly. Please provide evidence that their military readiness was adversely affected in any way, shape or form. 

70% of Americans support lifting the ban. The Pentagon survey showed 70% believe a repeal of DADT would have either a positive effect or no effect on their ability to complete missions.

Your homophobic *opinions* are not supported by ANY facts or evidence.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok here's the deal dude.  Prayer is ok as long as you do it in silence.  you can be a christian and be free to express your faith as long as you keep it to yourself.  But don't do it out in the open or with a member of the faculty because you'll be shut down and and the teacher will be fired.    Be honest, are you really OK with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you can do it outloud all you want.   The school cannot direct you in prayer tho.   How is that so horrible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?
Click to expand...


So you'd be okay if a teacher decided to lead their class in a Muslim prayer to Allah for those that "choose to" participate?


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you can do it outloud all you want.   The school cannot direct you in prayer tho.   How is that so horrible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd be okay if a teacher decided to lead their class in a Muslim prayer to Allah for those that "choose to" participate?
Click to expand...


sure, why not.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be okay if a teacher decided to lead their class in a Muslim prayer to Allah for those that "choose to" participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure, why not.
Click to expand...


Because public schools are *secular*. Teachers shouldn't be leading children in ANY kind of prayer. If you want prayer in school, send your kids to a religious school.


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be okay if a teacher decided to lead their class in a Muslim prayer to Allah for those that "choose to" participate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because public schools are *secular*. Teachers shouldn't be leading children in ANY kind of prayer. If you want prayer in school, send your kids to a religious school.
Click to expand...

 
why because the warren court redefined the constitution?    See here's the deal, a bunch of whiny athiests said prayer in school offends us.  we don't want it.  So the court ruled and disallowed it.  one side got it's way, the other side lost out and was silenced.  but that is called fair.  

it's the same way with gays in the military.  a group says, hey we aren't comfortable with that.  So they aren't allowed.   One side wins out , the other loses.  So you just have to deal with it.    until you can provide a military benefit to allowing gays to be openly gay in the military, there is no compelling reason to make a change.   Gays can be in the military. thye just need to be quiet about it. AND don't expect the military to endorse it


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd be okay if a teacher decided to lead their class in a Muslim prayer to Allah for those that "choose to" participate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because public schools are *secular*. Teachers shouldn't be leading children in ANY kind of prayer. If you want prayer in school, send your kids to a religious school.
Click to expand...


see, that's because you are an open minded, free thinker, who believes in personal liberties and freedoms.  So why are you guys always the first to try to control someones freedoms?


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure, why not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because public schools are *secular*. Teachers shouldn't be leading children in ANY kind of prayer. If you want prayer in school, send your kids to a religious school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see, that's because you are an open minded, free thinker, who believes in personal liberties and freedoms.  So why are you guys always the first to try to control someones freedoms?
Click to expand...


Nobody is controlling your "freedoms" for god's sake. Nobody said you can't pray any freaking time you want to. Your "freedom" to pray is not infringed upon. Every religious kid prays before every test I'm sure. Why do you feel that your "freedom" requires that my kid, who is not raised with a formal religion, has to listen to yours?


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because public schools are *secular*. Teachers shouldn't be leading children in ANY kind of prayer. If you want prayer in school, send your kids to a religious school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see, that's because you are an open minded, free thinker, who believes in personal liberties and freedoms.  So why are you guys always the first to try to control someones freedoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is controlling your "freedoms" for god's sake. Nobody said you can't pray any freaking time you want to. Your "freedom" to pray is not infringed upon. Every religious kid prays before every test I'm sure. Why do you feel that your "freedom" requires that my kid, who is not raised with a formal religion, has to listen to yours?
Click to expand...


So tell me free thinker. exactly what part of this quote from the constitution says schools are secular   -  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, 

And why do you feel that someones need to be gay has to be accepted by me or anyone else?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok here's the deal dude.  Prayer is ok as long as you do it in silence.  you can be a christian and be free to express your faith as long as you keep it to yourself.  But don't do it out in the open or with a member of the faculty because you'll be shut down and and the teacher will be fired.    Be honest, are you really OK with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you can do it outloud all you want.   The school cannot direct you in prayer tho.   How is that so horrible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?
Click to expand...



Which prayer will the school direct?   Catholic?  Baptist?  Muslim?  Hindu?  Jewish?  Methodist?   Which one?


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you can do it outloud all you want.   The school cannot direct you in prayer tho.   How is that so horrible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which prayer will the school direct?   Catholic?  Baptist?  Muslim?  Hindu?  Jewish?  Methodist?   Which one?
Click to expand...


any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?



I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did.  So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.

I say this again.  Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately.  End of story.  That is why your fable doesn't hold water.  That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.  

Check out this story.  Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers.  "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year. 

The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife." 

Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why can the school not direct you. or let me rephrase lead a group who chose to participate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which prayer will the school direct?   Catholic?  Baptist?  Muslim?  Hindu?  Jewish?  Methodist?   Which one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
Click to expand...


I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.


----------



## WorldWatcher

>


Prediction (and I paraphrase from those over the months and years who have opposed the repeal of DADT):  "There will be a mass exodus of people who will refuse to serve in a military where homosexuals are allowed to serve without DADT."


Result: 
"A spokesman for the Army Chaplain Corps said about three-fourths of all chaplains have taken Tier-1 training on the subject. Tier-1 training is for counselors and professionals such as personnel officers, recruiters, lawyers and chaplains.

Only one chaplain of the 2,900 in the Army asked to leave the service due to pending repeal of the law, said Lt. Col. Carleton Birch, strategic communications officer for the Army's Chief of Chaplain's Office. He said that chaplain left before the training began, and the remainder have benefited from an "open and honest discourse" that the training forum provides."​

One Chaplain out of 2,900 is 0.03%.


If religious folk aren't leaving, I think the assumption of not having huge numbers leave pretty solid.  I'm beginning to doubt we will see the 25-40% predictions I seem to remember.


Leaders say DADT repeal training effective


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73

slukasiewski said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they integrated the service back in the day, did they have integration sensitivity training?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad told me that the Corps had very few problems but poroblems they did have.
> The most common problem was he saw blacks put into units with a bad redneck LT. It was hell on those black soldiers. They did it on purpose and he stated it took a few years to sort that out.
> But of course the combat readiness has never been the same with blacks in the military. Mass defections and AWOL non stop to date.
> Damn *******. Next thing you know they will want to be able to marry white women, live in the same neighborhoods as us and be able to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when were  soldiers in the Marine Corps?
> Defections and AWOLS? What in the fuck are you blabbering about.
> For someone with three corporations you sound like an idiot. You're a private investigator? Go look  for a brain.
Click to expand...


Well, you are right on that one as I vividly remember Dad writing an article to his 2nd Marine Division magazine correcting someone for calling a Marine a soldier.
You are one for 1009, a great average.


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did.  So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.
> 
> I say this again.  Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately.  End of story.  That is why your fable doesn't hold water.  That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.
> 
> Check out this story.  Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers.  "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.
> 
> The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."
> 
> Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...


Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
http://www.sldn.org/pages/sldn-board-tom-carpenter

or any of these distinguished veterans:
http://www.sldn.org/pages/sldn-military-advisory-council


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are treated according to the exact same rules as straights.  You can argue "fair" but the law isn't about fair, it's about literal.  Straights can't talk about gay sex, gays can talk about heterosexual sex.  You can't use formulas, sorry.  You picked the topic of "the law."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's some pretty convoluted logic. DADT created a different rule/regulation/law for those that were gay or lesbian. This law did not apply to heterosexuals who could talk about things they did that weekend with their spouses. When asked if they were married, they could respond with the affirmative. They could talk about their kids, their spouse, their girlfriend/boyfriend freely. Gays and lesbians couldn't be seen too often in public with the same person without triggering an investigation. People were discharged when someone ELSE "told" for them.
> 
> Let's try it this way. Imagine that Congress passed a law stating that Protestants could not declare their Protestantness. They would be free to practice their religion in private, but if ANYONE found out they were Protestant, they would be discharged immediately. Pass the Constitutional smell test for you now?
Click to expand...


Not to the Gays I knew and there were 4 of them. As long as they were not in uniform they were good to go. Its when an issue was made of it that they would have trouble. Everyone knew DADT was going the way of the dodo. That could have just been ware I was at.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did.  So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.
> 
> I say this again.  Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately.  End of story.  That is why your fable doesn't hold water.  That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.
> 
> Check out this story.  Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers.  "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.
> 
> The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."
> 
> Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...


yota5, right now a friend of mine from the Navy and her Husband are both reading your shit and you have been pegged in a bunch of lies. Leave DADT alone. Google says one thing, but what actulley happened is another story. You just are not telling the truth.


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which prayer will the school direct?   Catholic?  Baptist?  Muslim?  Hindu?  Jewish?  Methodist?   Which one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
Click to expand...


You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....


----------



## geauxtohell

yota5 said:


> I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday.  He is career military.  He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military.  The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC.  They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.
> 
> In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out.  The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood.  Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene.  Civilians will say put on surgical gloves.  A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.
> 
> As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home.  My buddies could count on the same thing from me.  An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall.  This is a very real degradation of military core values.  Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS.  That is a death sentence that will be resisted.
> 
> Morale is already being affected in a very negative way.  The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation.  Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way.  I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.



The troops were also concerned about serving with African Americans.  The troops work for the American people and answer to the duly elected government officials. 

Like so many other arguments against homosexuals serving in the military, your HIV arguement is pretty laughable.  All soldiers are routinely screened for blood borne illnesses and if they are infected, they are kept out of combat positions.  

This was occuring in 2005.  Apparently the military got what you do not, HIV is not limited to homosexuals.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which prayer will the school direct?   Catholic?  Baptist?  Muslim?  Hindu?  Jewish?  Methodist?   Which one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
Click to expand...


And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change endorsing homosexuality?
Click to expand...


they haven't.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....
Click to expand...


And they shouldn't be.   I expect some day, someone will get a lawsuit going over that.

However, if the Congressmen want to pay for it out of their own pockets....I say go for it.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change* endorsing *homosexuality?
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## ogibillm

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change* endorsing *homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.

some people aren't smart.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change* endorsing *homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...

You obviously understood it, you bolded it.


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change* endorsing *homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.
> 
> some people aren't smart.
Click to expand...

 And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.
> 
> some people aren't smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement
Click to expand...


well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> some people get confused. they assume once you stop actively discriminating against something you endorse it.
> 
> some people aren't smart.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?
Click to expand...


If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.
Click to expand...


so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?
Click to expand...


Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many people, especially people serving, who are uncomfortable with a government entity endorsing homosexuality or alternate sexualities.  Government has no business endorsing sexuality.  Especially in the military. I'll ask again and again. Why should they make a policy change* endorsing *homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously understood it, you bolded it.
Click to expand...


I am a little puzzled....what kind of policy change ENDORSED homosexuality?   You seem to be going into fantasy land with that one.


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?
Click to expand...


i'm not. 

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance. 

where is the endorsement?


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not.
> 
> you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.
> 
> where is the endorsement?
Click to expand...

 Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?


----------



## bodecea

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?
Click to expand...


Wait!   Wait!   I think I'm onto something here.   I'm seeing the same thing in another thread.   IF we are not actively and voraciously going AGAINST something, we are really actively endorsing it.   There is no middle ground.   At least it looks like Spoonman's stance and the stance of at least four posters in the thread :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...trivialize-the-threat-from-radical-islam.html

A trait of the far right partisan maybe?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not.
> 
> you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.
> 
> where is the endorsement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?
Click to expand...



DADT is anti known gay.   That is what is known.  But please, play on.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously understood it, you bolded it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a little puzzled....what kind of policy change ENDORSED homosexuality?   You seem to be going into fantasy land with that one.
Click to expand...


Same question to you. The military's stance with DADT is not an anti gay statement then?


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not.
> 
> you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.
> 
> where is the endorsement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?
Click to expand...

it is. but removal of that policy is not an endorsement of homosexuality. it's acceptance of homosexuality. there is a difference.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not.
> 
> you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.
> 
> where is the endorsement?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> DADT is anti known gay.   That is what is known.  But please, play on.
Click to expand...

 So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay?  You play on  LMAO


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DADT is anti known gay.   That is what is known.  But please, play on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay?  You play on  LMAO
Click to expand...


it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not.
> 
> you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.
> 
> where is the endorsement?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is. but removal of that policy is not an endorsement of homosexuality. it's acceptance of homosexuality. there is a difference.
Click to expand...


I repeat

So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay? You play on LMAO  

it sure is the same thing.  which is why the military has opposed repealing it even under pressure from obama.  they are not going to come out and endorse a lifestyle


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> DADT is anti known gay.   That is what is known.  But please, play on.
> 
> 
> 
> So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay?  You play on  LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?
Click to expand...


of course you can't see how I do it.  you have liberal blinders on.  They blind you to so much


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay?  You play on  LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course you can't see how I do it.  you have liberal blinders on.  They blind you to so much
Click to expand...


wow. that analogy just went screaming over your head - the only question now is whether or not you really didn't get it or if you're being purposefully obtuse.


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you can't see how I do it.  you have liberal blinders on.  They blind you to so much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow. that analogy just went screaming over your head - the only question now is whether or not you really didn't get it or if you're being purposefully obtuse.
Click to expand...


I see things perfectly clear. You, by your own admission are the one who has trouble seeing things.     Psssst - take off the blinders


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....
Click to expand...


I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
> But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.
Click to expand...


So why is it a crime for a religious figure to accept payment when all politicians do is walk around with their hand out for a payment?  kind of a double standard


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable.   It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion.   And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
> But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.
Click to expand...


I believe it's always been that way... So the Framers accepted it.... Of course I haven't researched that so It could have started later.


----------



## Gadawg73

Gadawg73 said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did.  So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.
> 
> I say this again.  Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately.  End of story.  That is why your fable doesn't hold water.  That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.
> 
> Check out this story.  Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers.  "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.
> 
> The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."
> 
> Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> or any of these distinguished veterans:
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
Click to expand...


Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
Where the fuck are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
> But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is it a crime for a religious figure to accept payment when all politicians do is walk around with their hand out for a payment?  kind of a double standard
Click to expand...


Who said it was a crime? 
We are running deficits and we pay someone to say a prayer?
How hard is to say a prayer? And we have to pay someone?
Only a dumbass would advocate paying someone to say a prayer.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did.  So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.
> 
> I say this again.  Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately.  End of story.  That is why your fable doesn't hold water.  That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.
> 
> Check out this story.  Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers.  "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.
> 
> The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."
> 
> Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> or any of these distinguished veterans:
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
> Where the fuck are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
> Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
> Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.
Click to expand...


So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> or any of these distinguished veterans:
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
> Where the fuck are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
> Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
> Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
Click to expand...


Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
> Where the fuck are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
> Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
> Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.
Click to expand...


If you had paid attention is school instead of bad mouthing your country you might have gotten a little bit of intelligence.


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had paid attention is school instead of bad mouthing your country you might have gotten a little bit of intelligence.
Click to expand...


Didn't have to pay attention. I had tutors.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had paid attention is school instead of bad mouthing your country you might have gotten a little bit of intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't have to pay attention. I had tutors.
Click to expand...


I either read the cliff notes or watched the movie


----------



## pinqy

What I find amusing is that back when DADT was instituted under Clinton, it was the anti-gay crowd that denounced it and was so strongly against it.  And now they're clinging to it.  The pro-gay people saw DADT as Clinton reneging his campaign promise to eliminate the ban on homosexuals and saw it as a bad compromise but a step forward.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are proving yourself to be a glowing example of that statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.
Click to expand...


Well, you certainly know how to paint yourself in a corner...and then run crazily through the wet paint.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> or any of these distinguished veterans:
> Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
> Where the fuck are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
> Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
> Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
Click to expand...




Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
> Where the fuck are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
> Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
> Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.
Click to expand...

yes, they are. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *yes, they are*. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
Click to expand...


That pretty much says it all folks.


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, they are. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
Click to expand...


yeah - that happened a lot i'm sure.

probably about as often as straight soldiers lied about being gay so they could get out of the military.

regardless, you're making a pretty good argument for closing off that loophole and allowing gays to serve.


----------



## bodecea

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, they are. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah - that happened a lot i'm sure.
> 
> probably about as often as straight soldiers lied about being gay so they could get out of the military.
> 
> regardless, you're making a pretty good argument for closing off that loophole and allowing gays to serve.
Click to expand...


I remember back in abou 80, I was in a command where they decided to send a lot of young women from boot camp and A school to build the command up (aviation training command).  Well, South TX is not exactly a nice place and many of the women decided that getting pregnant was the way to get out quickly (this is when getting out when pregnant was an option).  Easiest way to solve that problem.....close that option out.

What spoonman inadvertently pointed out is that by getting rid of DADT, you close the option (very, very rarely used) of getting out easily if you declare yourself gay.  BTW...under DADT, it was always the command's option.   I have a friend in who told of a sailor who went up to him (Dept Head) and declared that he was gay.  My friend said "that's nice, get back to work".  That ended that.  Spoonman would probably have clutched his pearls and fainted dead away from the thought of thieving gays.


----------



## Gunny

WorldWatcher said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.

I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".  

When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.


----------



## ogibillm

Gunny said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
Click to expand...


are you married? anyone you served with married?


----------



## ogibillm

bodecea said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, they are. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah - that happened a lot i'm sure.
> 
> probably about as often as straight soldiers lied about being gay so they could get out of the military.
> 
> regardless, you're making a pretty good argument for closing off that loophole and allowing gays to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in abou 80, I was in a command where they decided to send a lot of young women from boot camp and A school to build the command up (aviation training command).  Well, South TX is not exactly a nice place and many of the women decided that getting pregnant was the way to get out quickly (this is when getting out when pregnant was an option).  Easiest way to solve that problem.....close that option out.
> 
> What spoonman inadvertently pointed out is that by getting rid of DADT, you close the option (very, very rarely used) of getting out easily if you declare yourself gay.  BTW...under DADT, it was always the command's option.   I have a friend in who told of a sailor who went up to him (Dept Head) and declared that he was gay.  My friend said "that's nice, get back to work".  That ended that.  Spoonman would probably have clutched his pearls and fainted dead away from the thought of thieving gays.
Click to expand...


off topic, but i think you're likely being overly harsh on those women. they were in south texas - what else was there to do? getting out was likely just a side-effect.


----------



## bodecea

Gunny said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim* "hey, I'm normal and like women".  *
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
Click to expand...


Not in those words you didn't....but you DID proclaim your sexuality everytime you talked about dates, your spouse, had pictures of your spouse, etc.   All those are common discussion points with co-workers and quite harmless social small talk......UNLESS you are gay.   Then it can be grounds for involuntary discharge.


----------



## bodecea

ogibillm said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah - that happened a lot i'm sure.
> 
> probably about as often as straight soldiers lied about being gay so they could get out of the military.
> 
> regardless, you're making a pretty good argument for closing off that loophole and allowing gays to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in abou 80, I was in a command where they decided to send a lot of young women from boot camp and A school to build the command up (aviation training command).  Well, South TX is not exactly a nice place and many of the women decided that getting pregnant was the way to get out quickly (this is when getting out when pregnant was an option).  Easiest way to solve that problem.....close that option out.
> 
> What spoonman inadvertently pointed out is that by getting rid of DADT, you close the option (very, very rarely used) of getting out easily if you declare yourself gay.  BTW...under DADT, it was always the command's option.   I have a friend in who told of a sailor who went up to him (Dept Head) and declared that he was gay.  My friend said "that's nice, get back to work".  That ended that.  Spoonman would probably have clutched his pearls and fainted dead away from the thought of thieving gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> off topic, but i think you're likely being overly harsh on those women. they were in south texas - what else was there to do? getting out was likely just a side-effect.
Click to expand...


It's a pretty funny story...because our mission increased 10 fold in a short period of time, my command went from 24 women to over 100 in about 2 months....and all the new ones were E-4 and below...a wave of young inexperienced girls.   Many were very unhappy and this they saw and an out.

The funny part.....I was the only female officer at the time, a butterbar.   I got called up on the carpet by the XO who started chewing me out.   I was wondering what it was about til it dawned on me, he was mad about all the pregnancies and manpower losses.   When I got a word in, I said "Sir.  I can assure you.  I did not get these women pregnant!"  He stopped, looked at me funny, and started laughing.   He actually apologized and then we got to work trying to come up with a solution for the problem.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.
> 
> 
> 
> *yes, they are*. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That pretty much says it all folks.
Click to expand...

You are damn right it does.


----------



## slukasiewski

Gunny said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
Click to expand...


 OUT-FREAKING-STANDING Post Gunny! Glad to see there are some MARINES still onboard! We initated two of you guys in the CPO Mess back in the 80s and had a blast serving with you aboard ship. 

I don't know what era you're from - but back in my day, we'd blanket party, discharge, or throw over the side polesmokers - when identified. 

No room for them aboard my ship or in my Navy! 

Oooo-rah!


----------



## Spoonman

Gunny said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
Click to expand...


Bingo, Exactly.  Same here, I wasn't a heterosexual Marine, I was a Marine.  No agenda.  But that's what it's all about with these guys. In your face, I am gay and you have to accept it. Be gay, I don't really care, or be straight. I don't care either.   As I've said all along to these guys show me a compelling military reason why the policy should be changed.  They haven't.  it always comes back to their OWN personal wants.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *yes, they are*. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much says it all folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are damn right it does.
Click to expand...


Yep...it shows that you think of fellow Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve this country, who VOLUNTEER to possibly get killed for this country, who VOLUNTEER to be away from family and home for long deployments in distant, uncomfortable places...are a bunch of thieves.   Why?  because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with.  Because of a policy that thankfully is not gone.

You call ME a thief.

You call Seawytch a thief.

This says nothing negative about us in reality.....it sure says something about YOU tho.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo, Exactly.  Same here, I wasn't a heterosexual Marine, I was a Marine.  No agenda.  But that's what it's all about with these guys. In your face, I am gay and you have to accept it. Be gay, I don't really care, or be straight. I don't care either.   As I've said all along to these guys show me a compelling military reason why the policy should be changed.  They haven't.  it always comes back to their OWN personal wants.
Click to expand...


Another outstanding post. I don't recall anyone aboard ship running around proclaiming, "I'm STRAIGHT... I'm STRAIGHT!!!!!" 

We had a fucking job to do - not proclaim our sexuality. 

Glad I am out. Cannot tolerate polesmokers in the work space or aboard my ship, in my Navy!


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, they are. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah - that happened a lot i'm sure.
> 
> probably about as often as straight soldiers lied about being gay so they could get out of the military.
> 
> regardless, you're making a pretty good argument for closing off that loophole and allowing gays to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember back in abou 80, I was in a command where they decided to send a lot of young women from boot camp and A school to build the command up (aviation training command).  Well, South TX is not exactly a nice place and many of the women decided that getting pregnant was the way to get out quickly (this is when getting out when pregnant was an option).  Easiest way to solve that problem.....close that option out.
> 
> What spoonman inadvertently pointed out is that by getting rid of DADT, you close the option (very, very rarely used) of getting out easily if you declare yourself gay.  BTW...under DADT, it was always the command's option.   I have a friend in who told of a sailor who went up to him (Dept Head) and declared that he was gay.  My friend said "that's nice, get back to work".  That ended that.  Spoonman would probably have clutched his pearls and fainted dead away from the thought of thieving gays.
Click to expand...

 so if that's the case why are you still whining and bitching about it? You contradict yourself with ever argument.


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, Exactly.  Same here, I wasn't a heterosexual Marine, I was a Marine.  No agenda.  But that's what it's all about with these guys. In your face, I am gay and you have to accept it. Be gay, I don't really care, or be straight. I don't care either.   As I've said all along to these guys show me a compelling military reason why the policy should be changed.  They haven't.  it always comes back to their OWN personal wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another outstanding post. I don't recall anyone aboard ship running around proclaiming, "I'm STRAIGHT... I'm STRAIGHT!!!!!"
> 
> We had a fucking job to do - not proclaim our sexuality.
> 
> Glad I am out. Cannot tolerate polesmokers in the work space or aboard my ship, in my Navy!
Click to expand...


It's like the gay pride parades. Are there straight pride parades? No. We don't feel the need to be all in your face oooooooh look at me.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, Exactly.  Same here, I wasn't a heterosexual Marine, I was a Marine.  No agenda.  But that's what it's all about with these guys. In your face, I am gay and you have to accept it. Be gay, I don't really care, or be straight. I don't care either.   As I've said all along to these guys show me a compelling military reason why the policy should be changed.  They haven't.  it always comes back to their OWN personal wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another outstanding post. I don't recall anyone aboard ship running around proclaiming, "I'm STRAIGHT... I'm STRAIGHT!!!!!"
> 
> We had a fucking job to do - not proclaim our sexuality.
> 
> Glad I am out. Cannot tolerate polesmokers in the work space or aboard my ship, in my Navy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the gay pride parades. Are there straight pride parades? No. We don't feel the need to be all in your face oooooooh look at me.
Click to expand...


Yeah - seriously. Faggots need to keep their filthy mouths shut - literally. We're not interested in their filthy lifestyle.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much says it all folks.
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep...it shows that you think of fellow Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve this country, who VOLUNTEER to possibly get killed for this country, who VOLUNTEER to be away from family and home for long deployments in distant, uncomfortable places...are a bunch of thieves.   Why?  because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with.  Because of a policy that thankfully is not gone.
> 
> You call ME a thief.
> 
> You call Seawytch a thief.
> 
> This says nothing negative about us in reality.....it sure says something about YOU tho.
Click to expand...

You know the rules going in. obey them. that's what being a soldier is all about.  Millions of gays have served honorably in the military but STFU about being gay. Because that's what the rules say.  And they probably were very good soldiers.  It's you crybabies who are the problem.  It has to be about you being gay. to you, your homosexuality is bigger than the rules. That does not make a good soldier


----------



## slukasiewski

Took a survey at the American Legion pig roast last night.... 

Here's the bottom line - WE DON'T WANT FAGGOTS in the military. 

There - real veterans have spoken.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much says it all folks.
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep...it shows that you think of fellow Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve this country, who VOLUNTEER to possibly get killed for this country, who VOLUNTEER to be away from family and home for long deployments in distant, uncomfortable places...are a bunch of thieves.   Why?  because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with.  Because of a policy that thankfully is not gone.
> 
> You call ME a thief.
> 
> You call Seawytch a thief.
> 
> This says nothing negative about us in reality.....it sure says something about YOU tho.
Click to expand...



*because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with*. 

See why does it always have to be about you? Those are the rules.  You see a restaurant that says no shirt, no shoes no service do you expect to walk in with no shoes and get served?  a library book is due back in two weeks, but it takes you three to read, you get fined. I don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet or wear a seatbelt, but I have too.  Rules are rules.  I sure as hell didn't like every rule in the military. But I accepted them when I went in. Why? becasue it was my duty.  I knew what the rules were going in. If I couldn't abide by them I shouldn't have gone in. That's the bottom line.  You don't have to like it but you have to obide by it.  If you can't follow that one simple rule I don't want to depend on you with my life on the line.  it's that simple


----------



## WorldWatcher

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system.  With a skill level beyond comprehension.  Does that make him right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, gay soldiers and sailors who VOLUNTEERED to serve their country are thieves now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, they are. and a lot of the links here prove it. they were not eligible for military service because of their sexual preference. yet they took thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to get training for themselves and then avoid fulfilling their obligation to their country by coming out as homosexuals.  They knew what the result would be. being discharged. think about it.  what a perfect scam.  join the military, get you training and education free, well on the tax payers dime.  say you are gay and then be relieved of your militarty obligation.  Yes, I would say that is stealing.
Click to expand...



Good, that loophole has been closed.  A very good reason for repealing DADT and allowing service under the same conditions as we heterosexuals.


Good point.


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah - that happened a lot i'm sure.
> 
> probably about as often as straight soldiers lied about being gay so they could get out of the military.
> 
> regardless, you're making a pretty good argument for closing off that loophole and allowing gays to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in abou 80, I was in a command where they decided to send a lot of young women from boot camp and A school to build the command up (aviation training command).  Well, South TX is not exactly a nice place and many of the women decided that getting pregnant was the way to get out quickly (this is when getting out when pregnant was an option).  Easiest way to solve that problem.....close that option out.
> 
> What spoonman inadvertently pointed out is that by getting rid of DADT, you close the option (very, very rarely used) of getting out easily if you declare yourself gay.  BTW...under DADT, it was always the command's option.   I have a friend in who told of a sailor who went up to him (Dept Head) and declared that he was gay.  My friend said "that's nice, get back to work".  That ended that.  Spoonman would probably have clutched his pearls and fainted dead away from the thought of thieving gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so if that's the case why are you still whining and bitching about it? You contradict yourself with ever argument.
Click to expand...


Actually, I have NOTHING to whine and bitch about.  DADT is GONE.  We won.   Seems to me, that the whining and bitching and calling vets thieves is your schtick at this time.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, Exactly.  Same here, I wasn't a heterosexual Marine, I was a Marine.  No agenda.  But that's what it's all about with these guys. In your face, I am gay and you have to accept it. Be gay, I don't really care, or be straight. I don't care either.   As I've said all along to these guys show me a compelling military reason why the policy should be changed.  They haven't.  it always comes back to their OWN personal wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another outstanding post. I don't recall anyone aboard ship running around proclaiming, "I'm STRAIGHT... I'm STRAIGHT!!!!!"
> 
> We had a fucking job to do - not proclaim our sexuality.
> 
> Glad I am out. Cannot tolerate polesmokers in the work space or aboard my ship, in my Navy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like the gay pride parades.
Click to expand...


Have you ever been to a gay  pride parade?   Do you know what they are like?



> Are there straight pride parades?



Lots....Mardi Gras...Spring break...St. Patricks Day parades...Columbus Day Parades.  MLK Jr. Parades



> No. We don't feel the need to be all in your face oooooooh look at me.



But the Irish do...the Italians do...the blacks do...the American patriots do (4th of July parades)...why are you not complaining about their parades?

Oh, that's right....it's only the gays you have a problem with......


----------



## WorldWatcher

Gunny said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays serving.
> 
> Dishonorable.
> 
> Pretty much cut and dry.
> 
> Case closed...
> 
> 
> NEXT !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
Click to expand...



Thanks Gunny, but I have quite the clue.  I wasn't a Heterosexual Chief.  I was a Navy Chief first and foremost.

I see no reason heterosexual or homosexual Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and yes Marines can't be Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines first.  For the few assholes that make an issue of it (for or against) you deal with them.  Over time the message get's out - sexual orientation doesn't matter.  What matters is how well you perform your duty.

That in the end is what *should* matter.



>>>>>


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another outstanding post. I don't recall anyone aboard ship running around proclaiming, "I'm STRAIGHT... I'm STRAIGHT!!!!!"
> 
> We had a fucking job to do - not proclaim our sexuality.
> 
> Glad I am out. Cannot tolerate polesmokers in the work space or aboard my ship, in my Navy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the gay pride parades. Are there straight pride parades? No. We don't feel the need to be all in your face oooooooh look at me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah - seriously. Faggots need to keep their filthy mouths shut - literally. We're not interested in their filthy lifestyle.
Click to expand...

At this point, after all your posts about gay sex and using the word "filthy" over and over, I cannot help but wonder who it is you are really trying to convince.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...it shows that you think of fellow Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve this country, who VOLUNTEER to possibly get killed for this country, who VOLUNTEER to be away from family and home for long deployments in distant, uncomfortable places...are a bunch of thieves.   Why?  because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with.  Because of a policy that thankfully is not gone.
> 
> You call ME a thief.
> 
> You call Seawytch a thief.
> 
> This says nothing negative about us in reality.....it sure says something about YOU tho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know the rules going in. obey them. that's what being a soldier is all about.  Millions of gays have served honorably in the military but STFU about being gay. Because that's what the rules say.  And they probably were very good soldiers.  It's you crybabies who are the problem.  It has to be about you being gay. to you, your homosexuality is bigger than the rules. That does not make a good soldier
Click to expand...


DADT is GONE...why are you still whining?


----------



## slukasiewski

WorldWatcher said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Gunny, but I have quite the clue.  I wasn't a Heterosexual Chief.  I was a Navy Chief first and foremost.
> 
> I see no reason heterosexual or homosexual Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and yes Marines can't be Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines first.  For the few assholes that make an issue of it (for or against) you deal with them.  Over time the message get's out - sexual orientation doesn't matter.  What matters is how well you perform your duty.
> 
> That in the end is what *should* matter.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>>
Click to expand...



Yeah - but why do we have to know that you suck cock? Why even raise the issue? 
I don't recall anyone onboard ship "in my face" about being straight. Do you? 

Keep your filthy lifestyle to yourself dude.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...it shows that you think of fellow Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve this country, who VOLUNTEER to possibly get killed for this country, who VOLUNTEER to be away from family and home for long deployments in distant, uncomfortable places...are a bunch of thieves.   Why?  because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with.  Because of a policy that thankfully is not gone.
> 
> You call ME a thief.
> 
> You call Seawytch a thief.
> 
> This says nothing negative about us in reality.....it sure says something about YOU tho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with*.
> 
> See why does it always have to be about you? Those are the rules.  You see a restaurant that says no shirt, no shoes no service do you expect to walk in with no shoes and get served?  a library book is due back in two weeks, but it takes you three to read, you get fined. I don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet or wear a seatbelt, but I have too.  Rules are rules.  I sure as hell didn't like every rule in the military. But I accepted them when I went in. Why? becasue it was my duty.  I knew what the rules were going in. If I couldn't abide by them I shouldn't have gone in. That's the bottom line.  You don't have to like it but you have to obide by it.  If you can't follow that one simple rule I don't want to depend on you with my life on the line.  it's that simple
Click to expand...


Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?

Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep...it shows that you think of fellow Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve this country, who VOLUNTEER to possibly get killed for this country, who VOLUNTEER to be away from family and home for long deployments in distant, uncomfortable places...are a bunch of thieves.   Why?  because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with.  Because of a policy that thankfully is not gone.
> 
> You call ME a thief.
> 
> You call Seawytch a thief.
> 
> This says nothing negative about us in reality.....it sure says something about YOU tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with*.
> 
> See why does it always have to be about you? Those are the rules.  You see a restaurant that says no shirt, no shoes no service do you expect to walk in with no shoes and get served?  a library book is due back in two weeks, but it takes you three to read, you get fined. I don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet or wear a seatbelt, but I have too.  Rules are rules.  I sure as hell didn't like every rule in the military. But I accepted them when I went in. Why? becasue it was my duty.  I knew what the rules were going in. If I couldn't abide by them I shouldn't have gone in. That's the bottom line.  You don't have to like it but you have to obide by it.  If you can't follow that one simple rule I don't want to depend on you with my life on the line.  it's that simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?
> 
> Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.


----------



## ogibillm

slukasiewski said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Gunny, but I have quite the clue.  I wasn't a Heterosexual Chief.  I was a Navy Chief first and foremost.
> 
> I see no reason heterosexual or homosexual Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and yes Marines can't be Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines first.  For the few assholes that make an issue of it (for or against) you deal with them.  Over time the message get's out - sexual orientation doesn't matter.  What matters is how well you perform your duty.
> 
> That in the end is what *should* matter.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - but why do we have to know that you suck cock? Why even raise the issue?
> I don't recall anyone onboard ship "in my face" about being straight. Do you?
> 
> Keep your filthy lifestyle to yourself dude.
Click to expand...


i can guarantee you that there are members of the military that talk about their sex lives with other members of the military right now.

the only thing dadt will change is gay people can join in the filthy conversations.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with*.
> 
> See why does it always have to be about you? Those are the rules.  You see a restaurant that says no shirt, no shoes no service do you expect to walk in with no shoes and get served?  a library book is due back in two weeks, but it takes you three to read, you get fined. I don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet or wear a seatbelt, but I have too.  Rules are rules.  I sure as hell didn't like every rule in the military. But I accepted them when I went in. Why? becasue it was my duty.  I knew what the rules were going in. If I couldn't abide by them I shouldn't have gone in. That's the bottom line.  You don't have to like it but you have to obide by it.  If you can't follow that one simple rule I don't want to depend on you with my life on the line.  it's that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?
> 
> Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
Click to expand...


Outstanding post!



That's the problem with gays - it's always about them them them.... 

Everyone's out to get them

They are always the victims... 

Pathetic... 

And don't even get me started on their lack of integrity...


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *because of a policy NOT of their making.  Because of a policy they totally disagree with*.
> 
> See why does it always have to be about you? Those are the rules.  You see a restaurant that says no shirt, no shoes no service do you expect to walk in with no shoes and get served?  a library book is due back in two weeks, but it takes you three to read, you get fined. I don't want to wear a motorcycle helmet or wear a seatbelt, but I have too.  Rules are rules.  I sure as hell didn't like every rule in the military. But I accepted them when I went in. Why? becasue it was my duty.  I knew what the rules were going in. If I couldn't abide by them I shouldn't have gone in. That's the bottom line.  You don't have to like it but you have to obide by it.  If you can't follow that one simple rule I don't want to depend on you with my life on the line.  it's that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?
> 
> Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
Click to expand...

You are truely not making sense here.   DADT is gone now.   What is the problem?   I'm happy....you should be happy too.   No more thieves...no more stealing.   Isn't that what you said your problem with gays in the military was?   That gays STOLE training and money?   That's no longer a problem.   You should be 

You should be as happy as my XO and I were when they closed that Pregnancy discharge loophole.


----------



## slukasiewski

ogibillm said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Gunny, but I have quite the clue.  I wasn't a Heterosexual Chief.  I was a Navy Chief first and foremost.
> 
> I see no reason heterosexual or homosexual Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and yes Marines can't be Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines first.  For the few assholes that make an issue of it (for or against) you deal with them.  Over time the message get's out - sexual orientation doesn't matter.  What matters is how well you perform your duty.
> 
> That in the end is what *should* matter.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - but why do we have to know that you suck cock? Why even raise the issue?
> I don't recall anyone onboard ship "in my face" about being straight. Do you?
> 
> Keep your filthy lifestyle to yourself dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can guarantee you that there are members of the military that talk about their sex lives with other members of the military right now.
> 
> the only thing dadt will change is gay people can join in the filthy conversations.
Click to expand...


Oh hell yes, I agree. Back in the CPO mess, we used to watch porn movies all the time! I guess in today's Navy - acceptable porn movies will be two men packing each other's fudge? Yeeeeesh. 

Glad I'm out..


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?
> 
> Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are truely not making sense here.   DADT is gone now.   What is the problem?   I'm happy....you should be happy too.   No more thieves...no more stealing.   Isn't that what you said your problem with gays in the military was?   That gays STOLE training and money?   That's no longer a problem.   You should be
Click to expand...


You are so the typical lib. you don't listen, you don't comprehend. and you definitely have the flair of a drama queen.  Dear god!


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - but why do we have to know that you suck cock? Why even raise the issue?
> I don't recall anyone onboard ship "in my face" about being straight. Do you?
> 
> Keep your filthy lifestyle to yourself dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can guarantee you that there are members of the military that talk about their sex lives with other members of the military right now.
> 
> the only thing dadt will change is gay people can join in the filthy conversations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh hell yes, I agree. Back in the CPO mess, we used to watch porn movies all the time! I guess in today's Navy - acceptable porn movies will be two men packing each other's fudge? Yeeeeesh.
> 
> Glad I'm out..
Click to expand...

 Tonight we will be featuring Brokeback Mountain


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can guarantee you that there are members of the military that talk about their sex lives with other members of the military right now.
> 
> the only thing dadt will change is gay people can join in the filthy conversations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell yes, I agree. Back in the CPO mess, we used to watch porn movies all the time! I guess in today's Navy - acceptable porn movies will be two men packing each other's fudge? Yeeeeesh.
> 
> Glad I'm out..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tonight we will be featuring Brokeback Mountain
Click to expand...


I can't even imagine that being shown aboard ship when I was in!


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?
> 
> Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outstanding post!
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with gays - it's always about them them them....
> 
> Everyone's out to get them
> 
> They are always the victims...
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> And don't even get me started on their lack of integrity...
Click to expand...



You want to talk about integrity, Gh0ster?   You who brag of blanket parties and murdering people by throwing them off the fantail?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - but why do we have to know that you suck cock? Why even raise the issue?
> I don't recall anyone onboard ship "in my face" about being straight. Do you?
> 
> Keep your filthy lifestyle to yourself dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can guarantee you that there are members of the military that talk about their sex lives with other members of the military right now.
> 
> the only thing dadt will change is gay people can join in the filthy conversations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh hell yes, I agree. Back in the CPO mess, we used to watch porn movies all the time! I guess in today's Navy - acceptable porn movies will be two men packing each other's fudge? Yeeeeesh.
> 
> *Glad I'm out*..
Click to expand...


That's what they call a Win/Win.


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh hell yes, I agree. Back in the CPO mess, we used to watch porn movies all the time! I guess in today's Navy - acceptable porn movies will be two men packing each other's fudge? Yeeeeesh.
> 
> Glad I'm out..
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight we will be featuring Brokeback Mountain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't even imagine that being shown aboard ship when I was in!
Click to expand...

 what will happen now, and mark my words this will happen. now that gays have an open door policy there will be those that will start flaunting the shit out of their homosexuality. they will either end up hurt really bad or dead.  it's bound to happen.  and their death will be on the heads of these whining cry babies who just can't leave it alone. who make it all about them.  you can hear it in their posts already.  oooooh I can't wait to talk all about my gay sexual adventures.  We'll see where that goes


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding post!
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with gays - it's always about them them them....
> 
> Everyone's out to get them
> 
> They are always the victims...
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> And don't even get me started on their lack of integrity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk about integrity, Gh0ster?   You who brag of blanket parties and murdering people by throwing them off the fantail?
Click to expand...


Hey, you are going to hear about a lot of acts commited against gays the more they star to come out in the service.  But do you even once ever stop to think about the consequences of your actions? no. it's all about you. as it always is.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight we will be featuring Brokeback Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even imagine that being shown aboard ship when I was in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what will happen now, and mark my words this will happen. now that gays have an open door policy there will be those that will start flaunting the shit out of their homosexuality. they will either end up hurt really bad or dead.  it's bound to happen.  and their death will be on the heads of these whining cry babies who just can't leave it alone. who make it all about them.  you can hear it in their posts already.  oooooh I can't wait to talk all about my gay sexual adventures.  We'll see where that goes
Click to expand...


The bottom line is this - the straights significantly outnumber the polesmokers. 

The polesmokers will continue to be blanket partied aboard ship. Which, is a win/win situation for everyone! Keeping the population correctly pruned aboard ship is important.


----------



## Synthaholic

_*The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

*_Who gives a fuck?  STFU and do your job.


----------



## ogibillm

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding post!
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with gays - it's always about them them them....
> 
> Everyone's out to get them
> 
> They are always the victims...
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> And don't even get me started on their lack of integrity...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk about integrity, Gh0ster?   You who brag of blanket parties and murdering people by throwing them off the fantail?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you are going to hear about a lot of acts commited against gays the more they star to come out in the service.  But do you even once ever stop to think about the consequences of your actions? no. it's all about you. as it always is.
Click to expand...


i'm sorry, i think i'm confused. are you telling me that in your eyes attacks on 'out' service members will be the fault of those members and not those that attack them?

there may very well be some problems - but i think world watcher addressed that rather well. 

i also have to wonder why, when being gay in the military is no longer an issue, somebody would decide to enter the military just to make an issue out of their homosexuality. doesn't seem very likely


----------



## Gunny

ogibillm said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably for the last 18 years under DADT.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you married? anyone you served with married?
Click to expand...


You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.


----------



## slukasiewski

Gunny said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you married? anyone you served with married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
Click to expand...




That about puts every queer in Checkmate, Gunny. 

Great post.


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk about integrity, Gh0ster?   You who brag of blanket parties and murdering people by throwing them off the fantail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you are going to hear about a lot of acts commited against gays the more they star to come out in the service.  But do you even once ever stop to think about the consequences of your actions? no. it's all about you. as it always is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry, i think i'm confused. are you telling me that in your eyes attacks on 'out' service members will be the fault of those members and not those that attack them?
> 
> there may very well be some problems - but i think world watcher addressed that rather well.
> 
> i also have to wonder why, when being gay in the military is no longer an issue, somebody would decide to enter the military just to make an issue out of their homosexuality. doesn't seem very likely
Click to expand...


like i said, you liberal crybabies have blinders to reality. wake up to the real world. you can't legislate someone to accept you.  push something down someones throat and they are likely to push back


----------



## bodecea

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk about integrity, Gh0ster?   You who brag of blanket parties and murdering people by throwing them off the fantail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you are going to hear about a* lot of acts commited against gays the more they star to come out in the service. * But do you even once ever stop to think about the consequences of your actions? no. it's all about you. as it always is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry, i think i'm confused. *are you telling me that in your eyes attacks on 'out' service members will be the fault of those members and not those that attack them*?
> 
> there may very well be some problems - but i think world watcher addressed that rather well.
> 
> i also have to wonder why, when being gay in the military is no longer an issue, somebody would decide to enter the military just to make an issue out of their homosexuality. doesn't seem very likely
Click to expand...



Isn't it amazing?   First gay service members are thieves and now it will be their fault if they are attacked.   Reminds me of abusive spouses.....they always blame the victim...."Look what you made me do.   It's your fault I beat you."

How  sad is THAT?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> You are truely not making sense here.   DADT is gone now.   What is the problem?   I'm happy....you should be happy too.   No more thieves...no more stealing.   Isn't that what you said your problem with gays in the military was?   That gays STOLE training and money?   That's no longer a problem.   You should be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so the typical lib. you don't listen, you don't comprehend. and you definitely have the flair of a drama queen.  Dear god!
Click to expand...


I know...what with ME calling gay vets THIEVES and all.....


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight we will be featuring Brokeback Mountain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even imagine that being shown aboard ship when I was in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what will happen now, and mark my words this will happen. now that gays have an open door policy there will be those that will start flaunting the shit out of their homosexuality. they will either end up hurt really bad or dead.  it's bound to happen.  *and their death will be on the heads of these whining cry babies who just can't leave it alone*. who make it all about them.  you can hear it in their posts already.  oooooh I can't wait to talk all about my gay sexual adventures.  We'll see where that goes
Click to expand...


Amazing....definitely the Wife Beater mentality....


----------



## bodecea

Gunny said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you married? anyone you served with married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
Click to expand...



You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.

I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.



NOT any more tho.


----------



## Gunny

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you married? anyone you served with married?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.
> 
> I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT any more tho.
Click to expand...


Sorry, squid.  I already KNOW your type.

I answered a question asked of me on a political message board.

Try again.  This time use your f-ing mind.  If you can get it out of female berthing long enough.


----------



## Spoonman

ogibillm said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk about integrity, Gh0ster?   You who brag of blanket parties and murdering people by throwing them off the fantail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you are going to hear about a lot of acts commited against gays the more they star to come out in the service.  But do you even once ever stop to think about the consequences of your actions? no. it's all about you. as it always is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry, i think i'm confused. are you telling me that in your eyes attacks on 'out' service members will be the fault of those members and not those that attack them?
> 
> there may very well be some problems - but i think world watcher addressed that rather well.
> 
> i also have to wonder why, when being gay in the military is no longer an issue, somebody would decide to enter the military just to make an issue out of their homosexuality. doesn't seem very likely
Click to expand...


Oh, world watcher   lmao


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you married? anyone you served with married?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.
> 
> I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT any more tho.
Click to expand...


no, but you may end up with a bullet in your back


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even imagine that being shown aboard ship when I was in!
> 
> 
> 
> what will happen now, and mark my words this will happen. now that gays have an open door policy there will be those that will start flaunting the shit out of their homosexuality. they will either end up hurt really bad or dead.  it's bound to happen.  *and their death will be on the heads of these whining cry babies who just can't leave it alone*. who make it all about them.  you can hear it in their posts already.  oooooh I can't wait to talk all about my gay sexual adventures.  We'll see where that goes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing....definitely the Wife Beater mentality....
Click to expand...

mmmmm yea, right


----------



## Colin

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "gays are thieves" problem is solved.   Gays in the military cannot steal their training and pay anymore (as if I believe that was their reason for joining)....why are you still whining?
> 
> Problem solved.  DADT is GONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point once again.  Yet here you are still whining about it. It's always about you, you, you.  and you wonder why, you never get accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Outstanding post!
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with gays - it's always about them them them....
> 
> Everyone's out to get them
> 
> They are always the victims...
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> And don't even get me started on their lack of integrity...
Click to expand...


Funny that! You're giving the distinct impression in this thread that it's all about YOU! When ya gonna come outa the closet pooftah!


----------



## bodecea

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.
> 
> I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT any more tho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, squid.  I already KNOW your type.
> 
> I answered a question asked of me on a political message board.
> 
> Try again.  This time use your f-ing mind.  If you can get it out of female berthing long enough.
Click to expand...



Ah look....  Gunny was trying to insult me.    Better luck next time.   You got my point, alright.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.
> 
> I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT any more tho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, but you may end up with a bullet in your back
Click to expand...



Well, you can always hope, couldn't you Spoonman?   

I appreciate your posts so very much....very insightful.   Very, very insightful.


----------



## slukasiewski

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.
> 
> I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT any more tho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, squid.  I already KNOW your type.
> 
> I answered a question asked of me on a political message board.
> 
> Try again.  This time use your f-ing mind.  If you can get it out of female berthing long enough.
Click to expand...


PWND !!!


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mention that you have a wife, it's normal discussion behavior.
> 
> I mention that I have a wife, I would have been gone.
> 
> 
> 
> NOT any more tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, squid.  I already KNOW your type.
> 
> I answered a question asked of me on a political message board.
> 
> Try again.  This time use your f-ing mind.  If you can get it out of female berthing long enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PWND !!!
Click to expand...


Of course YOU'D think so.


----------



## Gadawg73

There are a few of us old time conservatives that have the discipline,maturity and knowledge to follow the research into and know what is best for our country:

Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban


----------



## slukasiewski

Gadawg73 said:


> There are a few of us old time conservatives that have the discipline,maturity and knowledge to follow the research into and know what is best for our country:
> 
> Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban



He's been retired since 1987. He appears to have gone insane since then...


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few of us old time conservatives that have the discipline,maturity and knowledge to follow the research into and know what is best for our country:
> 
> Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban
> 
> 
> 
> He's been retired since 1987. He appears to have gone insane since then...
Click to expand...

Of course YOU'D think so.


----------



## Gadawg73

slukasiewski said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few of us old time conservatives that have the discipline,maturity and knowledge to follow the research into and know what is best for our country:
> 
> Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's been retired since 1987. He appears to have gone insane since then...
Click to expand...


It does not appear you are insane. It is obvious.
Goldwater wrote that in 1993 and died in 1998. 
You need to read _The Conscience of a Conservative_
The book focuses on discipline and a firmness of principle, things you have trouble with which is unusual for a veteran.
Goldwater despised the milk weak east coast "family values" wimp ass "conservatives" that are undisciplined with their tongues and are not fiscally sound. He transformed the conservative movement from that elitist family values BS east coast organization into the movement that elected Ronald Reagan. 
George Will correctly stated that it took 16 years to count the votes from the 1964 election and Goldwater won.
Take note. You may learn something yet. 

Do you have your 50K up on the table there Fluke?
Or do you want to forget about how wrong you were on that one and admit that you put mouth in motion before brain in gear?


----------



## slukasiewski

Gadawg73 said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few of us old time conservatives that have the discipline,maturity and knowledge to follow the research into and know what is best for our country:
> 
> Barry Goldwater on the Military Ban
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's been retired since 1987. He appears to have gone insane since then...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not appear you are insane. It is obvious.
> Goldwater wrote that in 1993 and died in 1998.
> You need to read _The Conscience of a Conservative_
> The book focuses on discipline and a firmness of principle, things you have trouble with which is unusual for a veteran.
> Goldwater despised the milk weak east coast "family values" wimp ass "conservatives" that are undisciplined with their tongues and are not fiscally sound. He transformed the conservative movement from that elitist family values BS east coast organization into the movement that elected Ronald Reagan.
> George Will correctly stated that it took 16 years to count the votes from the 1964 election and Goldwater won.
> Take note. You may learn something yet.
> 
> Do you have your 50K up on the table there Fluke?
> Or do you want to forget about how wrong you were on that one and admit that you put mouth in motion before brain in gear?
Click to expand...


Please pass along my condolences to his fan club.
I guess the old saying "He'll be sadless missed" doesn't apply here. 
I didn't even know he was dead.


----------



## Gadawg73

slukasiewski said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's been retired since 1987. He appears to have gone insane since then...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not appear you are insane. It is obvious.
> Goldwater wrote that in 1993 and died in 1998.
> You need to read _The Conscience of a Conservative_
> The book focuses on discipline and a firmness of principle, things you have trouble with which is unusual for a veteran.
> Goldwater despised the milk weak east coast "family values" wimp ass "conservatives" that are undisciplined with their tongues and are not fiscally sound. He transformed the conservative movement from that elitist family values BS east coast organization into the movement that elected Ronald Reagan.
> George Will correctly stated that it took 16 years to count the votes from the 1964 election and Goldwater won.
> Take note. You may learn something yet.
> 
> Do you have your 50K up on the table there Fluke?
> Or do you want to forget about how wrong you were on that one and admit that you put mouth in motion before brain in gear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please pass along my condolences to his fan club.
> I guess the old saying "He'll be sadless missed" doesn't apply here.
> I didn't even know he was dead.
Click to expand...


"I didn't even know he was dead"
Really, none of us would have ever guessed that.


----------



## bodecea

Gadawg73 said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not appear you are insane. It is obvious.
> Goldwater wrote that in 1993 and died in 1998.
> You need to read _The Conscience of a Conservative_
> The book focuses on discipline and a firmness of principle, things you have trouble with which is unusual for a veteran.
> Goldwater despised the milk weak east coast "family values" wimp ass "conservatives" that are undisciplined with their tongues and are not fiscally sound. He transformed the conservative movement from that elitist family values BS east coast organization into the movement that elected Ronald Reagan.
> George Will correctly stated that it took 16 years to count the votes from the 1964 election and Goldwater won.
> Take note. You may learn something yet.
> 
> Do you have your 50K up on the table there Fluke?
> Or do you want to forget about how wrong you were on that one and admit that you put mouth in motion before brain in gear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please pass along my condolences to his fan club.
> I guess the old saying "He'll be sadless missed" doesn't apply here.
> I didn't even know he was dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I didn't even know he was dead"
> Really, none of us would have ever guessed that.
Click to expand...


Indeed.   *snicker


----------



## Spoonman

LMAO _ So now AbikerSailor is giving out neg reps because he doesn't agree with me.  Awe poor baby.  You whiney libs are so easy to push.   dude, the only reason you ever joined the navy was to shower with other men.    you are a disgrace to bikers too.  What a joke.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all day and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots.
> 
> Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?
> 
> So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.
> 
> My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.
> 
> I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.
> 
> Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.
> 
> I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.
Click to expand...

Ooooooh looka me, I'm a tough key board warrior.  I'll neg rep you if you don't watch it


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Actually, I have NOTHING to whine and bitch about.  DADT is GONE.  We won.   Seems to me, that the whining and bitching and calling vets thieves is your schtick at this time.



Equality won...


----------



## Seawytch

Gunny said:


> I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.



And why on earth do you assume that gays and lesbians will be "talking shit about _their_ bedroom"? Did your fellow Marines know you were married? If they did, doesn't that constitute "shoving" down peoples throats? If my shipmates had known that *I* had a "wife", I would have been discharged. However, as Bod said, *not anymore*. 

Now, when someone asks "What did you do this weekend?", responding with "I picked out furniture with my partner, (insert name of same sex partner here)...*AND THEY WON'T GET DISCHARGED*. How awesome is that?


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.
> 
> Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.
> 
> Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.
> 
> No.  Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.
> 
> Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all day and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots.
> 
> Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?
> 
> So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.
> 
> My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.
> 
> I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.
> 
> Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.
> 
> I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.
Click to expand...

 
PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.

So, stick a cork in it junior.


----------



## Samson

Seawytch said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth do you assume that gays and lesbians will be "talking shit about _their_ bedroom"? Did your fellow Marines know you were married? If they did, doesn't that constitute "shoving" down peoples throats? If my shipmates had known that *I* had a "wife", I would have been discharged. However, as Bod said, *not anymore*.
> 
> Now, when someone asks "What did you do this weekend?", responding with "I picked out furniture with my partner, (insert name of same sex partner here)...*AND THEY WON'T GET DISCHARGED*. How awesome is that?
Click to expand...


It's a little weird at first, but like any other freak show, eventually people get used to it.


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all day and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots.
> 
> Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?
> 
> So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.
> 
> My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.
> 
> I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.
> 
> Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.
> 
> I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
Click to expand...

 You know it's always the guys who talk tough like GayBIkerSailor who have nothing going for them. the only place they can be tough is behind a keyboard.   Sitting in your parents basement?  Isn't that a lame troll that is so 1990's yahoo?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.
> 
> My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.
> 
> I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.
> 
> Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.
> 
> I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know it's always the guys who talk tough like GayBIkerSailor who have nothing going for them. the only place they can be tough is behind a keyboard.   Sitting in your parents basement?  Isn't that a lame troll that is so 1990's yahoo?
Click to expand...


I find it HIGHLY ironic who you are talking to in that regard.   And Irony makes me laugh.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's always the guys who talk tough like GayBIkerSailor who have nothing going for them. the only place they can be tough is behind a keyboard.   Sitting in your parents basement?  Isn't that a lame troll that is so 1990's yahoo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it HIGHLY ironic who you are talking to in that regard.   And Irony makes me laugh.
Click to expand...


i see you are easily amused


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's always the guys who talk tough like GayBIkerSailor who have nothing going for them. the only place they can be tough is behind a keyboard.   Sitting in your parents basement?  Isn't that a lame troll that is so 1990's yahoo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it HIGHLY ironic who you are talking to in that regard.   And Irony makes me laugh.
Click to expand...


but you know what, i give you a lot of credit.  You take a lot of shit and you do just that. you take it like a man.  You don't bend over and resort to neg reps.  So I respect you for that.


----------



## yota5

Bodecea, I like the new avatar.  However, I think that the original would still spin in her grave.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's always the guys who talk tough like GayBIkerSailor who have nothing going for them. the only place they can be tough is behind a keyboard.   Sitting in your parents basement?  Isn't that a lame troll that is so 1990's yahoo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it HIGHLY ironic who you are talking to in that regard.   And Irony makes me laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see you are easily amused
Click to expand...


You make that sound like a bad thing.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Bodecea, I like the new avatar.  However, I think that the original would still spin in her grave.



did you know her?


----------



## yota5

Seawytch said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth do you assume that gays and lesbians will be "talking shit about _their_ bedroom"? Did your fellow Marines know you were married? If they did, doesn't that constitute "shoving" down peoples throats? If my shipmates had known that *I* had a "wife", I would have been discharged. However, as Bod said, *not anymore*.
> 
> Now, when someone asks "What did you do this weekend?", responding with "I picked out furniture with my partner, (insert name of same sex partner here)...*AND THEY WON'T GET DISCHARGED*. How awesome is that?
Click to expand...


This isn't about winning Seawtch.  It's about combat readiness.  How has this gay victory contributed to the combat readiness of the military?  Taking everything into perspective you could say the USA lost.  That isn't awesome at all is it?

I saw in an earlier post where Gunny said gays have always been allowed to serve honorably.  If that were true why did Clinton establish DADT?


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bodecea, I like the new avatar.  However, I think that the original would still spin in her grave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know her?
Click to expand...


No I never had the pleasure.  However, she really made the Romans sit up, and take notice didn't she?


----------



## Momanohedhunter

yota5 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth do you assume that gays and lesbians will be "talking shit about _their_ bedroom"? Did your fellow Marines know you were married? If they did, doesn't that constitute "shoving" down peoples throats? If my shipmates had known that *I* had a "wife", I would have been discharged. However, as Bod said, *not anymore*.
> 
> Now, when someone asks "What did you do this weekend?", responding with "I picked out furniture with my partner, (insert name of same sex partner here)...*AND THEY WON'T GET DISCHARGED*. How awesome is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't about winning Seawtch.  It's about combat readiness.  How has this gay victory contributed to the combat readiness of the military?  Taking everything into perspective you could say the USA lost.  That isn't awesome at all is it?
> 
> I saw in an earlier post where Gunny said gays have always been allowed to serve honorably.  If that were true why did Clinton establish DADT?
Click to expand...


You still havent said how it detracts from combat readiness.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> I saw in an earlier post where Gunny said gays have always been allowed to serve honorably.  If that were true why did Clinton establish DADT?



Because it's not true. Prior to 1993, gays who had "engaged in homosexual activity" had to lie in order to join the military. Once they lied to get in and then lived in constant fear of discharge for being gay, they could serve quite honorably...but not honestly. DADT was a compromise to what Clinton wanted to do...which was lift the ban. When he tried, right wing heads exploded everywhere and he capitulated to DADT which no longer required that gays and lesbians had to lie simply to join and serve their country.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth do you assume that gays and lesbians will be "talking shit about _their_ bedroom"? Did your fellow Marines know you were married? If they did, doesn't that constitute "shoving" down peoples throats? If my shipmates had known that *I* had a "wife", I would have been discharged. However, as Bod said, *not anymore*.
> 
> Now, when someone asks "What did you do this weekend?", responding with "I picked out furniture with my partner, (insert name of same sex partner here)...*AND THEY WON'T GET DISCHARGED*. How awesome is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't about winning Seawtch.  It's about combat readiness.  How has this gay victory contributed to the combat readiness of the military?  Taking everything into perspective you could say the USA lost.  That isn't awesome at all is it?
Click to expand...


This will be the 2nd or 3rd time I've asked you (and I know others have asked you)...how is combat readiness in any way affected by the knowledge that you are serving with someone gay or lesbian? 25 other countries have lifted their bans on gays serving honestly. Please provide *evidence* that their combat readiness has been negatively affected *AT ALL*.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bodecea, I like the new avatar.  However, I think that the original would still spin in her grave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you know her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I never had the pleasure.  However, she really made the Romans sit up, and take notice didn't she?
Click to expand...


For a while...but in that last battle, her tactics sucked.


----------



## CountofTuscany

Spoonman said:


> LMAO _ So now AbikerSailor is giving out neg reps because he doesn't agree with me.  Awe poor baby.  You whiney libs are so easy to push.   dude, the only reason you ever joined the navy was to shower with other men.    you are a disgrace to bikers too.  What a joke.


What kind of biker neg reps?  What's he drive, a Vespa?


----------



## CountofTuscany

Momanohedhunter said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth do you assume that gays and lesbians will be "talking shit about _their_ bedroom"? Did your fellow Marines know you were married? If they did, doesn't that constitute "shoving" down peoples throats? If my shipmates had known that *I* had a "wife", I would have been discharged. However, as Bod said, *not anymore*.
> 
> Now, when someone asks "What did you do this weekend?", responding with "I picked out furniture with my partner, (insert name of same sex partner here)...*AND THEY WON'T GET DISCHARGED*. How awesome is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about winning Seawtch.  It's about combat readiness.  How has this gay victory contributed to the combat readiness of the military?  Taking everything into perspective you could say the USA lost.  That isn't awesome at all is it?
> 
> I saw in an earlier post where Gunny said gays have always been allowed to serve honorably.  If that were true why did Clinton establish DADT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still havent said how it detracts from combat readiness.
Click to expand...

Does it add to it?


----------



## Seawytch

CountofTuscany said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about winning Seawtch.  It's about combat readiness.  How has this gay victory contributed to the combat readiness of the military?  Taking everything into perspective you could say the USA lost.  That isn't awesome at all is it?
> 
> I saw in an earlier post where Gunny said gays have always been allowed to serve honorably.  If that were true why did Clinton establish DADT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still havent said how it detracts from combat readiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it add to it?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## CountofTuscany

Seawytch said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still havent said how it detracts from combat readiness.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it add to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


How? I'd love to hear someone give a executional advantage rather than a feel good reason why.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> did you know her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I never had the pleasure.  However, she really made the Romans sit up, and take notice didn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a while...but in that last battle, her tactics sucked.
Click to expand...


That may be true, but history will show that she took on the most feared fighting force of her time and almost defeated it.  Lack of maneuverability, operational control, training, tactics, and *discipline* ultimately defeated her.  In spite of that she made an impact.   She lived in 60 AD, yet you and I are still talking about her today, and you use her as an inspirational avatar.


----------



## Gadawg73

CountofTuscany said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it add to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? I'd love to hear someone give a executional advantage rather than a feel good reason why.
Click to expand...


If you signed up today how would you add to combat readiness?
How does anyone add to combat readiness?
And distinguish how a new recruit out of high school adds to combat readiness be they gay or straight.
The argument is that GAYS will negatively affect combat readiness. 
Prove that. You know you can't so admit it.


----------



## CountofTuscany

Gadawg73 said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? I'd love to hear someone give a executional advantage rather than a feel good reason why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you signed up today how would you add to combat readiness?
> How does anyone add to combat readiness?
> And distinguish how a new recruit out of high school adds to combat readiness be they gay or straight.
> The argument is that GAYS will negatively affect combat readiness.
> Prove that. You know you can't so admit it.
Click to expand...


So you can not offer up a benefit is what you are saying?


----------



## Gadawg73

CountofTuscany said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> How? I'd love to hear someone give a executional advantage rather than a feel good reason why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you signed up today how would you add to combat readiness?
> How does anyone add to combat readiness?
> And distinguish how a new recruit out of high school adds to combat readiness be they gay or straight.
> The argument is that GAYS will negatively affect combat readiness.
> Prove that. You know you can't so admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can not offer up a benefit is what you are saying?
Click to expand...


Don't have to offer up any benefit. The military trains everyone and benefits from that.
You have to show that is hurts the military and you can't. You know it so just admit it.
How is a gay person less beneficial to the military?
I am patient and will wait until hell freezes over for your answer. Or you can continue to run from that like a monkey on fire.


----------



## yota5

Currently the United States military is the benchmark by which all others are measured.  Our all volunteer military is the most respected, disciplined, competent, combat ready force in the world.  Gays are not part of this equation because gays can not serve openly in our military.  Adding gays to this equation can only negatively impact the US Military.  If an explanation of how openly serving gays can add to a units combat readiness were available the gay community would have been offered it with great gusto. Yet not one person has come forth.  The reason is that a valid explanation doesn't exist.   The silence of the gay community on this matter validates this assumption.


----------



## pinqy

yota5 said:


> Gays are not part of this equation because gays can not serve openly in our military.


Either you never served, or you had your head in the sand.  Everyone always knows the homosexuals and there are always some.  I think only one person ever surprised me and then it was an "oh, duh," moment.



> Adding gays to this equation can only negatively impact the US Military.


HOW????  I've served with over a dozen homosexuals, all were known as an open secret and it had zero effect on our performance in garrison, in the field, or in a combat zone.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I never had the pleasure.  However, she really made the Romans sit up, and take notice didn't she?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a while...but in that last battle, her tactics sucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true, but history will show that she took on the most feared fighting force of her time and almost defeated it.  Lack of maneuverability, operational control, training, tactics, and *discipline* ultimately defeated her.  In spite of that she made an impact.   She lived in 60 AD, yet you and I are still talking about her today, and you use her as an inspirational avatar.
Click to expand...


Yep, and also because I'm mostly Celt.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Currently the United States military is the benchmark by which all others are measured.  Our all volunteer military is the most respected, disciplined, competent, combat ready force in the world. * Gays are not part of this equation *because gays can not serve openly in our military.  Adding gays to this equation can only negatively impact the US Military.  If an explanation of how openly serving gays can add to a units combat readiness were available the gay community would have been offered it with great gusto. Yet not one person has come forth.  The reason is that a valid explanation doesn't exist.   The silence of the gay community on this matter validates this assumption.



We most certainly ARE part of the equation.  We are in all branches of the military.   You can deny all you want...but we are there...in large enough numbers that it HURTS readiness when we are discharged.


----------



## Steve Hanson

CountofTuscany said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO _ So now AbikerSailor is giving out neg reps because he doesn't agree with me.  Awe poor baby.  You whiney libs are so easy to push.   dude, the only reason you ever joined the navy was to shower with other men.    you are a disgrace to bikers too.  What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of biker neg reps?  What's he drive, a Vespa?
Click to expand...


He doesn't talk 88 cu in, he talks 80 cc   I'll bet he rides around with an American flag dorag too.


----------



## Steve Hanson

IDK, My feelings are if you are in the military and you're worried that your sexual preference is front and center you sure as shit don't belong there.  The military is no dating service.  So sexual preference shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the United States military is the benchmark by which all others are measured.  Our all volunteer military is the most respected, disciplined, competent, combat ready force in the world. * Gays are not part of this equation *because gays can not serve openly in our military.  Adding gays to this equation can only negatively impact the US Military.  If an explanation of how openly serving gays can add to a units combat readiness were available the gay community would have been offered it with great gusto. Yet not one person has come forth.  The reason is that a valid explanation doesn't exist.   The silence of the gay community on this matter validates this assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We most certainly ARE part of the equation.  We are in all branches of the military.   You can deny all you want...but we are there...in large enough numbers that it HURTS readiness when we are discharged.
Click to expand...


That is true.  Gays are present.  The rest of the story is that gays don't serve openly.  that is the reason that their presence doesn't affect morale, unit cohesion, and discipline.  When gays out themselves through action or declaration the are discharged dis honorably, or as undesirable.  The 16,000 gays discharged under DADT hasn't affected combat readiness by one iota.  This action is viewed by the troops as an enforcement of high standards, and is consistent with military tradition.


----------



## SFC Ollie

What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with. 

Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass. 

Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)

And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....

(2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)

I think some numbers are inflated......


----------



## Steve Hanson

SFC Ollie said:


> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......



Funny too how they served honorably and quitely all those years. Why the big stink about it all of a sudden?


----------



## SFC Ollie

No clue, but it's being done and it will be implemented soon. We can only hope for the best.


----------



## yota5

SFC Ollie said:


> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyone's ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......



Your experience parallels mine SFC Ollie.  I only knew two.  I caught them doing the nasty.  I was on Bn Staff Duty in the process of doing HQ Battery bed check when that ocurred.  They were gone  the next day.  Other then that I can't remember any other rump rangers running around.


----------



## iggy pop

PHP:
	






CountofTuscany said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO _ So now AbikerSailor is giving out neg reps because he doesn't agree with me.  Awe poor baby.  You whiney libs are so easy to push.   dude, the only reason you ever joined the navy was to shower with other men.    you are a disgrace to bikers too.  What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of biker neg reps?  What's he drive, a Vespa?
Click to expand...


Any one who negs has been totally powned. Fact.


----------



## bodecea

iggy pop said:


> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO _ So now AbikerSailor is giving out neg reps because he doesn't agree with me.  Awe poor baby.  You whiney libs are so easy to push.   dude, the only reason you ever joined the navy was to shower with other men.    you are a disgrace to bikers too.  What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of biker neg reps?  What's he drive, a Vespa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any one who negs has been totally powned. Fact.
Click to expand...


"Powned"?   That's a new one.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of biker neg reps?  What's he drive, a Vespa?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any one who negs has been totally powned. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Powned"?   That's a new one.
Click to expand...


Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any one who negs has been totally powned. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powned"?   That's a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
Click to expand...


"powned" is 10 years old?   Seriously?


I don't think so.

Now...if you are talking about "pawned"  or "pwned"....I know about those.


But I HAVE to push the gay agenda....it's how I get my kitchen appliances like toaster ovens.


----------



## slukasiewski

The Mods should close this thread. The "Gheys" would have to find another venue to vent their filth. Maybe GaySpeak.com would accept their membership applications.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any one who negs has been totally powned. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powned"?   That's a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
Click to expand...




I'm STRAIGHT
I'm STRAIGHT
I'm STRAIGHT !!!!!

Gee - wouldn't that be an idiotic thing to drumbeat.


----------



## Colin

slukasiewski said:


> The Mods should close this thread. The "Gheys" would have to find another venue to vent their filth. Maybe GaySpeak.com would accept their membership applications.



Arseholes incorporated would certainly accept yours!


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Powned"?   That's a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "powned" is 10 years old?   Seriously?
> 
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> Now...if you are talking about "pawned"  or "pwned"....I know about those.
> 
> 
> But I HAVE to push the gay agenda....it's how I get my kitchen appliances like toaster ovens.
Click to expand...

no powned is about 10 yrs old.  

in matching colors I hope


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Powned"?   That's a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT !!!!!
> 
> Gee - wouldn't that be an idiotic thing to drumbeat.
Click to expand...

i want a straight pride parade so i can ride down the street in the back of a pickup truck in coveralls, drinking beer, scratching my nuts and belching.  of course I'll have two day stubble as well


----------



## slukasiewski

Colin said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mods should close this thread. The "Gheys" would have to find another venue to vent their filth. Maybe GaySpeak.com would accept their membership applications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arseholes incorporated would certainly accept yours!
Click to expand...


Hey look Chief, I mean E7, you don't have to be so nasty.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT !!!!!
> 
> Gee - wouldn't that be an idiotic thing to drumbeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i want a straight pride parade so i can ride down the street in the back of a pickup truck in coveralls, drinking beer, scratching my nuts and belching.  of course I'll have two day stubble as well
Click to expand...


Isn't Mardi Gras billed as a "Straight" parade? 

LOL !!!!

I never saw so many transvestite freakshows in my life as that one. 

Thank God there are some "family value" based events in communities across the country. 

Leave the filth at home, in the bedroom - or behind the dumpster.


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT !!!!!
> 
> Gee - wouldn't that be an idiotic thing to drumbeat.
> 
> 
> 
> i want a straight pride parade so i can ride down the street in the back of a pickup truck in coveralls, drinking beer, scratching my nuts and belching.  of course I'll have two day stubble as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't Mardi Gras billed as a "Straight" parade?
> 
> LOL !!!!
> 
> I never saw so many transvestite freakshows in my life as that one.
> 
> Thank God there are some "family value" based events in communities across the country.
> 
> Leave the filth at home, in the bedroom - or behind the dumpster.
Click to expand...

I work for a company that has a lot of gays.  we have a very well defined dress code. People have been warned, even written up about innapropriate dress.  I don't understand how they get away with what they wear. some of them anyway.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> The Mods should close this thread. The "Gheys" would have to find another venue to vent their filth. Maybe GaySpeak.com would accept their membership applications.



I'm sorry you don't like this thread.   Who's the big meany  making you post here?


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i want a straight pride parade so i can ride down the street in the back of a pickup truck in coveralls, drinking beer, scratching my nuts and belching.  of course I'll have two day stubble as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Mardi Gras billed as a "Straight" parade?
> 
> LOL !!!!
> 
> I never saw so many transvestite freakshows in my life as that one.
> 
> Thank God there are some "family value" based events in communities across the country.
> 
> Leave the filth at home, in the bedroom - or behind the dumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work for a company that has a lot of gays.  we have a very well defined dress code. People have been warned, even written up about innapropriate dress.  I don't understand how they get away with what they wear. some of them anyway.
Click to expand...


what do they wear?
like "pasties" and shit?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Powned"?   That's a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT !!!!!
> 
> Gee - wouldn't that be an idiotic thing to drumbeat.
Click to expand...


Particularly for you.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's like 10 years old.  stop pushing the gay agenda and pay attention to the real world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT
> I'm STRAIGHT !!!!!
> 
> Gee - wouldn't that be an idiotic thing to drumbeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i want a straight pride parade so i can ride down the street in the back of a pickup truck in coveralls, drinking beer, scratching my nuts and belching.  of course I'll have two day stubble as well
Click to expand...



Mardi Gras then?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i want a straight pride parade so i can ride down the street in the back of a pickup truck in coveralls, drinking beer, scratching my nuts and belching.  of course I'll have two day stubble as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Mardi Gras billed as a "Straight" parade?
> 
> LOL !!!!
> 
> I never saw so many transvestite freakshows in my life as that one.
> 
> Thank God there are some "family value" based events in communities across the country.
> 
> Leave the filth at home, in the bedroom - or behind the dumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I work for a company that has a lot of gays.  we have a very well defined dress code. People have been warned, even written up about innapropriate dress.  I don't understand how they get away with what they wear. some of them anyway.
Click to expand...


Some of "them"?


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Mardi Gras billed as a "Straight" parade?
> 
> LOL !!!!
> 
> I never saw so many transvestite freakshows in my life as that one.
> 
> Thank God there are some "family value" based events in communities across the country.
> 
> Leave the filth at home, in the bedroom - or behind the dumpster.
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a company that has a lot of gays.  we have a very well defined dress code. People have been warned, even written up about innapropriate dress.  I don't understand how they get away with what they wear. some of them anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what do they wear?
> like "pasties" and shit?
Click to expand...


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were an Admin puke who jerked off in the Ship's Office to service records all day and kept your nose up the CO/XO's ass all day. No surprised you were attracted to/met all the shipboard freaks. Most Admin pukes were indeed faggots.
> 
> Do you know why the Navy created the RP rating?
> 
> So faggots like you would have someone to date at the Navy Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.
> 
> My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.
> 
> I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.
> 
> Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.
> 
> I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
Click to expand...



Tell ya what you retarded colon jousting goo gobbling cock monster, I'll give you a name........LT Roux who served at the Naval War College in the mid 90's, was my OIC at the PSD.  Because during that summer, I'd ridden a bicycle from Jacksonville Fl to Newport RI in 12 days (1100 miles in 12 days, average was 93 miles/day), he called me into his office and asked me if I'd be the PRT Coordinator.  I told him yes, but during the time that I was supposed to be in charge (positional authority), he had to follow what I instructed.  

He was cool with that.

Prior to my taking over?  We had a couple of outstandings, one or two excellents, with mostly sat, with maybe 2 unsats.  6 months after I took over?  Several outstandings (of which the LT and I competed for bragging rights to be the highest command score, and it usually ended up being only separated by 1 or 2 points.  Most of the others were excellents, with one or two sats.  After my performance on the first cycle, the PRT job was mine until I left Newport.  On occasion, some of his fellow OIC's would come around and ask him how he turned his whole PRT program around.  If he liked them, he'd bring 'em by my desk and introduce me as his "secret weapon". 

So tell ya what chumpsteak, go beat your chest (or whatever it is that you usually beat), and quit bugging me.  You ain't impressing anyone here.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....sure.........PN is also one of the few rates allowed into the SEALs, which is why I chose it, however, I didn't qualify for SEALs because my vision wasn't able to be corrected to standards.
> 
> My other qualifications are as such.......At Sea fire party (nozzleman), NBC Warfare Team (was decontamination station monitor), Security Force qualified, PRT Coordinator, DAPA, and have had 2 fully independent duty stations onboard an MSC vessel, as well as LPO of Amarillo MEPS Navy office.
> 
> I still ride 10 plus miles/day (at 46) and am quite confident that some chump steak such as yourself probably separated after their first enlistment, due to not being able to hack it.
> 
> Try again ya sperm slurpling retarded cock monkey.  Go find someone else's butt to sniff around, because you sure as fuck ain't impressing me.
> 
> I'm guessing that you went back to your parent's basement when you got out, and are still living there rent free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what you retarded colon jousting goo gobbling cock monster, I'll give you a name........LT Roux who served at the Naval War College in the mid 90's, was my OIC at the PSD.  Because during that summer, I'd ridden a bicycle from Jacksonville Fl to Newport RI in 12 days (1100 miles in 12 days, average was 93 miles/day), he called me into his office and asked me if I'd be the PRT Coordinator.  I told him yes, but during the time that I was supposed to be in charge (positional authority), he had to follow what I instructed.
> 
> He was cool with that.
> 
> Prior to my taking over?  We had a couple of outstandings, one or two excellents, with mostly sat, with maybe 2 unsats.  6 months after I took over?  Several outstandings (of which the LT and I competed for bragging rights to be the highest command score, and it usually ended up being only separated by 1 or 2 points.  Most of the others were excellents, with one or two sats.  After my performance on the first cycle, the PRT job was mine until I left Newport.  On occasion, some of his fellow OIC's would come around and ask him how he turned his whole PRT program around.  If he liked them, he'd bring 'em by my desk and introduce me as his "secret weapon".
> 
> So tell ya what chumpsteak, go beat your chest (or whatever it is that you usually beat), and quit bugging me.  You ain't impressing anyone here.
Click to expand...


50 bucks says you removed the seat from the seat mounting tube before riding


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> PN is certainly one of the rates permitted in the Seals. The boys need SOMEONE to dance with. I think RPs are allowed to. Your quals are "mediocre." I too was on at At-Sea Fireparty - but was the on-scene leader - was also (when in khaki's, which you never achieved) on some damned DC team - don't remember what we called it - that went around evaluating NBC teams and other flunkies like you who were non-essential, so we put them on repair party duties. You know - sitting around all day at GQ with their thumbs up their ass. I didn't coordinate the PT program - I managed it, served countless independent duty tours (including two OIC tours) and at 48 - still manage to run 100 miles a week.
> 
> So, stick a cork in it junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what you retarded colon jousting goo gobbling cock monster, I'll give you a name........LT Roux who served at the Naval War College in the mid 90's, was my OIC at the PSD.  Because during that summer, I'd ridden a bicycle from Jacksonville Fl to Newport RI in 12 days (1100 miles in 12 days, average was 93 miles/day), he called me into his office and asked me if I'd be the PRT Coordinator.  I told him yes, but during the time that I was supposed to be in charge (positional authority), he had to follow what I instructed.
> 
> He was cool with that.
> 
> Prior to my taking over?  We had a couple of outstandings, one or two excellents, with mostly sat, with maybe 2 unsats.  6 months after I took over?  Several outstandings (of which the LT and I competed for bragging rights to be the highest command score, and it usually ended up being only separated by 1 or 2 points.  Most of the others were excellents, with one or two sats.  After my performance on the first cycle, the PRT job was mine until I left Newport.  On occasion, some of his fellow OIC's would come around and ask him how he turned his whole PRT program around.  If he liked them, he'd bring 'em by my desk and introduce me as his "secret weapon".
> 
> So tell ya what chumpsteak, go beat your chest (or whatever it is that you usually beat), and quit bugging me.  You ain't impressing anyone here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 bucks says you removed the seat from the seat mounting tube before riding
Click to expand...


Really?  I'd like to see ya cover that bet asshole.

I used to race, and yeah........I've had a seat post bolt explode from under me.

No.  You can't ride a bike without a seat.

Where's my fifty bucks asshole?


----------



## Seawytch

CountofTuscany said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it add to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? I'd love to hear someone give a executional advantage rather than a feel good reason why.
Click to expand...


If you can't see how NOT discharging a qualified individual for the non-familial consenting adult they have relations with adds to combat readiness, then we can't help you. We are an ALL VOLUNTEER military. Someone _willing _to volunteer and serve adds to combat readiness.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Currently the United States military is the benchmark by which all others are measured.  Our all volunteer military is the most respected, disciplined, competent, combat ready force in the world.  Gays are not part of this equation because gays can not serve openly in our military.  Adding gays to this equation can only negatively impact the US Military.  If an explanation of how openly serving gays can add to a units combat readiness were available the gay community would have been offered it with great gusto. Yet not one person has come forth.  The reason is that a valid explanation doesn't exist.   The silence of the gay community on this matter validates this assumption.



This makes four or five...


Please provide *evidence *that honestly serving gays and lesbians has a negative affect on combat readiness. Here's a list of the countries with no gay ban. Please tell us how their combat readiness has been negatively affected by their lifting their bans.

Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
UK
Uruguay


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......



You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously? 

Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay. 

What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.


----------



## yota5

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?
> 
> Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.
> 
> What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.
Click to expand...


My experience parallels SFC Ollie's.  I don't doubt that there were that 2 % of the units that you served with were comprised of gays, and lesbians.  Although I would have considered those units compromised.  The fact that you knew of this population isn't surprising.  The gay community's attraction for one another is well documented.  You folks are aware of the telling signs.  Heterosexuals aren't as aware.  

The key here is that you folks didn't serve openly.  Therefore you didn't have an impact on unit cohesion, and combat readiness.  DADT took care of the ones who weren't as discrete as you were.   

Combat readiness, seawtch, it's all about combat readiness.  Not everyone has the right to serve in the military.


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?
> 
> Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.
> 
> What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My experience parallels SFC Ollie's.  I don't doubt that there were that 2 % of the units that you served with were comprised of gays, and lesbians.  Although I would have considered those units compromised.  The fact that you knew of this population isn't surprising.  The gay community's attraction for one another is well documented.  You folks are aware of the telling signs.  Heterosexuals aren't as aware.
> 
> The key here is that you folks didn't serve openly.  Therefore you didn't have an impact on unit cohesion, and combat readiness.  DADT took care of the ones who weren't as discrete as you were.
> 
> Combat readiness, seawtch, it's all about combat readiness.  Not everyone has the right to serve in the military.
Click to expand...


So..what you are telling us is that the problem IS NOT with gay soldiers and sailors, it's with the straight soldiers and sailors' perceptions.    Really?  That's OUR problem?


----------



## Dot Com

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?
> 
> Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.
> 
> What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience parallels SFC Ollie's.  I don't doubt that there were that 2 % of the units that you served with were comprised of gays, and lesbians.  Although I would have considered those units compromised.  The fact that you knew of this population isn't surprising.  The gay community's attraction for one another is well documented.  You folks are aware of the telling signs.  Heterosexuals aren't as aware.
> 
> The key here is that you folks didn't serve openly.  Therefore you didn't have an impact on unit cohesion, and combat readiness.  DADT took care of the ones who weren't as discrete as you were.
> 
> Combat readiness, seawtch, it's all about combat readiness.  Not everyone has the right to serve in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So..what you are telling us is that the problem IS NOT with gay soldiers and sailors, it's with the straight soldiers and sailors' perceptions.    Really?  That's OUR problem?
Click to expand...


Agreed. They need to do like Angle said and "man up". The only ones who seem to have a problem are usually the closeted ones  I was in the military and people did their f'ing jobs as opposed to trying to guess who swings which way.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?
> 
> Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.
> 
> What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.
Click to expand...


You know........I was a PN, and because of my job, I knew just about everything that was in everyone's service record, and, because I knew how to keep my mouth shut, everyone on the ship trusted me.  I generally knew who was gay in every command that I was at.  Some of the best friends I've had in the military have been gay, and know what?  It was a great relief to many of them to be able to have someone they could talk with when shit was going wonky at home who wouldn't judge them for being anything other than human and a fellow sailor.

If a person is unable to contact their SO while they are deployed, or if something goes seriously wrong back home, gays have no recourse other than to suck it up.  Have any of you been on deployment and a family member or your SO is sick, or about ready to leave you?  I have, and it SUCKS.  My ex wife Donna decided to start cheating on me while I was on a 2 1/2 month shakedown cruise on the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN-73) , and that was probably one of the toughest dets I ever went on, because I got mail for the first 2 weeks, and in the second week of mail, I knew something was going on, and then, no mail.

Additionally, SFC Ollie brought up an interesting point about the 2 lesbians he worked with.  He said that they were some of the best people he'd had working for him and he was sorry to lose them.

Guess what?  Because I was the PN, and generally did all the advancement worksheets every cycle, I knew who had the most awards and the highest eval averages.  And, because I knew who was gay in the command, I noticed something........gays almost ALWAYS had more awards, with higher eval averages than most straights.  Wanna know why?  Because they grew up practicing attention to detail and covering their bases.

No.  Letting gays serve openly will NOT impact readiness or effectiveness.  When the knuckle draggers who believe they will are either kicked out for being bigoted assholes or get out because they can't stomach the thought of serving with them, well.....the military will be better off.

Incidentally, did you know that the US is the only NATO country that bans gays?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!


----------



## CountofTuscany

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!



I think too much is being made of something best left alone.


----------



## yota5

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the United States military is the benchmark by which all others are measured.  Our all volunteer military is the most respected, disciplined, competent, combat ready force in the world.  Gays are not part of this equation because gays can not serve openly in our military.  Adding gays to this equation can only negatively impact the US Military.  If an explanation of how openly serving gays can add to a units combat readiness were available the gay community would have been offered it with great gusto. Yet not one person has come forth.  The reason is that a valid explanation doesn't exist.   The silence of the gay community on this matter validates this assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This makes four or five...
> 
> 
> Please provide *evidence *that honestly serving gays and lesbians has a negative affect on combat readiness. Here's a list of the countries with no gay ban. Please tell us how their combat readiness has been negatively affected by their lifting their bans.
> 
> Austria
> Belgium
> Canada
> Czech Republic
> Denmark
> Estonia
> Finland
> France
> Germany
> Ireland
> Israel
> Italy
> Lithuania
> Luxembourg
> Netherlands
> New Zealand
> Norway
> Slovenia
> South Africa
> Spain
> Sweden
> Switzerland
> Taiwan
> UK
> Uruguay
Click to expand...


*Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. * As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA.   They really fell flat on their faces didn't they.  You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed.   I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.  

That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for.  Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason.  They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found.  Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.  

Only a sexual deviant can tell if another lurks nearby.  The rest of us don't know the telling signs to look for.  Under DADT if you didn't tell, dressed right dressed, and held on center mass everything was cool.  If you weren't discreet and you were found out you were gone before you could affect unit cohesion, and combat readiness.  Again, that is why the numbers that your requested don't exist.  You already know this.  

I will ask you this question again.  Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness.  These numbers don't exist either.  I'll bet you know the reason for that too.  

It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA.  Serving is an earned privilege.  This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards.  Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard.  I'll bet that you knew this too.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What actually amazes me is that I spent 22 years on active duty and I didn't see or know about all these Gays I was serving with.
> 
> Granted I'm no Einstein, But I am fairly educated and fairly decorated and I didn't spend those 22 years with my head in the sand or up anyones ass.
> 
> Trying really hard to remember the incidents with gays and I can only remember 3. Two females who I was sorry to lose (They were the best repair personnel I had at the time)
> 
> And one kid in AIT who we caught with a dozen X rated Gay VCR tapes. I just never saw or knew about all these gays that so many describe here....
> 
> (2 child molesters over the years, they were gone really fast, both caught with their own kids.)
> 
> I think some numbers are inflated......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?
> 
> Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.
> 
> What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My experience parallels SFC Ollie's.  I don't doubt that there were that 2 % of the units that you served with were comprised of gays, and lesbians.  Although I would have considered those units compromised.  The fact that you knew of this population isn't surprising.  The gay community's attraction for one another is well documented.  You folks are aware of the telling signs.  Heterosexuals aren't as aware.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO! You couldn't be more wrong. We are just a clueless about our "own kind" as the rest of the population. I didn't know who was gay by looking at them and was quite often very surprised at who turned out to actually be gay. I was often even more shocked at who wasn't.  

What usually DID happen is that we would run into each other in places often frequented by gays and lesbians. Once you knew one or two people at the base, they usually knew one or two other people and pretty soon you knew who was and who wasn't. There is no secret handshake.  



> The key here is that you folks didn't serve openly.  Therefore you didn't have an impact on unit cohesion, and combat readiness.  DADT took care of the ones who weren't as discrete as you were.
> 
> Combat readiness, seawtch, it's all about combat readiness.  Not everyone has the right to serve in the military.



And you have yet to show how honestly serving gays and lesbians will have any impact on combat readiness. Zero, zip, nada.


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!



That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".


----------



## ogibillm

Gunny said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Homosexuals have been allowed to serve honorably since the US Military came into being.  People like you with your political agendas have NO clue what serving in the military means.
> 
> I was not a "heterosexual Marine."  I AM a Marine, period.  I don't recall even once my sexual preferences coming in conflict with my duties as a Marine, nor even once that I felt the need to proclaim "hey, I'm normal and like women".
> 
> When one must define one's self by his/her sexual deviance -- what a sorry fuck that is and I don't want you in MY unit.  I want Marines.  What you do in your off time is YOUR business.  Keep it to yourself.  ESPECIALLY if your behavior is deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you married? anyone you served with married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a point? Marriage is not a prerequisite to military service.  I sure as  Hell didn't disrespect my wife talking shit about our bedroom in the workplace, nor did I shove my wife down any of my Marine's throats.
Click to expand...


you so much as mention that you're married and by your standard you're making a big deal out of your heterosexuality. I bet people around you and you yourself did it all the time. I know i've met the spouses of the men and women my wife serves with. they've met me... we're they forcing their heterosexuality on anyone?

but you want a different standard for homosexuals. they shouldn't be allowed to mention their significant others or relationships. 

use your fucking head.


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You served prior to and during DADT...when gays and lesbians, whose sexual orientation was found out, were discharged (sometimes with dishonorable depending how long ago you served)...and you are surprised that you didn't know of more? Seriously?
> 
> Guess what? You can't tell by looking at them if someone is gay.
> 
> What I found, in my 20 years of service, is that about 2% of the units where I've been station, were comprised of gays and lesbians. From the smallest station to the largest training center, 2% held steady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience parallels SFC Ollie's.  I don't doubt that there were that 2 % of the units that you served with were comprised of gays, and lesbians.  Although I would have considered those units compromised.  The fact that you knew of this population isn't surprising.  The gay community's attraction for one another is well documented.  You folks are aware of the telling signs.  Heterosexuals aren't as aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! You couldn't be more wrong. We are just a clueless about our "own kind" as the rest of the population. I didn't know who was gay by looking at them and was quite often very surprised at who turned out to actually be gay. I was often even more shocked at who wasn't.
> 
> What usually DID happen is that we would run into each other in places often frequented by gays and lesbians. Once you knew one or two people at the base, they usually knew one or two other people and pretty soon you knew who was and who wasn't. There is no secret handshake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key here is that you folks didn't serve openly.  Therefore you didn't have an impact on unit cohesion, and combat readiness.  DADT took care of the ones who weren't as discrete as you were.
> 
> Combat readiness, seawtch, it's all about combat readiness.  Not everyone has the right to serve in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have yet to show how honestly serving gays and lesbians will have any impact on combat readiness. Zero, zip, nada.
Click to expand...


so you are saying gaydar isn't real


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".
Click to expand...


Uhm dude. I'm guessing i could tell a very high percentage of the people who are gay. it really isn't that hard.


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> *Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. * As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA.   They really fell flat on their faces didn't they.  You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed.   I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.



Nobody is disputing the superiority of our military...but it has nothing to do with closeting the gays and lesbians in the ranks. 



> That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for.  Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason.  They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found.  Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.



You are (not very effectively I might add) dodging the question. 25 countries stopped discharging their gays and lesbians. 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve honestly without the fear of discharge for their consenting adult behavior. You are incessantly claiming that honestly serving gays and lesbians will harm combat readiness. Surely among these *25 countries, including all our allies*, you should be able to find a *shred* of evidence of your claims. You can't. With such overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim, that leaves only one conclusion...that you are a hateful bigot who is full of shit. 



> I will ask you this question again.  Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness.  These numbers don't exist either.  I'll bet you know the reason for that too.



So, there is zero evidence that honestly serving gays will detract from combat readiness and yet you STILL want to keep a draconian law in place that requires gays and lesbians to serve under a completely different set of rules and regulations than heterosexuals serve under. Why? So that you don't have to KNOW there are "icky gays" covering your miserable ass in a firefight? That seems awfully bigoted, homophobic and self serving. That sure seems like the more "deviant" behavior than two people having * consensual* sex. 



> It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA.  Serving is an earned privilege.  This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards.  Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard.  I'll bet that you knew this too.



Well, since sexual orientation isn't "sexual deviance", you are shooting blanks.


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. * As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA.   They really fell flat on their faces didn't they.  You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed.   I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is disputing the superiority of our military...but it has nothing to do with closeting the gays and lesbians in the ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for.  Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason.  They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found.  Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are (not very effectively I might add) dodging the question. 25 countries stopped discharging their gays and lesbians. 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve honestly without the fear of discharge for their consenting adult behavior. You are incessantly claiming that honestly serving gays and lesbians will harm combat readiness. Surely among these *25 countries, including all our allies*, you should be able to find a *shred* of evidence of your claims. You can't. With such overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim, that leaves only one conclusion...that you are a hateful bigot who is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you this question again.  Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness.  These numbers don't exist either.  I'll bet you know the reason for that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there is zero evidence that honestly serving gays will detract from combat readiness and yet you STILL want to keep a draconian law in place that requires gays and lesbians to serve under a completely different set of rules and regulations than heterosexuals serve under. Why? So that you don't have to KNOW there are "icky gays" covering your miserable ass in a firefight? That seems awfully bigoted, homophobic and self serving. That sure seems like the more "deviant" behavior than two people having * consensual* sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA.  Serving is an earned privilege.  This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards.  Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard.  I'll bet that you knew this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since sexual orientation isn't "sexual deviance", you are shooting blanks.
Click to expand...


holy crap dude  TLR

seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.


----------



## Valerie

Seawytch said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Seawtch, not one of the countries listed is even close to being on the same level as the U.S. Military. * As I've already stated the U.S. Military is the benchmark from which all others are judged. One only has to look at NATO's performance in Libya since they've accepted command and control from the USA.   They really fell flat on their faces didn't they.  You and your minions of rump rangers want to drag the U.S. Military down to the standards of the countries that you listed.   I can't see how that would be in the best interests of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is disputing the superiority of our military...but it has nothing to do with closeting the gays and lesbians in the ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That little sexually deviant brain of yours asked me a specific question that you know the data isn't available for.  Gays didn't affect combat readiness for one reason.  They were all discharge dishonorably, or as undesirable where they were found.  Even at MEPS during the induction physical if evidence were found that you'd been letting another sexual deviant ride dirty you weren't allowed to enlist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are (not very effectively I might add) dodging the question. 25 countries stopped discharging their gays and lesbians. 25 countries allow gays and lesbians to serve honestly without the fear of discharge for their consenting adult behavior. You are incessantly claiming that honestly serving gays and lesbians will harm combat readiness. Surely among these *25 countries, including all our allies*, you should be able to find a *shred* of evidence of your claims. You can't. With such overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim, that leaves only one conclusion...that you are a hateful bigot who is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you this question again.  Show credible evidence of how openly serving gays will add to a units combat readiness.  These numbers don't exist either.  I'll bet you know the reason for that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, there is zero evidence that honestly serving gays will detract from combat readiness and yet you STILL want to keep a draconian law in place that requires gays and lesbians to serve under a completely different set of rules and regulations than heterosexuals serve under. Why? So that you don't have to KNOW there are "icky gays" covering your miserable ass in a firefight? That seems awfully bigoted, homophobic and self serving. That sure seems like the more "deviant" behavior than two people having * consensual* sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a right to serve in the armed forces of the USA.  Serving is an earned privilege.  This privilege is earned by meeting or exceeding accepted standards.  Sexual deviance isn't an accepted standard.  I'll bet that you knew this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since sexual orientation isn't "sexual deviance", you are shooting blanks.
Click to expand...




Yes, not to mention it goes against our basic principles of individual freedom which our forces fight for in the first place.  If an individual is combat ready in every other way there should be no need for them to be secretive about who they are.  The soldier who can't handle that knowledge is the one who is not combat ready...


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, seems like the only people who could tell if a person was gay are the people advocating the repeal of DADT. The rest of us haven't a clue. Strange!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm dude. I'm guessing i could tell a very high percentage of the people who are gay. it really isn't that hard.
Click to expand...


Uh miss, not in the military you wouldn't. The *stereotypical* gay man does not join the military. You might _think_ you can guess some of the women and statistically you might end up being more right than wrong, but I guarantee that you will get some of the women wrong. (I know I did )


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point Ollie, you usually CAN'T tell if someone is gay. They have to TELL you. If you don't want to know, don't ask. Most gays and lesbian will not just walk up to you and say "Hi, I'm Al and I'm gay".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm dude. I'm guessing i could tell a very high percentage of the people who are gay. it really isn't that hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh miss, not in the military you wouldn't. The *stereotypical* gay man does not join the military. You might _think_ you can guess some of the women and statistically you might end up being more right than wrong, but I guarantee that you will get some of the women wrong. (I know I did )
Click to expand...


Gay women I can always tell.  they are the ones who don't make passes at me


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.



I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst". 

I _lived_ through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".
> 
> I _lived_ through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?
Click to expand...


I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally.  But I am who i am and I'm not changing.  So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold.  My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it.  lol   Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me.  Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are.  It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.

I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference.  Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it.  I don't know what the right answer is.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously, you are getting you panties knotted over this gay thing way to far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".
> 
> I _lived_ through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally.  But I am who i am and I'm not changing.  So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold.  My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it.  lol   Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me.  Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are.  It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.
> 
> I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference.  Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it.  I don't know what the right answer is.
Click to expand...


The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".


----------



## Seawytch

Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT&#8217;s End

_The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.

In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."_


----------



## Gadawg73

Seawytch said:


> Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADTs End
> 
> _The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.
> 
> In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
> 
> "I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."_



Going, going, going............................GONE.
This subject will soon be a non-subject.


----------



## yota5

Seawytch said:


> Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADTs End
> 
> _The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.
> 
> In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
> 
> "I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."_




Hey seawatch, you've posted the publicly issued opinion of a senior NCO in the Marine Corps.  I thank him for his service.  But I also understand that he has a career and pension to protect.  All of us who've served know the drill.  You should also know that this doesn't explain how an openly serving gay contributes to combat readiness.  The Sgt/Major made a politicaly correct statement.  This Sgt/Major probably remembers Gen McChrystal very well, and he probably remembers what happened when the generals true feelings about the CinC were made public.  Only the CinC can make public politicaly correct statements, and survive the experience.  Obama's famous for his closed mic statements isn't he. 

If gays were a positive influence they would not have been dishonorably discharged for their deviant behavior.  If gays had been allowed to serve the numbers that you're looking for so desperately would exist.  Since gays haven't been allowed to serve openly they haven't been able to negatively impact combat readiness.  

I worked in the health care field.  There were many gays and lesbians at my facility.  I don't begrudge their position, and we are all cordial, and professionally respectful of each other.  I didn't socialize with them after hours.  I didn't have to serve in a military environment with them either.  That is the difference.

Serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.


----------



## rightwinger

> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT&#8217;s End
> 
> _The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.
> 
> In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
> 
> "I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey seawatch, you've posted the publicly issued opinion of a senior NCO in the Marine Corps.  I thank him for his service.  But I also understand that he has a career and pension to protect.  All of us who've served know the drill.  You should also know that this doesn't explain how an openly serving gay contributes to combat readiness.  The Sgt/Major made a politicaly correct statement.  This Sgt/Major probably remembers Gen McChrystal very well, and he probably remembers what happened when the generals true feelings about the CinC were made public.  Only the CinC can make public politicaly correct statements, and survive the experience.  Obama's famous for his closed mic statements isn't he.
> 
> If gays were a positive influence they would not have been dishonorably discharged for their deviant behavior.  If gays had been allowed to serve the numbers that you're looking for so desperately would exist.  Since gays haven't been allowed to serve openly they haven't been able to negatively impact combat readiness.
> 
> I worked in the health care field.  There were many gays and lesbians at my facility.  I don't begrudge their position, and we are all cordial, and professionally respectful of each other.  I didn't socialize with them after hours.  I didn't have to serve in a military environment with them either.  That is the difference.
> 
> *Serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell yes....serving your country is a privilege......
> 
> And people who hate gays should not have the right to deny that privilege to others
Click to expand...


----------



## yota5

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey seawatch, you've posted the publicly issued opinion of a senior NCO in the Marine Corps.  I thank him for his service.  But I also understand that he has a career and pension to protect.  All of us who've served know the drill.  You should also know that this doesn't explain how an openly serving gay contributes to combat readiness.  The Sgt/Major made a politicaly correct statement.  This Sgt/Major probably remembers Gen McChrystal very well, and he probably remembers what happened when the generals true feelings about the CinC were made public.  Only the CinC can make public politicaly correct statements, and survive the experience.  Obama's famous for his closed mic statements isn't he.
> 
> If gays were a positive influence they would not have been dishonorably discharged for their deviant behavior.  If gays had been allowed to serve the numbers that you're looking for so desperately would exist.  Since gays haven't been allowed to serve openly they haven't been able to negatively impact combat readiness.
> 
> I worked in the health care field.  There were many gays and lesbians at my facility.  I don't begrudge their position, and we are all cordial, and professionally respectful of each other.  I didn't socialize with them after hours.  I didn't have to serve in a military environment with them either.  That is the difference.
> 
> *Serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yes....serving your country is a privilege......
> 
> And people who hate gays should not have the right to deny that privilege to others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning rightwwinger.  At least you finally admitted that serving in the military is a privilege.  However your flawed sexually deviant brain keeps thinking along the lines of rights.  The difference between an earned privilege and a right is with a right you can just do it.  A privilege must be earned by meeting or exceeding standards.  A lot of servicemen  want to be pilots, and spec ops.  Unfortunately we all can't meet the physical standards.  Sexual deviants can't meet standards either.  Their deviance isn't wanted.  That is why they're discharged where they are found.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yes....serving your country is a privilege......
> 
> And people who hate gays should not have the right to deny that privilege to others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning rightwwinger.  At least you finally admitted that serving in the military is a privilege.  However your flawed sexually deviant brain keeps thinking along the lines of rights.  The difference between an earned privilege and a right is with a right you can just do it.  A privilege must be earned by meeting or exceeding standards.  A lot of servicemen  want to be pilots, and spec ops.  Unfortunately we all can't meet the physical standards.  Sexual deviants can't meet standards either.  Their deviance isn't wanted.  That is why they're discharged where they are found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said nothing about rights other than you have no right to deny the privilege of serving your country solely on your ingrained biases
> 
> Gays exceed standards every day and are currently serving their country. The only difference is with cowards such as yourself who don't want to hear that a gay person could actually be an exceptional soldier. Thats all it comes down to "I don't want to hear it"
> 
> It is your bias that is no longer wanted and it is being refuted every day. That is why you are outraged
Click to expand...


----------



## Seawytch

So Yota, I guess you still haven't found that evidence that allowing honestly serving gays is harmful to combat readiness eh? Typical...


----------



## ogibillm

in this country we generally speaking need a good reason to deny someone a privilege. 

we're waking up to the fact that sexual orientation isn't a good reason.


----------



## iggy pop

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".
> 
> I _lived_ through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally.  But I am who i am and I'm not changing.  So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold.  My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it.  lol   Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me.  Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are.  It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.
> 
> I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference.  Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it.  I don't know what the right answer is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".
Click to expand...


So Spoon. You notice he totally blew of the rest of you conversation with him and went right back to his gay agenda.


----------



## iggy pop

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who insists we must deny equality to gays and lesbians so that the homophobes don't have to know there are "gheys in the midst".
> 
> I _lived_ through DADT and I know the constant fear of someone finding out you are gay. I know what it is like to worry that someone is going to call your CO and turn you in for who you love. I know what is it like to have to change pronouns so nobody will suspect. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally.  But I am who i am and I'm not changing.  So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold.  My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it.  lol   Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me.  Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are.  It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.
> 
> I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference.  Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it.  I don't know what the right answer is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".
Click to expand...


BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.


----------



## rightwinger

iggy pop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally.  But I am who i am and I'm not changing.  So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold.  My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it.  lol   Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me.  Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are.  It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.
> 
> I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference.  Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it.  I don't know what the right answer is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.
Click to expand...


No, you can't legislate tolerance

But could we have even had a discussion about gay marriage twenty years ago?


----------



## iggy pop

rightwinger said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't legislate tolerance
> 
> But could we have even had a discussion about gay marriage twenty years ago?
Click to expand...


You mean back in the days when we actually had some morals?


----------



## iggy pop

Seawytch said:


> Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADTs End
> 
> _The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.
> 
> In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
> 
> "I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."_



So his boss is against it

Marine chief: 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal could be deadly 'distraction'
Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marines, defended his position that 'don't ask, don't tell' should not be repealed, saying a repeal could cause problems among combat troops. 

Marine chief: 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal could be deadly 'distraction' - CSMonitor.com


----------



## rightwinger

iggy pop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't legislate tolerance
> 
> But could we have even had a discussion about gay marriage twenty years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean back in the days when we actually had some morals?
Click to expand...


What morals did we have twenty years ago that we don't have today?


----------



## Gadawg73

iggy pop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I march to a different drum myself (not sexually) and i take a lot of shit for it at times, professionally.  But I am who i am and I'm not changing.  So I have an understanding of not quite fitting the mold.  My best friend is a lesbian. I've been trying to convert her for years but she'll have none of it.  lol   Now her best friend is the love of her life, and i can really see that. No one stirs up the passion in her like she does and it is very apparent to me.  Now each one will end up marrying a guy, her friend is now engaged, because they feel thats what the expectations of them are.  It does bug the shit out of me becasue I know that isn't what is going to make them truly happy.
> 
> I guess on the openness of gays in the military I have mixed points of view. I do think it shouldn't matter. but on the other hand I don't thin the military should be a battle ground for sexual freedom and preference.  Gay or straight. I know that's going to be a difficult point for you to understand because you've had a negative experience with it.  I don't know what the right answer is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.
Click to expand...


You are the one that wants the government to legislate tolerance.
Tolerance of rules and regulations that discriminate against those other than heterosexual.
I want to keep you and the moral police the hell out of my life. Seen enough folks like you for all 56 years of my life and am tired of the BS. 
I vote Republican since 1972. American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God. 
Let the gay folks sink oR swim based on their ability. I have heard no other reason other than "they are gay" to deny them the ability to serve.
And that is BULL SHIT. 
We are in a damn shooting war and you want a witch hunt on gay folks. Makes no damn sense whatsoever.


----------



## iggy pop

Gadawg73 said:


> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that it *doesn't* matter. Most people simply don't care if you are gay and think it is ludicrous that someone would be discharged from the military for it. Allowing gays, _who are already serving_ to serve under the *exact same rules* as *everyone else* does not make the military a "battle ground". The battle is over and nobody gives a shit. The 18-24 year old new recruit, who has gone to a US Public High School, _knows_ gay people. He showered in gym in HS with them. He (or she, of course), potentially went to a school with a gay/straight alliance. These "kids" grew up watching Will and Grace, MTV, Ellen, etc. and they don't see gay people as this unknown "other".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that wants the government to legislate tolerance.
> Tolerance of rules and regulations that discriminate against those other than heterosexual.
> I want to keep you and the moral police the hell out of my life. Seen enough folks like you for all 56 years of my life and am tired of the BS.
> I vote Republican since 1972. American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God.
> Let the gay folks sink oR swim based on their ability. I have heard no other reason other than "they are gay" to deny them the ability to serve.
> And that is BULL SHIT.
> We are in a damn shooting war and you want a witch hunt on gay folks. Makes no damn sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


They have the ability to serve. No one denies then that, never did


----------



## Gadawg73

iggy pop said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iggy pop said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that wants the government to legislate tolerance.
> Tolerance of rules and regulations that discriminate against those other than heterosexual.
> I want to keep you and the moral police the hell out of my life. Seen enough folks like you for all 56 years of my life and am tired of the BS.
> I vote Republican since 1972. American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God.
> Let the gay folks sink oR swim based on their ability. I have heard no other reason other than "they are gay" to deny them the ability to serve.
> And that is BULL SHIT.
> We are in a damn shooting war and you want a witch hunt on gay folks. Makes no damn sense whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the ability to serve. No one denies then that, never did
Click to expand...


Then what is wrong with letting be who they are as long as they go by the same rules and regs as us straight folks?


----------



## CountofTuscany

IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.


----------



## Gadawg73

CountofTuscany said:


> IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.



The former high school soft ball star down the road is in Afghanistan as I post. She is gay and is an interpreter. Known her and her folks for 20 years.
They would throw her out if known she is gay.
And that is fucked up and anyone with a brain knows it.
Is her service a "personal cause"?
Where is this person that is gay and is serving for their "personal cause"?
What is their name?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.

Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.



Dude you hung out in the bowels of a ship.  Put your ass on the line and join the real fighting.


----------



## JerkInTheBox

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you hung out in the bowels of a ship.  Put your ass on the line and join the real fighting.
Click to expand...


He served just as much as anyone who took the oath. The nature of his service isn't germane to the discussion.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.



I'm not so certain that can be proven to be true.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you hung out in the bowels of a ship.  Put your ass on the line and join the real fighting.
Click to expand...


I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.

BT's, HT's, MM's and other engineers are who hangs out in the bowels of a ship.

Apparently, as a (supposed) sailor, you don't know that.  Shocking......really.......


----------



## Mr Natural

I suspect those who are concerned might be just a bit too close to trying it out for themselves.


----------



## Spoonman

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so certain that can be proven to be true.
Click to expand...


He values his opinion as fact


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you hung out in the bowels of a ship.  Put your ass on the line and join the real fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.
> 
> BT's, HT's, MM's and other engineers are who hangs out in the bowels of a ship.
> 
> Apparently, as a (supposed) sailor, you don't know that.  Shocking......really.......
Click to expand...


Where do you get I was a supposed sailor?  Making shit up again?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you hung out in the bowels of a ship.  Put your ass on the line and join the real fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.
> 
> BT's, HT's, MM's and other engineers are who hangs out in the bowels of a ship.
> 
> Apparently, as a (supposed) sailor, you don't know that.  Shocking......really.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get I was a supposed sailor?  Making shit up again?
Click to expand...


There was another thread where you questioned my service, and volunteered that you'd been a former sailor as well.

Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.

The titless Waves (like I was) are usually placed on the main deck or above.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.
> 
> BT's, HT's, MM's and other engineers are who hangs out in the bowels of a ship.
> 
> Apparently, as a (supposed) sailor, you don't know that.  Shocking......really.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get I was a supposed sailor?  Making shit up again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was another thread where you questioned my service, and volunteered that you'd been a former sailor as well.
> 
> Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.
> 
> The titless Waves (like I was) are usually placed on the main deck or above.
Click to expand...

 No i didn't. And it was on this thread. Like I said, you are clueless what you are talking about. Get your facts straight


----------



## ABikerSailor

Okay Spoonie m'man.......tell us........exactly how many years have you served in the U.S. Military, and what branch?

Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell.  If you don't serve, or haven't served, what possible qualifications do you have to speak on this subject?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay Spoonie m'man.......tell us........exactly how many years have you served in the U.S. Military, and what branch?
> 
> Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell.  If you don't serve, or haven't served, what possible qualifications do you have to speak on this subject?



Dude, you are the one who has me confused with someone else.  So, where's my post challenging your service and saying I was a sailor?  

Remove head from ass and get to looking


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Spoonie m'man.......tell us........exactly how many years have you served in the U.S. Military, and what branch?
> 
> Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell.  If you don't serve, or haven't served, what possible qualifications do you have to speak on this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are the one who has me confused with someone else.  So, where's my post challenging your service and saying I was a sailor?
> 
> Remove head from ass and get to looking
Click to expand...


You seem to be in favor of keeping DADT.  Now, what do you base this assessment on?  Have you ever served on active duty in the US Military?

If not, shut the fuck up, you have nothing to contribute that would be considered factual.  Many others on this thread are telling you that from their EXPERIENCE of serving, they (like myself, who is a 20 year vet), think that based on their EXPERIENCES of serving with gays and seeing how they were treated by their fellow soldiers and sailors, they do not think there would be any impact on readiness.

What is your evidence that you can present?  I'm guessing nothing other than rhetoric.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Spoonie m'man.......tell us........exactly how many years have you served in the U.S. Military, and what branch?
> 
> Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell.  If you don't serve, or haven't served, what possible qualifications do you have to speak on this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are the one who has me confused with someone else.  So, where's my post challenging your service and saying I was a sailor?
> 
> Remove head from ass and get to looking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be in favor of keeping DADT.  Now, what do you base this assessment on?  Have you ever served on active duty in the US Military?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up, you have nothing to contribute that would be considered factual.  Many others on this thread are telling you that from their EXPERIENCE of serving, they (like myself, who is a 20 year vet), think that based on their EXPERIENCES of serving with gays and seeing how they were treated by their fellow soldiers and sailors, they do not think there would be any impact on readiness.
> 
> What is your evidence that you can present?  I'm guessing nothing other than rhetoric.
Click to expand...


But wait. I'm  sailor right? Or are you saying as usual you got your facts all screwed up?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.
> 
> BT's, HT's, MM's and other engineers are who hangs out in the bowels of a ship.
> 
> Apparently, as a (supposed) sailor, you don't know that.  Shocking......really.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get I was a supposed sailor?  Making shit up again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was another thread where you questioned my service, and volunteered that you'd been a former sailor as well.
> 
> Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.
> 
> The titless Waves (like I was) are usually placed on the main deck or above.
Click to expand...

isn't a wave a chick?     You know they did away with PN's don't you?


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay Spoonie m'man.......tell us........exactly how many years have you served in the U.S. Military, and what branch?
> 
> Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell.  If you don't serve, or haven't served, what possible qualifications do you have to speak on this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are the one who has me confused with someone else.  So, where's my post challenging your service and saying I was a sailor?
> 
> Remove head from ass and get to looking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be in favor of keeping DADT.  Now, what do you base this assessment on?  Have you ever served on active duty in the US Military?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up, you have nothing to contribute that would be considered factual.  Many others on this thread are telling you that from their EXPERIENCE of serving, they (like myself, who is a 20 year vet), think that based on their EXPERIENCES of serving with gays and seeing how they were treated by their fellow soldiers and sailors, they do not think there would be any impact on readiness.
> 
> What is your evidence that you can present?  I'm guessing nothing other than rhetoric.
Click to expand...


I seem to remember others saying that in other threads about this subject.... Seems your side told them they were wrong That being military wasn't the only qualification to make a judgement on this....... But i could be remembering that wrong, it happens on occasion.....


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The former high school soft ball star down the road is in Afghanistan as I post. She is gay and is an interpreter. Known her and her folks for 20 years.
> They would throw her out if known she is gay.
> And that is fucked up and anyone with a brain knows it.
> Is her service a "personal cause"?
> Where is this person that is gay and is serving for their "personal cause"?
> What is their name?
Click to expand...

Gomer Pyle was gay


----------



## sinister59

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you are the one who has me confused with someone else.  So, where's my post challenging your service and saying I was a sailor?
> 
> Remove head from ass and get to looking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be in favor of keeping DADT.  Now, what do you base this assessment on?  Have you ever served on active duty in the US Military?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up, you have nothing to contribute that would be considered factual.  Many others on this thread are telling you that from their EXPERIENCE of serving, they (like myself, who is a 20 year vet), think that based on their EXPERIENCES of serving with gays and seeing how they were treated by their fellow soldiers and sailors, they do not think there would be any impact on readiness.
> 
> What is your evidence that you can present?  I'm guessing nothing other than rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember others saying that in other threads about this subject.... Seems your side told them they were wrong That being military wasn't the only qualification to make a judgement on this....... But i could be remembering that wrong, it happens on occasion.....
Click to expand...


the commander and chief has the only ward that counts ,you can whine all you please or just shut up and serve . 
just like integration in the military .


----------



## SFC Ollie

sinister59 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be in favor of keeping DADT.  Now, what do you base this assessment on?  Have you ever served on active duty in the US Military?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up, you have nothing to contribute that would be considered factual.  Many others on this thread are telling you that from their EXPERIENCE of serving, they (like myself, who is a 20 year vet), think that based on their EXPERIENCES of serving with gays and seeing how they were treated by their fellow soldiers and sailors, they do not think there would be any impact on readiness.
> 
> What is your evidence that you can present?  I'm guessing nothing other than rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember others saying that in other threads about this subject.... Seems your side told them they were wrong That being military wasn't the only qualification to make a judgement on this....... But i could be remembering that wrong, it happens on occasion.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the commander and chief has the only ward that counts ,you can whine all you please or just shut up and serve .
> just like integration in the military .
Click to expand...


OK, you proved that you know nothing about the military. Did you maybe mean Commander in Chief?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get I was a supposed sailor?  Making shit up again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was another thread where you questioned my service, and volunteered that you'd been a former sailor as well.
> 
> Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.
> 
> The titless Waves (like I was) are usually placed on the main deck or above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> isn't a wave a chick?     You know they did away with PN's don't you?
Click to expand...


Very good ya drooling idiot........Waves ARE girls, which is why when males were working in an administrative type billet, they were called "titless Waves" based on the fact that they were doing what was considered "womans work",  thus the name.

And yes........PN was converted by combining them with DK's, resulting in the current rate of PK.   They phased out PN about a year after I retired in 2002.

Yes.  I keep up with things.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was another thread where you questioned my service, and volunteered that you'd been a former sailor as well.
> 
> Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.
> 
> The titless Waves (like I was) are usually placed on the main deck or above.
> 
> 
> 
> isn't a wave a chick?     You know they did away with PN's don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good ya drooling idiot........Waves ARE girls, which is why when males were working in an administrative type billet, they were called "titless Waves" based on the fact that they were doing what was considered "womans work",  thus the name.
> 
> And yes........PN was converted by combining them with DK's, resulting in the current rate of PK.   They phased out PN about a year after I retired in 2002.
> 
> Yes.  I keep up with things.
Click to expand...


So you did womens work  

Actually I thought it was changed to PS but.........


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The former high school soft ball star down the road is in Afghanistan as I post. She is gay and is an interpreter. Known her and her folks for 20 years.
> They would throw her out if known she is gay.
> And that is fucked up and anyone with a brain knows it.
> Is her service a "personal cause"?
> Where is this person that is gay and is serving for their "personal cause"?
> What is their name?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gomer Pyle was gay
Click to expand...


Was he any good?


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The former high school soft ball star down the road is in Afghanistan as I post. She is gay and is an interpreter. Known her and her folks for 20 years.
> They would throw her out if known she is gay.
> And that is fucked up and anyone with a brain knows it.
> Is her service a "personal cause"?
> Where is this person that is gay and is serving for their "personal cause"?
> What is their name?
> 
> 
> 
> Gomer Pyle was gay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was he any good?
Click to expand...


idk, ask sgt carter


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't a wave a chick?     You know they did away with PN's don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good ya drooling idiot........Waves ARE girls, which is why when males were working in an administrative type billet, they were called "titless Waves" based on the fact that they were doing what was considered "womans work",  thus the name.
> 
> And yes........PN was converted by combining them with DK's, resulting in the current rate of PK.   They phased out PN about a year after I retired in 2002.
> 
> Yes.  I keep up with things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you did womens work
> 
> Actually I thought it was changed to PS but.........
Click to expand...


Tell ya what ya retarded little troll..........based on the many fuck ups you've posted around here, I'd be willing to bet your knowledge of the military is only what you can get from Google.

And yeah........FWIW, many people considered secretary work (which means admin work), is a chicks job.  Only thing is........people still gotta get paid and service records still gotta have entries, as well as the EPAD needs to be kept up to date, and women used to not be allowed on combat vessels until around 1985 or so.  They still can't go on subs either.

PS?  I stand corrected.  The reservist I was talking to at the station here out in Amarillo called 'em PK's, I guess because he saw they'd combined PN and DK and thought that's what it was.

You on the other hand are still totally screwed about your views on military readiness being impacted by repeal of DADT.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good ya drooling idiot........Waves ARE girls, which is why when males were working in an administrative type billet, they were called "titless Waves" based on the fact that they were doing what was considered "womans work",  thus the name.
> 
> And yes........PN was converted by combining them with DK's, resulting in the current rate of PK.   They phased out PN about a year after I retired in 2002.
> 
> Yes.  I keep up with things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you did womens work
> 
> Actually I thought it was changed to PS but.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell ya what ya retarded little troll..........based on the many fuck ups you've posted around here, I'd be willing to bet your knowledge of the military is only what you can get from Google.
> 
> And yeah........FWIW, many people considered secretary work (which means admin work), is a chicks job.  Only thing is........people still gotta get paid and service records still gotta have entries, as well as the EPAD needs to be kept up to date, and women used to not be allowed on combat vessels until around 1985 or so.  They still can't go on subs either.
> 
> *PS?  I stand corrected.*  The reservist I was talking to at the station here out in Amarillo called 'em PK's, I guess because he saw they'd combined PN and DK and thought that's what it was.
> 
> You on the other hand are still totally screwed about your views on military readiness being impacted by repeal of DADT.
Click to expand...


What were you saying about my many fuck ups around here? based on your criteriea, you are the troll. 

they could have always let the gay guys do the womens jobs


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you did womens work
> 
> Actually I thought it was changed to PS but.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what ya retarded little troll..........based on the many fuck ups you've posted around here, I'd be willing to bet your knowledge of the military is only what you can get from Google.
> 
> And yeah........FWIW, many people considered secretary work (which means admin work), is a chicks job.  Only thing is........people still gotta get paid and service records still gotta have entries, as well as the EPAD needs to be kept up to date, and women used to not be allowed on combat vessels until around 1985 or so.  They still can't go on subs either.
> 
> *PS?  I stand corrected.*  The reservist I was talking to at the station here out in Amarillo called 'em PK's, I guess because he saw they'd combined PN and DK and thought that's what it was.
> 
> You on the other hand are still totally screwed about your views on military readiness being impacted by repeal of DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were you saying about my many fuck ups around here? based on your criteriea, you are the troll.
> 
> they could have always let the gay guys do the womens jobs
Click to expand...


After I retired in 2002, I didn't see the inside of anything Navy until around 2008.  Why?  Because I didn't need to go to the base.  I finally got to talk to someone when I had to take care of some stuff and used the Reservist station to make my phone calls.

Like I said, they changed it over in 2003 after I left.  You don't make mistakes?  You sure as fuck have all over these boards.

Hey Spoonertard.......fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what ya retarded little troll..........based on the many fuck ups you've posted around here, I'd be willing to bet your knowledge of the military is only what you can get from Google.
> 
> And yeah........FWIW, many people considered secretary work (which means admin work), is a chicks job.  Only thing is........people still gotta get paid and service records still gotta have entries, as well as the EPAD needs to be kept up to date, and women used to not be allowed on combat vessels until around 1985 or so.  They still can't go on subs either.
> 
> *PS?  I stand corrected.*  The reservist I was talking to at the station here out in Amarillo called 'em PK's, I guess because he saw they'd combined PN and DK and thought that's what it was.
> 
> You on the other hand are still totally screwed about your views on military readiness being impacted by repeal of DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were you saying about my many fuck ups around here? based on your criteriea, you are the troll.
> 
> they could have always let the gay guys do the womens jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After I retired in 2002, I didn't see the inside of anything Navy until around 2008.  Why?  Because I didn't need to go to the base.  I finally got to talk to someone when I had to take care of some stuff and used the Reservist station to make my phone calls.
> 
> Like I said, they changed it over in 2003 after I left.  You don't make mistakes?  You sure as fuck have all over these boards.
> 
> Hey Spoonertard.......fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.
Click to expand...


mmmmm care to point out some of my mistakes? 

Well that's what happens when you spend your career in the bowls of a ship.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.......you're not even worth ignoring Spoontard.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.......you're not even worth ignoring Spoontard.



ok cool, i didn't think there were any, but thanks for the validation.


----------



## sinister59

SFC Ollie said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember others saying that in other threads about this subject.... Seems your side told them they were wrong That being military wasn't the only qualification to make a judgement on this....... But i could be remembering that wrong, it happens on occasion.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the commander and chief has the only ward that counts ,you can whine all you please or just shut up and serve .
> just like integration in the military .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you proved that you know nothing about the military. Did you maybe mean Commander in Chief?
Click to expand...


oh fuck you, you know who I meant ,
and your right its been a long time since I served , but it seems to me you so called professionals are vary whiny . 

maybe now you have rights ,  but it wasn't always so , you did what you were told served alongside who you were told , 

we had a better attitude .


----------



## ABikerSailor

sinister59 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the commander and chief has the only ward that counts ,you can whine all you please or just shut up and serve .
> just like integration in the military .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you proved that you know nothing about the military. Did you maybe mean Commander in Chief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh fuck you, you know who I meant ,
> and your right its been a long time since I served , but it seems to me you so called professionals are vary whiny .
> 
> maybe now you have rights ,  but it wasn't always so , you did what you were told served alongside who you were told ,
> 
> we had a better attitude .
Click to expand...


Actually, yes.  We did.  I remember a DP onboard the ship who was queer as a 3 dollar bill.  We were all sitting around at chow when someone started talking about someone who got a shot glass stuck in their ass.  Landphier didn't even blink......he stated that he could shove something like that UP his ass and would also be able to pass it back out again.  We all knew he was gay, but because he was such a decent dude (as well as knew more about the computers onboard than ANYONE), he was allowed to finish his enlistment.

Nobody bitched about working with him, because we were all professionals and recognized that Landphier was the best computer tech on the waterfront.

Besides, wanna talk about Lt. Dan Cho?  He was a FLUENT ARABIC SPEAKER, as well as was out on the front lines calling down airstrikes.  Highly decorated, loved by his unit (who also knew he was gay), but kicked out because someone caught a rumor that he was gay.

Same deal with an Air Force pilot who received a DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) with a V for valor for being in combat.  Know what he did?  He saved an entire squad by laying down cover fire for them.  That unit would have been killed if it wasn't for him.  Oh yeah.....somone saw one of his e-mails, figured out he was gay, and then they kicked him out.

Sure........tell me gays don't contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to combat operations.


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Steve Hanson

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were you saying about my many fuck ups around here? based on your criteriea, you are the troll.
> 
> they could have always let the gay guys do the womens jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I retired in 2002, I didn't see the inside of anything Navy until around 2008.  Why?  Because I didn't need to go to the base.  I finally got to talk to someone when I had to take care of some stuff and used the Reservist station to make my phone calls.
> 
> Like I said, they changed it over in 2003 after I left.  You don't make mistakes?  You sure as fuck have all over these boards.
> 
> Hey Spoonertard.......fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mmmmm care to point out some of my mistakes?
> 
> Well that's what happens when you spend your career in the bowls of a ship.
Click to expand...


Dude, I'm telling you. He rides a Vespa.


----------



## Steve Hanson

Dot Com said:


>



Both.  The target is n the other direction.


----------



## Spoonman

Steve Hanson said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> After I retired in 2002, I didn't see the inside of anything Navy until around 2008.  Why?  Because I didn't need to go to the base.  I finally got to talk to someone when I had to take care of some stuff and used the Reservist station to make my phone calls.
> 
> Like I said, they changed it over in 2003 after I left.  You don't make mistakes?  You sure as fuck have all over these boards.
> 
> Hey Spoonertard.......fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmmmm care to point out some of my mistakes?
> 
> Well that's what happens when you spend your career in the bowls of a ship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm telling you. He rides a Vespa.
Click to expand...


Worse, I think it's a Schwin


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what you retarded colon jousting goo gobbling cock monster, I'll give you a name........LT Roux who served at the Naval War College in the mid 90's, was my OIC at the PSD.  Because during that summer, I'd ridden a bicycle from Jacksonville Fl to Newport RI in 12 days (1100 miles in 12 days, average was 93 miles/day), he called me into his office and asked me if I'd be the PRT Coordinator.  I told him yes, but during the time that I was supposed to be in charge (positional authority), he had to follow what I instructed.
> 
> He was cool with that.
> 
> Prior to my taking over?  We had a couple of outstandings, one or two excellents, with mostly sat, with maybe 2 unsats.  6 months after I took over?  Several outstandings (of which the LT and I competed for bragging rights to be the highest command score, and it usually ended up being only separated by 1 or 2 points.  Most of the others were excellents, with one or two sats.  After my performance on the first cycle, the PRT job was mine until I left Newport.  On occasion, some of his fellow OIC's would come around and ask him how he turned his whole PRT program around.  If he liked them, he'd bring 'em by my desk and introduce me as his "secret weapon".
> 
> So tell ya what chumpsteak, go beat your chest (or whatever it is that you usually beat), and quit bugging me.  You ain't impressing anyone here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50 bucks says you removed the seat from the seat mounting tube before riding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  I'd like to see ya cover that bet asshole.
> 
> I used to race, and yeah........I've had a seat post bolt explode from under me.
> 
> No.  You can't ride a bike without a seat.
> 
> Where's my fifty bucks asshole?
Click to expand...


100 bucks says you had it set up so every time you pedaled the seat rod rose up and down, or should I say in and out.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya what ya retarded little troll..........based on the many fuck ups you've posted around here, I'd be willing to bet your knowledge of the military is only what you can get from Google.
> 
> And yeah........FWIW, many people considered secretary work (which means admin work), is a chicks job.  Only thing is........people still gotta get paid and service records still gotta have entries, as well as the EPAD needs to be kept up to date, and women used to not be allowed on combat vessels until around 1985 or so.  They still can't go on subs either.
> 
> *PS?  I stand corrected.*  The reservist I was talking to at the station here out in Amarillo called 'em PK's, I guess because he saw they'd combined PN and DK and thought that's what it was.
> 
> You on the other hand are still totally screwed about your views on military readiness being impacted by repeal of DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were you saying about my many fuck ups around here? based on your criteriea, you are the troll.
> 
> they could have always let the gay guys do the womens jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After I retired in 2002, I didn't see the inside of anything Navy until around 2008.  Why?  Because I didn't need to go to the base.  I finally got to talk to someone when I had to take care of some stuff and used the Reservist station to make my phone calls.
> 
> Like I said, they changed it over in 2003 after I left.  You don't make mistakes?  You sure as fuck have all over these boards.
> 
> Hey Spoonertard.......fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.
Click to expand...


You know what GayBIkerSailor you are the biggest biggoted POS here.  You really are the typical liberal. So full of shit. You sit here arguing you are all pro gay and pising down on everyone who has a disagreement with DADT.  But in typical liberal fashion with your hypocritical mind you piss and shit on gays with your ignorance.  Why is it that every pro gay liberal is the first one to use a derogatory gay reference as a slight to the person they are arguing with?  Like calling them a fag. 

Really, let's take a look at afew excerpts of your pro gay position

Quotes I might add -

*Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell

I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.

Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.

Tell ya what you retarded colon jousting goo gobbling cock monster*

I haven't made one derogatory comment about gays in my argument. I've just dissagreed and stated I don't feel the military is the place to be fighting the gay agenda. Do that in congress. Fight for gay rights on a full scale level.  Don't pick the military where lives are on the line. don't force soldiers who are being asked to fight and have each others backs to make a decision which side of the fence they are on. i've stated my point with out attacking the person or the lifestyle.

You on the other hand reek of hypocriscy. You can't even make a point with out throwing a smear at the lifestyle you say you are fighting for. Obviously you loath and detest it if your most degrading insults spit in the face of their sexual activities.  You are a real piece of  work.  But such a typical liberal.  Textbook, classic. I see it all the time. 

I think I'll take a page out of your book by going and defending civil rights issues by calling everyone spear chucking, watermellon eating nappy headed ho's.    

I'm sure you are just the sort of fair weather friend the gay movement in this country needs. 

Another point of view you can unec me for.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> Steve Hanson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> mmmmm care to point out some of my mistakes?
> 
> Well that's what happens when you spend your career in the bowls of a ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm telling you. He rides a Vespa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worse, I think it's a Schwin
Click to expand...


Actually, it's a Lemond Zurich with Campagnolo Mirage Ergo power shifters and Mavic Cosmic rims with a 2 inch rim.

I've had it up to 65 mph.  What about you?


----------



## Seawytch

iggy pop said:


> BTW, You are dreaming if you think everything is all rainbows and kids today just love the gays. You can't legislate tolerance. It didn't work with the blacks a half century later.



Not saying that everyone does, but "kids today" are a damn site more tolerant than the bigots of yesterday. A look at gay marriage polling tells you that. Opposition to gay marriage practically disappears with those under 30. 

Removing DADT isn't legislating tolerance, it is no longer legislating intolerance. HUGE difference. 

The day of the homophobe is gone. I'm not sad to see it go...


----------



## Seawytch

iggy pop said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top NCO: Marines Stay Despite DADT&#8217;s End
> 
> _The next Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps says repealing the ban on gays serving openly hasn't caused leathernecks to head for the exits.
> 
> In an interview today with Military.com, Sgt. Maj. Michael Barrett said he has seen no evidence that Marines are leaving because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
> 
> "I have not. You know, we have our direction and like the Marine Corps has always done we will carry out the mission at hand," Barrett said in a telephone interview. "It is important that we value the diversity and background and the culture and the skills that all the Marines bring to the service of the nation."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So his boss is against it
> 
> Marine chief: 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal could be deadly 'distraction'
> Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marines, defended his position that 'don't ask, don't tell' should not be repealed, saying a repeal could cause problems among combat troops.
> 
> Marine chief: 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal could be deadly 'distraction' - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...


And yet this is what General Amos had to say recently:

_When asked "What is your current professional military judgement about the risk to military effectiveness?", the four military Chiefs said:


- GEN. JAMES AMOS &#8211; CHIEF OF THE MARINE CORPS: &#8220;And I&#8217;m looking for specifically for issues coming out of the Tier II and Tier III training and to be honest with you, Chairman, we&#8217;ve not seen it&#8230;there hasn&#8217;t been the recalcitrant push back, there hasn&#8217;t been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field.&#8221;_


----------



## Seawytch

CountofTuscany said:


> IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.



Gays and lesbians join the service for the EXACT same reasons anybody joins. They join to serve their country, to get college money, because the job market sucks, etc. Nobody is joining to "further a personal cause".  Gays join for the EXACT SAME reason straights do...soon they will be able to serve under the EXACT SAME rules too. YAY!


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you hung out in the bowels of a ship.  Put your ass on the line and join the real fighting.
Click to expand...


Service is service. With our current all volunteer military, anyone who has taken the oath to serve deserves that their service be respected. Don't be a douche.


----------



## Seawytch

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, most of the people who state that gays should not be allowed to serve are people who have never served, nor will they, because they are too cowardly to put their own  butts on the line.
> 
> Most people who are active duty today, really don't care if gays serve or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so certain that can be proven to be true.
Click to expand...


It can if you read the Pentagon study. It can if you look at ANY US poll on the issue of DADT. Those opposed are a small minority these days.


----------



## yota5

My son is visiting from Huston.  He is an OIF vet with the 101st. ABN.  He has reviewed this thread.  While his unit was mobilizing to go to Iraq his unit had an up-spike in self outing gays.  Even when their commanders refused their request for immediate discharge the gays persisted.  These self confessed rump rangers would turn in pics of themselves riding, or being ridden dirty.  That worked every time.  The feeling of the troops is that sexual deviants can't be trusted.  Sexual deviants will damage unit cohesiveness, and combat readiness.  The troops have been ordered silent.  

Many of you who've responded to this thread are self confessed gays.  All of you consider serving in the military a right.  Yet you ignore your own experience which tells you that serving is an earned privilege.  If this wasn't so we would see many more incompetent pilots, surgeons, and commanders.  The SOP that is in place compliments the military as a whole.  Individual feelings aren't considered.  Team is the first concept that a new recruit is taught.  Team's first requirement is trust.  With out trust everything falls apart. 

This socialistic social engineering process is doomed for failure, and can only hurt this country.  That is why many believe that the true enemy to this country lurks within.  Our enemies are in the communist democratic party. It is well documented that these people are doing everything that they can to hurt, and destroy the USA.


----------



## Seawytch

Yota, DADT is soon going the way of the dodo bird. Your views and the views you claim your son also has are no longer the majority. The law is going to change and your son is going to have to deal with it or get out. You can't keep us out anymore just because you think they way we have sex is icky. Get over it.


----------



## yota5

Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.


----------



## CountofTuscany

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were you saying about my many fuck ups around here? based on your criteriea, you are the troll.
> 
> they could have always let the gay guys do the womens jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I retired in 2002, I didn't see the inside of anything Navy until around 2008.  Why?  Because I didn't need to go to the base.  I finally got to talk to someone when I had to take care of some stuff and used the Reservist station to make my phone calls.
> 
> Like I said, they changed it over in 2003 after I left.  You don't make mistakes?  You sure as fuck have all over these boards.
> 
> Hey Spoonertard.......fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what GayBIkerSailor you are the biggest biggoted POS here.  You really are the typical liberal. So full of shit. You sit here arguing you are all pro gay and pising down on everyone who has a disagreement with DADT.  But in typical liberal fashion with your hypocritical mind you piss and shit on gays with your ignorance.  Why is it that every pro gay liberal is the first one to use a derogatory gay reference as a slight to the person they are arguing with?  Like calling them a fag.
> 
> Really, let's take a look at afew excerpts of your pro gay position
> 
> Quotes I might add -
> 
> *Either put up or shut up you penis puffing tea bagging colon jouster from hell
> 
> I already told ya once you sperm drooling cock monkey.......I was a PN.
> 
> Like I said you colon jousting retard, it's the ENGINEERS who hang out in the bowels of the ship.
> 
> Tell ya what you retarded colon jousting goo gobbling cock monster*
> 
> I haven't made one derogatory comment about gays in my argument. I've just dissagreed and stated I don't feel the military is the place to be fighting the gay agenda. Do that in congress. Fight for gay rights on a full scale level.  Don't pick the military where lives are on the line. don't force soldiers who are being asked to fight and have each others backs to make a decision which side of the fence they are on. i've stated my point with out attacking the person or the lifestyle.
> 
> You on the other hand reek of hypocriscy. You can't even make a point with out throwing a smear at the lifestyle you say you are fighting for. Obviously you loath and detest it if your most degrading insults spit in the face of their sexual activities.  You are a real piece of  work.  But such a typical liberal.  Textbook, classic. I see it all the time.
> 
> I think I'll take a page out of your book by going and defending civil rights issues by calling everyone spear chucking, watermellon eating nappy headed ho's.
> 
> I'm sure you are just the sort of fair weather friend the gay movement in this country needs.
> 
> Another point of view you can unec me for.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.


----------



## CountofTuscany

Seawytch said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians join the service for the EXACT same reasons anybody joins. They join to serve their country, to get college money, because the job market sucks, etc. Nobody is joining to "further a personal cause".  Gays join for the EXACT SAME reason straights do...soon they will be able to serve under the EXACT SAME rules too. YAY!
Click to expand...


Good, then drop it and serve honorably snd stfu about it.


----------



## rightwinger

yota5 said:


> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.



Well then it looks like repealing DADT will increase your units readiness. Once DADT is gone, being a homosexual will no longer be an excuse for not deploying


----------



## Gadawg73

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it looks like repealing DADT will increase your units readiness. Once DADT is gone, being a homosexual will no longer be an excuse for not deploying
Click to expand...


You beat me to it.


----------



## High_Gravity

Jeez this thread will never die.


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> Jeez this thread will never die.



Yeah, I am done here. Can't argue with yota's son. The young man has been in a combat zone fighting for us. One of my son's best friends just got back from Afgnanistan.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez this thread will never die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am done here. Can't argue with yota's son. The young man has been in a combat zone fighting for us. One of my son's best friends just got back from Afgnanistan.
Click to expand...


I'm just hoping in 10 years this won't even be a big issue anymore.


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.



Good luck to you and thanks for your service. If you ever pass through Hartsfield airport in Atlanta go to Houlihans in the main pavilion area. It is a sports restaurant/bar and there is usually someone in there like me that feels honored to be able to buy active war vets like you a cold brew and a steak. Thanks for your service. You are doing a fine job.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck to you and thanks for your service. If you ever pass through Hartsfield airport in Atlanta go to Houlihans in the main pavilion area. It is a sports restaurant/bar and there is usually someone in there like me that feels honored to be able to buy active war vets like you a cold brew and a steak. Thanks for your service. You are doing a fine job.
Click to expand...


When me and my crew were coming back from our deployment to Kuwait we stopped in Baltimore for the night and never had to pay for anything, people saw us in uniform and bought our food, drinks etc everything, it was quite nice.


----------



## CountofTuscany

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck to you and thanks for your service. If you ever pass through Hartsfield airport in Atlanta go to Houlihans in the main pavilion area. It is a sports restaurant/bar and there is usually someone in there like me that feels honored to be able to buy active war vets like you a cold brew and a steak. Thanks for your service. You are doing a fine job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When me and my crew were coming back from our deployment to Kuwait we stopped in Baltimore for the night and never had to pay for anything, people saw us in uniform and bought our food, drinks etc everything, it was quite nice.
Click to expand...


People respect what you do .


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it looks like repealing DADT will increase your units readiness. Once DADT is gone, being a homosexual will no longer be an excuse for not deploying
Click to expand...


Exactly.    I don't know if that was Yota's intent in posting that, but it is indeed going to be the end result.   A loophole is being closed.   End of subject.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch, you did not understand what the above statement said, nor do you actually read it. The commanders of many units did not care of the individual soldiers sexual preference. " THE MISSION WOULD BE COMPLETED AND EVERY SOLDIER WAS GOING ON DEPLOYMENT ". Many homosexuals manipulated the UCMJ so they would not have to go on deployment and a free ticket out with a general discharge.  Its funny to me that you would argue with what my father just posted. You did not serve in the Army and definitely did not serve in the 101st Airborne Division. So how can you argue with what I told my father. In fact during my time in service, we deployed 4 times in 8 years. Before every deployment, my unit would receive a warning order 90 day before we would deploy. I'm sure the Navy has something similar to our SOP's. By the third deployment we would joke around and playfully wager how many soldiers would try to get kicked out for being a homosexual just so they did not have to be deployed to a war zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it looks like repealing DADT will increase your units readiness. Once DADT is gone, being a homosexual will no longer be an excuse for not deploying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.    I don't know if that was Yota's intent in posting that, but it is indeed going to be the end result.   A loophole is being closed.   End of subject.
Click to expand...


so does that mean you will stop whining about it?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then it looks like repealing DADT will increase your units readiness. Once DADT is gone, being a homosexual will no longer be an excuse for not deploying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.    I don't know if that was Yota's intent in posting that, but it is indeed going to be the end result.   A loophole is being closed.   End of subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so does that mean you will stop whining about it?
Click to expand...


I'm not whining....I'm celebrating the FACT that DADT is dead.   Kindly look to who started this thread.   Twasn't me, my friend.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.    I don't know if that was Yota's intent in posting that, but it is indeed going to be the end result.   A loophole is being closed.   End of subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so does that mean you will stop whining about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not whining....I'm celebrating the FACT that DADT is dead.   Kindly look to who started this thread.   Twasn't me, my friend.
Click to expand...


i think the fact was also made that once homosexuals start coming out of the closet there will be a lot more repercussion against them. People will suffer in the process. They won't get kicked out of the military but their lives will take on a little more hell.  Some of it will be straight on but the bulk of it will be covert.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so does that mean you will stop whining about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not whining....I'm celebrating the FACT that DADT is dead.   Kindly look to who started this thread.   Twasn't me, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think the fact was also made that once homosexuals start coming out of the closet there will be a lot more repercussion against them. People will suffer in the process. They won't get kicked out of the military but their lives will take on a little more hell.  Some of it will be straight on but the bulk of it will be covert.
Click to expand...


Ever hear of the UCMJ or the Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces?  Well, since you've never served, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it Spoonertard.

It covers all the stuff necessary to maintain good order and discipline.  And no, people will suffer LESS under the repeal than they ever did before DADT (if you claimed to be gay, you were discharged in 48 hours or less), or under DADT (which takes 6 months to process someone under, meaning it costs more) than you ever would have by allowing gays to serve openly.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not whining....I'm celebrating the FACT that DADT is dead.   Kindly look to who started this thread.   Twasn't me, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think the fact was also made that once homosexuals start coming out of the closet there will be a lot more repercussion against them. People will suffer in the process. They won't get kicked out of the military but their lives will take on a little more hell.  Some of it will be straight on but the bulk of it will be covert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever hear of the UCMJ or the Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces?  Well, since you've never served, maybe you should familiarize yourself with it Spoonertard.
> 
> It covers all the stuff necessary to maintain good order and discipline.  And no, people will suffer LESS under the repeal than they ever did before DADT (if you claimed to be gay, you were discharged in 48 hours or less), or under DADT (which takes 6 months to process someone under, meaning it costs more) than you ever would have by allowing gays to serve openly.
Click to expand...


Hey look the gay basher has surfaced from the bowels of the ship


----------



## ABikerSailor

Apparently Spoonertard.......you've no experience with the military, know nothing about gays, yet feel fully justified in beating your gums about a subject you know jacked shit about.  Way to go retard.  We know you've got it in you to be as stupid as Big Reb in NC.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Apparently Spoonertard.......you've no experience with the military, know nothing about gays, yet feel fully justified in beating your gums about a subject you know jacked shit about.  Way to go retard.  We know you've got it in you to be as stupid as Big Reb in NC.



at least i'm not a hypocrite like you.  BTW I'm not the one who screwed up my military facts, you are


----------



## Seawytch

CountofTuscany said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK. I still believe the reason you go into the military is to serve you country. Not to further a personal cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians join the service for the EXACT same reasons anybody joins. They join to serve their country, to get college money, because the job market sucks, etc. Nobody is joining to "further a personal cause".  Gays join for the EXACT SAME reason straights do...soon they will be able to serve under the EXACT SAME rules too. YAY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, then drop it and serve honorably snd stfu about it.
Click to expand...


What is it we are supposed to "drop" and "stfu" about? If someone asks us about our weekend, marital status, etc., what would you like us to say?


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> Apparently Spoonertard.......you've no experience with the military, know nothing about gays, yet feel fully justified in beating your gums about a subject you know jacked shit about.  Way to go retard.  We know you've got it in you to be as stupid as Big Reb in NC.



*Like Spoonman said, he isn't the one who mixed up his military facts.*  It is my experience with the military that caused me to start this thread.  Gays will have a negative impact upon a units combat readiness.  It is a shame when gays have to cite their groups cowardice in order to rationalize the implementation of a social engineering experiment.  

If Obama's rump rangers can't be trusted to do their duty with DADT, why should I trust them in the foxhole.  My son just made a profound statement.  "Repealing DADT wont change a sexual deviant's integrity.  If they can't use DADT as a way to shirk their duty they'll find another way."  It all comes back to trust doesn't it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Spoonertard.......you've no experience with the military, know nothing about gays, yet feel fully justified in beating your gums about a subject you know jacked shit about.  Way to go retard.  We know you've got it in you to be as stupid as Big Reb in NC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Like Spoonman said, he isn't the one who mixed up his military facts.*  It is my experience with the military that caused me to start this thread.  Gays will have a negative impact upon a units combat readiness.  It is a shame when gays have to cite their groups cowardice in order to rationalize the implementation of a social engineering experiment.
> 
> If Obama's rump rangers can't be trusted to do their duty with DADT, why should I trust them in the foxhole.  My son just made a profound statement.  "Repealing DADT wont change a sexual deviant's integrity.  If they can't use DADT as a way to shirk their duty they'll find another way."  It all comes back to trust doesn't it.
Click to expand...


Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).

I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.

I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983.  Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.

Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)  

Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........

Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts.  They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.

No.  I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY.  Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.

Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either.  It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Spoonertard.......you've no experience with the military, know nothing about gays, yet feel fully justified in beating your gums about a subject you know jacked shit about.  Way to go retard.  We know you've got it in you to be as stupid as Big Reb in NC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Like Spoonman said, he isn't the one who mixed up his military facts.*  It is my experience with the military that caused me to start this thread.  Gays will have a negative impact upon a units combat readiness.  It is a shame when gays have to cite their groups cowardice in order to rationalize the implementation of a social engineering experiment.
> 
> If Obama's rump rangers can't be trusted to do their duty with DADT, why should I trust them in the foxhole.  My son just made a profound statement.  "Repealing DADT wont change a sexual deviant's integrity.  If they can't use DADT as a way to shirk their duty they'll find another way."  It all comes back to trust doesn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).
> 
> I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.
> 
> I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983.  Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.
> 
> Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)
> 
> Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........
> 
> Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts.  They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.
> 
> No.  I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY.  Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.
> 
> Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either.  It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.
Click to expand...



Hello maggot, I was wondering when you'd surface with more of your deviant BS.  My experience with the military is first hand.  I knew my MOS, and attending job description.  You seem to be having problems with your rating, and attending job description.

You've posted that you were doing evals for openly serving gays.  You've said how these deviants out performed straights.  Give me a break.  Openly serving gays would be immediately discharged under DADT, or existing SOP prior to DADT.  

The only place that your scenario plays out is between those deviant ears of yours.  If you did don your personnel man cape, and fudged the record for your fellow rump rangers you should have found yourself in the stockade. 

Again this all comes down to integrity doesn't it?  You've just made my case that deviants are liars and can't be trusted to do their duty.  You're a prime example maggot.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.

Facts people.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently Spoonertard.......you've no experience with the military, know nothing about gays, yet feel fully justified in beating your gums about a subject you know jacked shit about.  Way to go retard.  We know you've got it in you to be as stupid as Big Reb in NC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Like Spoonman said, he isn't the one who mixed up his military facts.*  It is my experience with the military that caused me to start this thread.  Gays will have a negative impact upon a units combat readiness.  It is a shame when gays have to cite their groups cowardice in order to rationalize the implementation of a social engineering experiment.
> 
> If Obama's rump rangers can't be trusted to do their duty with DADT, why should I trust them in the foxhole.  My son just made a profound statement.  "Repealing DADT wont change a sexual deviant's integrity.  If they can't use DADT as a way to shirk their duty they'll find another way."  It all comes back to trust doesn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).
> 
> I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.
> 
> I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983.  Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.
> 
> Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)
> 
> Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........
> 
> Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts.  They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.
> 
> No.  I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY.  Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.
> 
> Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either.  It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.
Click to expand...


You mixed up a lot of shit, which is why you have no credibility.   dude you are the biggest biggot here. who are you kidding.  you've slandered gays more than anyone on this thread.  you are just to pigheaded to realize it.  you can't take your focus off the pinhead field of vision you have in front of you.


----------



## Spoonman

SFC Ollie said:


> Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.
> 
> Facts people.



Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy.  Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.
> 
> Facts people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
Click to expand...




Why?


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.
> 
> Facts people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.
Click to expand...


Yeah...and who's to say that some of those senior NCOs aren't some of the gay soldiers?   And the Os?   How about us?


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...and who's to say that some of those senior NCOs aren't some of the gay soldiers?   And the Os?   How about us?
Click to expand...


Almost anything is possible. I've told you how I feel about the subject, and I've explained what I believe will happen. Now I'll just kick back and watch and pray. Again I hope that rightwinger is correct. We shall see.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.
> 
> Facts people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


 because it still is an issue for some people


----------



## Grace

Just because I think it fits the current topic at hand.


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for some people
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea what an "issue" it was for people when we desegregated the military? A month before Truman desegregated, a Gallup poll showed 63% of Americans being opposed to racial integration in the military (70% of Americans *support* lifting the ban). 

Were you aware that President Truman conducted a survey prior to integrating the military? Care to venture a guess at what the military attitudes were regarding integration? Only 26% supported integration. Now, if you were to look at the DADT Pentagon survey, you would see that about the same number of people that supported integration are opposed to lifting the ban. 

Now imagine that Truman had NOT integrated the armed forces because it was "an issue for some people".


----------



## CountofTuscany

Seawytch said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for some people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what an "issue" it was for people when we desegregated the military? A month before Truman desegregated, a Gallup poll showed 63% of Americans being opposed to racial integration in the military (70% of Americans *support* lifting the ban).
> 
> Were you aware that President Truman conducted a survey prior to integrating the military? Care to venture a guess at what the military attitudes were regarding integration? Only 26% supported integration. Now, if you were to look at the DADT Pentagon survey, you would see that about the same number of people that supported integration are opposed to lifting the ban.
> 
> Now imagine that Truman had NOT integrated the armed forces because it was "an issue for some people".
Click to expand...


How can 63% be against and 70% for? What kind of fuzy math is that?


----------



## CountofTuscany

SFC Ollie said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.
Click to expand...


Yes, it will cause tension in the ranks. Not what you need when you are expected to have each others backs.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, exactly what I;ve been saying Ollie.  The focus becomes shifted off the job at hand. And the job at hand here can be a matter of life and death.  *people are no longer focused on this is my duty but more on the now openly gay guy. * Some people will be totally ok with it, others wont.  now you have a divide snd people are foreced to chose sides over an issue that shouldn't even be an issue.  I am not saying gays should not have equal rights I am saying the military isn't the battle ground to test those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for *some* people
Click to expand...


And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?


----------



## bodecea

CountofTuscany said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,* it will cause tension in the ranks.* Not what you need when you are expected to have each others backs.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.
> 
> Facts people.



Ollie has a point with his post, I don't think its fair but this happened to many Black Soldiers after they integrated the Military. In the Military you are on your own there is no union to run to for help, I had people higher ups in the service give me a hard time because they disagreed with my partying lifestyle and drinking, it would have been 100X worse if I was gay.


----------



## Gadawg73

My brother stated that smoking was a big issue with many soldiers when he was in Nam. Rule of thumb was poncho over head so NVA could not see the fire but he said he wanted no part of being near any smokers. Sometimes they would screw up and you could see the fire from the cig. 
So since some were not in support and against smoking in the military we should ban smoking or have DSDT?


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> My brother stated that smoking was a big issue with many soldiers when he was in Nam. Rule of thumb was poncho over head so NVA could not see the fire but he said he wanted no part of being near any smokers. Sometimes they would screw up and you could see the fire from the cig.
> So since some were not in support and against smoking in the military we should ban smoking or have DSDT?



I don't know about Nam but when I was deployed people were smoking like chimneys, because thats one of the few things you are allowed. I don't think it would be fair to take it away, even though I did hear rumours of some bases wanting to outlaw smoking completely.


----------



## Gadawg73

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is that if a senior NCO wants to screw with a troop there are hundreds if not thousands of ways that NCO can make the troops life a living hell. And they can do it without breaking the UCMJ. Do I expect this to happen? Hell yes, many many times in many many units. And in most cases it won't be reported and in 99% of those that are reported there will be no infraction of the UCMJ, at most the NCO will be told to lighten up.
> 
> Facts people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ollie has a point with his post, I don't think its fair but this happened to many Black Soldiers after they integrated the Military. In the Military you are on your own there is no union to run to for help, I had people higher ups in the service give me a hard time because they disagreed with my partying lifestyle and drinking, it would have been 100X worse if I was gay.
Click to expand...


He does. 
And Ollie looks just like a good friend of mine that was also a lifer in the Army 1969-1994. Spitting image of him!


----------



## Douger

How long before they start issuing condoms and Anal Glow at butt camp ?


----------



## High_Gravity

Douger said:


> How long before they start issuing condoms and Anal Glow at butt camp ?



Condoms are already issued.


----------



## Gadawg73

Douger said:


> How long before they start issuing condoms and Anal Glow at butt camp ?



What color do you prefer?


----------



## Spoonman

Grace said:


> Just because I think it fits the current topic at hand.



exactly,  these people can't handle the truth.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for *some* people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?
Click to expand...


kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because some senior NCO's can be real assholes. Do you really think they will all accept this and start to march to your drummer? Some will hate it, they won't show it, but there is nothing you can do to change it. Some are still racists. same thing. nothing you can do about it. I have told junior NCOs to lay off certain troops. Never asked why the NCO didn't like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,* it will cause tension in the ranks.* Not what you need when you are expected to have each others backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12.  Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays.  and it's a lot more than polls show


----------



## konradv

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for *some* people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like
Click to expand...


That's not hypocritical, that's life.  WE'RE the bosses and the troops in the ranks will just have to suck it up.


----------



## Spoonman

konradv said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not hypocritical, that's life.  WE'RE the bosses and the troops in the ranks will just have to suck it up.
Click to expand...


MMMm why wouldn't the gays just have to suck it up?

Again, no pun intended


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,* it will cause tension in the ranks.* Not what you need when you are expected to have each others backs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12.  Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays.  and it's a lot more than polls show
Click to expand...


Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.

And so some people are not comfortable with gays.   Some are uncomfortable with blacks.  Some are uncomfortable with women.  Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South.  Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.

Big fat so what, if they can do the job.


----------



## bodecea

konradv said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not hypocritical, that's life.  WE'RE the bosses and the troops in the ranks will just have to suck it up.
Click to expand...


Yep....in the military scheme of things, not liking gays is very small.   We don't like getting shot at either, but we do it.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12.  Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays.  and it's a lot more than polls show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.
> 
> And so some people are not comfortable with gays.   Some are uncomfortable with blacks.  Some are uncomfortable with women.  Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South.  Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.
> 
> Big fat so what, if they can do the job.
Click to expand...


My aren't we dissagreeable    You don't here the southerners and the filippinos making all this noise do you?


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> mmmmmm you've asked that question like 10 times and it's been answered like 12.  Becasue there are still a lot of people who are not comfortable with gays.  and it's a lot more than polls show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.
> 
> And so some people are not comfortable with gays.   Some are uncomfortable with blacks.  Some are uncomfortable with women.  Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South.  Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.
> 
> Big fat so what, if they can do the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My aren't we dissagreeable    You don't here the southerners and the filippinos making all this noise do you?
Click to expand...




Nope, tho there was a time where Filippinos were segregated into the Mess Specialist rating.  But that changed and it is no longer a big deal...as will this in a matter of time.

No worries.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's only the second time....2<10.
> 
> And so some people are not comfortable with gays.   Some are uncomfortable with blacks.  Some are uncomfortable with women.  Some are uncomfortable with someone from the South.  Some are uncomfortable with Filippinos.
> 
> Big fat so what, if they can do the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My aren't we dissagreeable    You don't here the southerners and the filippinos making all this noise do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, tho there was a time where Filippinos were segregated into the Mess Specialist rating.  But that changed and it is no longer a big deal...as will this in a matter of time.
> 
> No worries.
Click to expand...


Yea, but Mcarthur could have held out longer on Bataan if the filippinos were actually good soldiers


----------



## Douger

Gadawg73 said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long before they start issuing condoms and Anal Glow at butt camp ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What color do you prefer?
Click to expand...

Well. The military meatheads love that night vision sooooooooo...........
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ergv1kWe0HI]YouTube - glow-in-the-dark condom fight[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Like Spoonman said, he isn't the one who mixed up his military facts.*  It is my experience with the military that caused me to start this thread.  Gays will have a negative impact upon a units combat readiness.  It is a shame when gays have to cite their groups cowardice in order to rationalize the implementation of a social engineering experiment.
> 
> If Obama's rump rangers can't be trusted to do their duty with DADT, why should I trust them in the foxhole.  My son just made a profound statement.  "Repealing DADT wont change a sexual deviant's integrity.  If they can't use DADT as a way to shirk their duty they'll find another way."  It all comes back to trust doesn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).
> 
> I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.
> 
> I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983.  Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.
> 
> Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)
> 
> Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........
> 
> Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts.  They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.
> 
> No.  I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY.  Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.
> 
> Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either.  It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hello maggot, I was wondering when you'd surface with more of your deviant BS.  My experience with the military is first hand.  I knew my MOS, and attending job description.  You seem to be having problems with your rating, and attending job description.
> 
> You've posted that you were doing evals for openly serving gays.  You've said how these deviants out performed straights.  Give me a break.  Openly serving gays would be immediately discharged under DADT, or existing SOP prior to DADT.
> 
> The only place that your scenario plays out is between those deviant ears of yours.  If you did don your personnel man cape, and fudged the record for your fellow rump rangers you should have found yourself in the stockade.
> 
> Again this all comes down to integrity doesn't it?  You've just made my case that deviants are liars and can't be trusted to do their duty.  You're a prime example maggot.
Click to expand...


Hey there you cock smoking colon jouster, got news for ya.........my rate was PN during my time in, or did you miss the point that I made about the merge happening between the rates TWO YEARS after I retired?

I never said I was doing evals for openly serving gays, I stated that because of my job as a PN, as well as the fact that everyone on the boat trusted me, gays would tell me that they were gay, and then ask me to keep my big mouth shut, which I did.  Would I drop dime on anyone because of orientation?  No.  Why?  Because their job performance is more important to me than who they date.  

As far as DADT?  Wasn't passed until 1993/1994.  Prior to that?  If you stated you were gay, you were discharged within 48 hours.  The only exception to that I saw was a Data Processing tech who was the best computer tech on the waterfront, and the command saw fit to let him finish his enlistment.

As far as messing with the exam sheets?  Wrong again asshole.  I told you that because I ALREADY KNEW who was gay, it was pretty easy to see where they fell on the eval averages and awards as compared to their straight counterparts.

Try again you fucking retard.  What?  Did you get kicked out after your first enlistment because of you bigoted asshole views?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey jackass........I mixed up a K with an S when I was referring to my old rate (which was phased out 1-2 years AFTER I retired), because that's what the Reservist told me it was (who also happened to be wearing a uniform).
> 
> I've served 20 years in the US Navy from 1982 until 2002, and saw action in no less than 4 different war zones, starting with Beruit in '83.
> 
> I've also known that there have been gays in the military since my first ship in 1983.  Matter of fact, I'd never met a gay person until that time.
> 
> Speaking as a Personnelman (which is now Personnel Specialist), one of my main jobs in the command was to prepare examination work sheets for the advancement exam, which meant that I had to average their evals for the previous 3 years, as well as tally their personal awards that they got (Navy Achievment Medal, Good Conduct, etc.)
> 
> Based on that, combined with the fact that I knew who was and wasn't gay in my commands (people trusted me a lot), I can tell you this........
> 
> Gays in the military continually outperform their straight counterparts.  They've got more awards and have higher eval averages.
> 
> No.  I firmly believe that gays should be allowed to serve OPENLY.  Try again shithead......and by the way.........you opinion don't mean much to me because you've not been in miltary, and the only news you get is secondhand from you kid, which means that he's gonna color his views and give you slanted information.
> 
> Most of the people I've served with had no problems with them either.  It's only the bigoted asshole rednecks such as yourself that have the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello maggot, I was wondering when you'd surface with more of your deviant BS.  My experience with the military is first hand.  I knew my MOS, and attending job description.  You seem to be having problems with your rating, and attending job description.
> 
> You've posted that you were doing evals for openly serving gays.  You've said how these deviants out performed straights.  Give me a break.  Openly serving gays would be immediately discharged under DADT, or existing SOP prior to DADT.
> 
> The only place that your scenario plays out is between those deviant ears of yours.  If you did don your personnel man cape, and fudged the record for your fellow rump rangers you should have found yourself in the stockade.
> 
> Again this all comes down to integrity doesn't it?  You've just made my case that deviants are liars and can't be trusted to do their duty.  You're a prime example maggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey there you cock smoking colon jouster, got news for ya.........my rate was PN during my time in, or did you miss the point that I made about the merge happening between the rates TWO YEARS after I retired?
> 
> I never said I was doing evals for openly serving gays, I stated that because of my job as a PN, as well as the fact that everyone on the boat trusted me, gays would tell me that they were gay, and then ask me to keep my big mouth shut, which I did.  Would I drop dime on anyone because of orientation?  No.  Why?  Because their job performance is more important to me than who they date.
> 
> As far as DADT?  Wasn't passed until 1993/1994.  Prior to that?  If you stated you were gay, you were discharged within 48 hours.  The only exception to that I saw was a Data Processing tech who was the best computer tech on the waterfront, and the command saw fit to let him finish his enlistment.
> 
> As far as messing with the exam sheets?  Wrong again asshole.  I told you that because I ALREADY KNEW who was gay, it was pretty easy to see where they fell on the eval averages and awards as compared to their straight counterparts.
> 
> Try again you fucking retard.  What?  Did you get kicked out after your first enlistment because of you bigoted asshole views?
Click to expand...


hell i wasn't even in the navy and I knew what it was. 

How did you know who was gay? do you have like gaydar or something?


----------



## SFC Ollie

An NCO who purposely refused to follow the UCMJ? Not much of an NCO....

Sorry but that's the facts.


----------



## Sense

Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.


----------



## bodecea

Sense said:


> Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.



Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Sense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?
Click to expand...

 so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?


----------



## Sense

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sems like gays serving openly is gonna cost a massive amount of money at a time when the government is already going bankrupt. I mean i have never been in the military but i believe men and women dont share barracks for obviouse reasons. So that theoretically means that they will have to create entire new wings for gays. The gays would then complain about segregation and it would cost even more to set up a system similar to the one for female soldiers. It just seems to me that it is an extremely unneccassary use of money. I mean im sorry but for now the us cannot afford gays to be in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?
Click to expand...


Actually, yes.  Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that.  First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command.  If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.

However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays.  It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.

And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are in the military and in the barracks now...why change?
> 
> 
> 
> so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that.  First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command.  If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.
> 
> However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays.  It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.
> 
> And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?
Click to expand...


so now what happens if they leer at you in the shower?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if a gay guy was to comment on another guys body would that be sexual harrasment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that.  First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command.  If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.
> 
> However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays.  It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.
> 
> And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so now what happens if they leer at you in the shower?
Click to expand...


Same deal........sexual harassment is sexual harassment and has no place in the military.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yes.  Under the UCMJ there is a recourse for that.  First, you tell the person doing the offense that you don't appreciate it, and that if it continues, you'll take it to the chain of command.  If it happens again, you take it to the chain of command and let them handle it.
> 
> However..........just like heterosexuals have a certain "type" (hair color, shape, complexion, etc.), so do gays.  It seems like the people who are the most scared of "catching the ghey" are those that don't know anything about them.
> 
> And.......FWIW..........if you're a fat redneck slob and chicks won't look at you, what makes you think that gays are gonna want a shot at you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so now what happens if they leer at you in the shower?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same deal........sexual harassment is sexual harassment and has no place in the military.
Click to expand...

In that case i think there are going to be a whole lot of gays kicked out of the military


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so now what happens if they leer at you in the shower?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same deal........sexual harassment is sexual harassment and has no place in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that case i think there are going to be a whole lot of gays kicked out of the military
Click to expand...


Your lack of service is glaringly apparent.  Maybe you should enlist for 1 term to see if your bullshit is sound or not.


----------



## High_Gravity

Are gays like hungry sexual predators? how come women are not scared to shower with the lesbians?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same deal........sexual harassment is sexual harassment and has no place in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case i think there are going to be a whole lot of gays kicked out of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of service is glaringly apparent.  Maybe you should enlist for 1 term to see if your bullshit is sound or not.
Click to expand...


Yes, because it is so much different in the military than it is in real life.  You enlist and your sex drive goes away   btw, I have served.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that case i think there are going to be a whole lot of gays kicked out of the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of service is glaringly apparent.  Maybe you should enlist for 1 term to see if your bullshit is sound or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so much different in the military than it is in real life.  You enlist and your sex drive goes away   btw, I have served.
Click to expand...


For how long and what branch?  Wait a minute......didn't you say that you never served?

As far as the sex drive going away?  Nope........mine stayed with me for 20 years.  Got 3 boys and oh yeah.......visited just about every brothel in the Med.  My favorite red light district was in Catania Sicily.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of service is glaringly apparent.  Maybe you should enlist for 1 term to see if your bullshit is sound or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so much different in the military than it is in real life.  You enlist and your sex drive goes away   btw, I have served.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For how long and what branch?  Wait a minute......didn't you say that you never served?
> 
> As far as the sex drive going away?  Nope........mine stayed with me for 20 years.  Got 3 boys and oh yeah.......visited just about every brothel in the Med.  My favorite red light district was in Catania Sicily.
Click to expand...


Your career sounds awesome, all I did in mine was live in Omaha for 4 years, the West Virginia of California for 3 years and 2 trips to the desert. Navy always goes to awesome places.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so much different in the military than it is in real life.  You enlist and your sex drive goes away   btw, I have served.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For how long and what branch?  Wait a minute......didn't you say that you never served?
> 
> As far as the sex drive going away?  Nope........mine stayed with me for 20 years.  Got 3 boys and oh yeah.......visited just about every brothel in the Med.  My favorite red light district was in Catania Sicily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your career sounds awesome, all I did in mine was live in Omaha for 4 years, the West Virginia of California for 3 years and 2 trips to the desert. Navy always goes to awesome places.
Click to expand...


26 different countries and 49 different states.  Only missed out on Alaska.

And yeah.........going to places like Rhodes Greece and standing where the Colossus of Rhodes stood was a treat.  Same with the church in Palma Mallorca Spain (cornerstone was laid in the 1200's and it was completed in the 1400's.  It even has a Jolly Roger on the floor because it was built by pirates).

Probably the 2 weirdest places were Anatalya Turkey (the brothel was a prison) or Dubai U.A.E., because you had the old section of town where you saw everyone in robes and burkas, but go across the town to the mall, and you'd see Arab women in western style clothing (some were quite revealing).

But........it wasn't all fun and games, because I also was in 4 war zones drawing hazard pay.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of service is glaringly apparent.  Maybe you should enlist for 1 term to see if your bullshit is sound or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so much different in the military than it is in real life.  You enlist and your sex drive goes away   btw, I have served.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For how long and what branch?  Wait a minute......didn't you say that you never served?
> 
> As far as the sex drive going away?  Nope........mine stayed with me for 20 years.  Got 3 boys and oh yeah.......visited just about every brothel in the Med.  My favorite red light district was in Catania Sicily.
Click to expand...


first you say I said I was a sailor, now you say I said I never served.  I'll give you a hint. I served with the son of a former Navy CNO.  You even quoted one of his programs.


----------



## old navy

High_Gravity said:


> Are gays like hungry sexual predators? how come women are not scared to shower with the lesbians?



This thread has bored me until now.

Can we talk more about women showering together?


----------



## Seawytch

CountofTuscany said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for some people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what an "issue" it was for people when we desegregated the military? A month before Truman desegregated, a Gallup poll showed 63% of Americans being opposed to racial integration in the military (70% of Americans *support* lifting the ban).
> 
> Were you aware that President Truman conducted a survey prior to integrating the military? Care to venture a guess at what the military attitudes were regarding integration? Only 26% supported integration. Now, if you were to look at the DADT Pentagon survey, you would see that about the same number of people that supported integration are opposed to lifting the ban.
> 
> Now imagine that Truman had NOT integrated the armed forces because it was "an issue for some people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can 63% be against and 70% for? What kind of fuzy math is that?
Click to expand...


Try reading my post again. Let's try making it REALLY simple:

Americans opposed to integration prior to Truman desegregating: 63%

Americans that SUPPORT lifting DADT: 70%

Troops that SUPPORTED integration: 23%


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what an "issue" it was for people when we desegregated the military? A month before Truman desegregated, a Gallup poll showed 63% of Americans being opposed to racial integration in the military (70% of Americans *support* lifting the ban).
> 
> Were you aware that President Truman conducted a survey prior to integrating the military? Care to venture a guess at what the military attitudes were regarding integration? Only 26% supported integration. Now, if you were to look at the DADT Pentagon survey, you would see that about the same number of people that supported integration are opposed to lifting the ban.
> 
> Now imagine that Truman had NOT integrated the armed forces because it was "an issue for some people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can 63% be against and 70% for? What kind of fuzy math is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading my post again. Let's try making it REALLY simple:
> 
> Americans opposed to integration prior to Truman desegregating: 63%
> 
> Americans that SUPPORT lifting DADT: 70%
> 
> Troops that SUPPORTED integration: 23%
Click to expand...

 well you should have said it that way in the first place.   BTW, where did they take that 70% in favor survey? Gay bars?


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> because it still is an issue for *some* people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a small number and getting smaller...btw, since when is the military driven by what members don't "like"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> kind of a hypocritical statement since you are asking them to change for what YOU don't like
Click to expand...


We aren't asking ANYONE to "change". What the removal of DADT will be doing (very, very soon I might add) is require that *everyone*, gay or straight, serves under the EXACT SAME rules and regulations.

I noticed that you *COMPLETELY* ignored my post about racial integration and the *overwhelming* opposition to integration. Should Truman NOT have desegregated the military because such a HUGE majority were opposed to it?


----------



## Seawytch

Spoonman said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can 63% be against and 70% for? What kind of fuzy math is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading my post again. Let's try making it REALLY simple:
> 
> Americans opposed to integration prior to Truman desegregating: 63%
> 
> Americans that SUPPORT lifting DADT: 70%
> 
> Troops that SUPPORTED integration: 23%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you should have said it that way in the first place.   BTW, where did they take that 70% in favor survey? Gay bars?
Click to expand...


I did say it. Not my fault if you can't comprehend it unless it is in simple bullet form. 

CNN One Year Ago:
_A full 78 percent of respondents said that "people who are openly gay or homosexual" should be able to serve in the armed forces. _

Washington Post/CBS:

_Do you think [half sample: homosexuals / half sample: gays and lesbians] who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?_

12/12/10 Yes: 77% No: 21% No Opinion: 2%   No   No opinion


----------



## High_Gravity

I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.



We could post shower guards....


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could post shower guards....
Click to expand...


I think that would be the responsible thing to do, to make sure the transition goes smoothly.


----------



## SFC Ollie

High_Gravity said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could post shower guards....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that would be the responsible thing to do, to make sure the transition goes smoothly.
Click to expand...


I'll take the first shift.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could post shower guards....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that would be the responsible thing to do, to make sure the transition goes smoothly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take the first shift.
Click to expand...


I volunteer to work a double shift after your done.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.



"The women" have "adjusted" to showering with us just fine. A woman that joins the military and doesn't expect that there will be lesbians there is deluding herself. That there were bound to be many lesbians in the military is one of the reasons I joined


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The women" have "adjusted" to showering with us just fine. A woman that joins the military and doesn't expect that there will be lesbians there is deluding herself. That there were bound to be many lesbians in the military is one of the reasons I joined
Click to expand...


Hey me and Ollie are just trying to help.


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> For how long and what branch?  Wait a minute......didn't you say that you never served?
> 
> As far as the sex drive going away?  Nope........mine stayed with me for 20 years.  Got 3 boys and oh yeah.......visited just about every brothel in the Med.  My favorite red light district was in Catania Sicily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your career sounds awesome, all I did in mine was live in Omaha for 4 years, the West Virginia of California for 3 years and 2 trips to the desert. Navy always goes to awesome places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 26 different countries and 49 different states.  Only missed out on Alaska.
> 
> And yeah.........going to places like Rhodes Greece and standing where the Colossus of Rhodes stood was a treat.  Same with the church in Palma Mallorca Spain (cornerstone was laid in the 1200's and it was completed in the 1400's.  It even has a Jolly Roger on the floor because it was built by pirates).
> 
> Probably the 2 weirdest places were Anatalya Turkey (the brothel was a prison) or Dubai U.A.E., because you had the old section of town where you saw everyone in robes and burkas, but go across the town to the mall, and you'd see Arab women in western style clothing (some were quite revealing).
> 
> But........it wasn't all fun and games, because I also was in 4 war zones drawing hazard pay.
Click to expand...


LANTFLT....I was all PACFLT.   But between my wife and I, we brag about hitting all 7 continents.


----------



## Seawytch

High_Gravity said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to work on putting a plan together to help the women adjust to showering with the lesbians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The women" have "adjusted" to showering with us just fine. A woman that joins the military and doesn't expect that there will be lesbians there is deluding herself. That there were bound to be many lesbians in the military is one of the reasons I joined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey me and Ollie are just trying to help.
Click to expand...


Of course you are...(I HAVE watched straight porn...which ALWAYS has the obligatory lesbian sex scene)

I recall a HS teacher that warned me..."Do you know what kind of women join the military?" he asked. Of course I plead innocence, but my inner thought bubble was saying "YES!!"


----------



## bodecea

old navy said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are gays like hungry sexual predators? how come women are not scared to shower with the lesbians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has bored me until now.
> 
> Can we talk more about women showering together?
Click to expand...


Only did that in OCS, and they gave us five minutes for the entire company...with 5 showerheads (2 of them dribbling)....not exciting.


And then Navy showers......ugh.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could post shower guards....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that would be the responsible thing to do, to make sure the transition goes smoothly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take the first shift.
Click to expand...


  You guys crack me up!


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are gays like hungry sexual predators? how come women are not scared to shower with the lesbians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has bored me until now.
> 
> Can we talk more about women showering together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only did that in OCS, and they gave us five minutes for the entire company...with 5 showerheads (2 of them dribbling)....not exciting.
> 
> 
> And then Navy showers......ugh.
Click to expand...


Thats not going to work,to help the transition along we are having full whirpool showers installed for the females.


----------



## High_Gravity

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The women" have "adjusted" to showering with us just fine. A woman that joins the military and doesn't expect that there will be lesbians there is deluding herself. That there were bound to be many lesbians in the military is one of the reasons I joined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey me and Ollie are just trying to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are...(I HAVE watched straight porn...which ALWAYS has the obligatory lesbian sex scene)
> 
> I recall a HS teacher that warned me..."Do you know what kind of women join the military?" he asked. Of course I plead innocence, but my inner thought bubble was saying "YES!!"
Click to expand...


Hey if you found a place where you can be surrounded by women most of the time, I would have joined up too.


----------



## Gadawg73

One of my son's best friends just returned from Afghanistan. He stated that many of the women are easy as anything and are not shy about it.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> One of my son's best friends just returned from Afghanistan. He stated that many of the women are easy as anything and are not shy about it.



Well when you've been deployed a while you tend to lower your standards a bit, a woman that is just average stateside can be Eva Longoria in Afghanistan after a few months.


----------



## CountofTuscany

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The women" have "adjusted" to showering with us just fine. A woman that joins the military and doesn't expect that there will be lesbians there is deluding herself. That there were bound to be many lesbians in the military is one of the reasons I joined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey me and Ollie are just trying to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are...(I HAVE watched straight porn...which ALWAYS has the obligatory lesbian sex scene)
> 
> I recall a HS teacher that warned me..."Do you know what kind of women join the military?" he asked. Of course I plead innocence, but my inner thought bubble was saying "YES!!"
Click to expand...


Guys like to see two hot women together. The fantasy is joining them. What you don't see in straight porn is two guys together.


----------



## blackyb

You asked about the morale and the HIV factor. That is what the ones want that is pushing for this disasterous putting gays around our men and letting them serve openly. Those who are attempting to disrupt this country are wanting the troops demoralized and sick. They want Americans to look like fools and be diseased. These people have had this planned for many many years and now have the hacks in Washington to implement it and promote the destruction of this country. You can be who will get promoted over others once the pervs 'en mass get into higher ranks. I just hope they don't go to pink fanny packs.


----------



## blackyb

There will be so many complaints on straight people no one will want to join the services but gays and we will have gays who seem to not have their heads screwed on right somehow in a position to get housing, have partners who collect veterans benefits and go from one to the other spouses that the military will go broke.  God help us all for this is a mess and those instituting this are likely sitting back laughing.


----------



## Spoonman

Seawytch said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The women" have "adjusted" to showering with us just fine. A woman that joins the military and doesn't expect that there will be lesbians there is deluding herself. That there were bound to be many lesbians in the military is one of the reasons I joined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey me and Ollie are just trying to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are...(I HAVE watched straight porn...which ALWAYS has the obligatory lesbian sex scene)
> 
> I recall a HS teacher that warned me..."Do you know what kind of women join the military?" he asked. Of course I plead innocence, but my inner thought bubble was saying "YES!!"
Click to expand...


two chicks together is hot.


----------



## ABikerSailor

blackyb said:


> You asked about the morale and the HIV factor. That is what the ones want that is pushing for this disasterous putting gays around our men and letting them serve openly. Those who are attempting to disrupt this country are wanting the troops demoralized and sick. They want Americans to look like fools and be diseased. These people have had this planned for many many years and now have the hacks in Washington to implement it and promote the destruction of this country. You can be who will get promoted over others once the pervs 'en mass get into higher ranks. I just hope they don't go to pink fanny packs.



Hey stupid.........the U.S. Navy screens ALL PERSONNEL every 6 months to a year for HIV.

Incidentally, the only person I'd ever met with HIV was a STRAIGHT sailor who was cheating on his wife.  What does the Navy do with them?  They send them to desingated hospitals to be placed on limited duty until their discharge date.

The dude with HIV?  He was spending a lot of his time touring the east coast talking to commands about his problem.

Try again asshole.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my son's best friends just returned from Afghanistan. He stated that many of the women are easy as anything and are not shy about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well when you've been deployed a while you tend to lower your standards a bit, a woman that is just average stateside can be Eva Longoria in Afghanistan after a few months.
Click to expand...


Shit.........I'll go ya one better than that.........

Prior to women being fully integrated in the Navy, if you were on a combat ship, it was dudes only.  

About halfway through my first enlistment I noticed something.........if we'd been out on the water for 3 weeks or more, EVERY woman I saw was at the very least, doable.

However.........going from seeing beautiful women all over the place to seeing a bunch of average women with a couple of good looking ones thrown in only takes about 3 days on land.

It's a treatable condition.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> blackyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked about the morale and the HIV factor. That is what the ones want that is pushing for this disasterous putting gays around our men and letting them serve openly. Those who are attempting to disrupt this country are wanting the troops demoralized and sick. They want Americans to look like fools and be diseased. These people have had this planned for many many years and now have the hacks in Washington to implement it and promote the destruction of this country. You can be who will get promoted over others once the pervs 'en mass get into higher ranks. I just hope they don't go to pink fanny packs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the U.S. Navy screens ALL PERSONNEL every 6 months to a year for HIV.
> 
> Incidentally, the only person I'd ever met with HIV was a STRAIGHT sailor who was cheating on his wife.  What does the Navy do with them?  They send them to desingated hospitals to be placed on limited duty until their discharge date.
> 
> The dude with HIV?  He was spending a lot of his time touring the east coast talking to commands about his problem.
> 
> Try again asshole.
Click to expand...


every person I've ever known that has had HIV has been gay


----------



## Sense

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked about the morale and the HIV factor. That is what the ones want that is pushing for this disasterous putting gays around our men and letting them serve openly. Those who are attempting to disrupt this country are wanting the troops demoralized and sick. They want Americans to look like fools and be diseased. These people have had this planned for many many years and now have the hacks in Washington to implement it and promote the destruction of this country. You can be who will get promoted over others once the pervs 'en mass get into higher ranks. I just hope they don't go to pink fanny packs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the U.S. Navy screens ALL PERSONNEL every 6 months to a year for HIV.
> 
> Incidentally, the only person I'd ever met with HIV was a STRAIGHT sailor who was cheating on his wife.  What does the Navy do with them?  They send them to desingated hospitals to be placed on limited duty until their discharge date.
> 
> The dude with HIV?  He was spending a lot of his time touring the east coast talking to commands about his problem.
> 
> Try again asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> every person I've ever known that has had HIV has been gay
Click to expand...


Or black


----------



## Spoonman

Sense said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the U.S. Navy screens ALL PERSONNEL every 6 months to a year for HIV.
> 
> Incidentally, the only person I'd ever met with HIV was a STRAIGHT sailor who was cheating on his wife.  What does the Navy do with them?  They send them to desingated hospitals to be placed on limited duty until their discharge date.
> 
> The dude with HIV?  He was spending a lot of his time touring the east coast talking to commands about his problem.
> 
> Try again asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every person I've ever known that has had HIV has been gay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or black
Click to expand...

 they usually have gunshot wounds


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked about the morale and the HIV factor. That is what the ones want that is pushing for this disasterous putting gays around our men and letting them serve openly. Those who are attempting to disrupt this country are wanting the troops demoralized and sick. They want Americans to look like fools and be diseased. These people have had this planned for many many years and now have the hacks in Washington to implement it and promote the destruction of this country. You can be who will get promoted over others once the pervs 'en mass get into higher ranks. I just hope they don't go to pink fanny packs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the U.S. Navy screens ALL PERSONNEL every 6 months to a year for HIV.
> 
> Incidentally, the only person I'd ever met with HIV was a STRAIGHT sailor who was cheating on his wife.  What does the Navy do with them?  They send them to desingated hospitals to be placed on limited duty until their discharge date.
> 
> The dude with HIV?  He was spending a lot of his time touring the east coast talking to commands about his problem.
> 
> Try again asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> every person I've ever known that has had HIV has been gay
Click to expand...


Then apparently you don't know very many people.....here's some facts to help you out......



> Male-to-male sexual contact 23,846 - 23,846
> Injection drug use 2,449 1,483 3,932
> Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,131 - 1,131
> Heterosexual contact* 4,399 8,461 12,860
> Other** 47 29 76
> 
> * Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
> ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
> The distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection among children* in the 40 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category, follows:
> 
> Transmission Category Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection, 2009
> Perinatal 131
> Other** 35
> 
> * The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 years at the time of diagnosis.
> ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, and risk not reported or not identified.
> Go to top
> 
> In 2009, the estimated number of AIDS diagnoses in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, by race or ethnicity was as follows:
> 
> Race or Ethnicity  Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, 2009 Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2009*
> American Indian/Alaska Native 155 3,700
> Asiana 429 8,324
> Black/African American  16,741 466,351
> Hispanic/Latinob 6,719 190,263
> Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander  50 839
> White  9,467 426,102
> Multiple Races 686 12,726
> 
> * From the beginning of the epidemic through 2009.
> a Includes Asian/Pacific Islander legacy cases.
> b Hispanics/Latinos can be of any race.
> For more details on AIDS and race/ethnicity, see CDC's Populations/Surveillance fact sheets.
> 
> Go to top
> 
> AIDS Diagnoses by Transmission Category
> 
> Six common transmission categories are male-to-male sexual contact, injection drug use, male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, heterosexual contact, mother-to-child (perinatal) transmission, and other (includes blood transfusions and unknown cause).
> 
> Following is the distribution of the estimated number of AIDS diagnoses among adults and adolescents by transmission category in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.
> 
> 
> *Transmission Category Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, 2009
> Adult and Adolescent Males Adult and Adolescent Females Total
> Male-to-male sexual contact 17,005 - 17,005
> Injection drug use 3,012 1,930 4,942
> Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,580 - 1,580
> Heterosexual contact* 3,832 6,561 10,393
> Other** 158 155 313 *
> * Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
> ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.



Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

It's statistics from the CDC government website.  

You know Spoonertard, Google is your friend.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........the U.S. Navy screens ALL PERSONNEL every 6 months to a year for HIV.
> 
> Incidentally, the only person I'd ever met with HIV was a STRAIGHT sailor who was cheating on his wife.  What does the Navy do with them?  They send them to desingated hospitals to be placed on limited duty until their discharge date.
> 
> The dude with HIV?  He was spending a lot of his time touring the east coast talking to commands about his problem.
> 
> Try again asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every person I've ever known that has had HIV has been gay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then apparently you don't know very many people.....here's some facts to help you out......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Male-to-male sexual contact 23,846 - 23,846
> Injection drug use 2,449 1,483 3,932
> Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,131 - 1,131
> Heterosexual contact* 4,399 8,461 12,860
> Other** 47 29 76
> 
> * Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
> ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
> The distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection among children* in the 40 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category, follows:
> 
> Transmission Category Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection, 2009
> Perinatal 131
> Other** 35
> 
> * The term "children" refers to persons under age 13 years at the time of diagnosis.
> ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, and risk not reported or not identified.
> Go to top
> 
> In 2009, the estimated number of AIDS diagnoses in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, by race or ethnicity was as follows:
> 
> Race or Ethnicity  Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, 2009 Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2009*
> American Indian/Alaska Native 155 3,700
> Asiana 429 8,324
> Black/African American  16,741 466,351
> Hispanic/Latinob 6,719 190,263
> Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander  50 839
> White  9,467 426,102
> Multiple Races 686 12,726
> 
> * From the beginning of the epidemic through 2009.
> a Includes Asian/Pacific Islander legacy cases.
> b Hispanics/Latinos can be of any race.
> For more details on AIDS and race/ethnicity, see CDC's Populations/Surveillance fact sheets.
> 
> Go to top
> 
> AIDS Diagnoses by Transmission Category
> 
> Six common transmission categories are male-to-male sexual contact, injection drug use, male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, heterosexual contact, mother-to-child (perinatal) transmission, and other (includes blood transfusions and unknown cause).
> 
> Following is the distribution of the estimated number of AIDS diagnoses among adults and adolescents by transmission category in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.
> 
> 
> *Transmission Category Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, 2009
> Adult and Adolescent Males Adult and Adolescent Females Total
> Male-to-male sexual contact 17,005 - 17,005
> Injection drug use 3,012 1,930 4,942
> Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,580 - 1,580
> Heterosexual contact* 3,832 6,561 10,393
> Other** 158 155 313 *
> * Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
> ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS
> 
> It's statistics from the CDC government website.
> 
> You know Spoonertard, Google is your friend.
Click to expand...


God you are dumb.  Now translate thos numbers to the percent of the population that is homosexual and you will see that they are overwhelmingly at risk.   you can multiply and divide can't you?   Do you know anything about statistics? ratios? percentages?  Or are you still dealing with gozintos?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well, you should have also read the part where it showed this.....

Black/African American 16,741 466,351 
Hispanic/Latinob 6,719 190,263 
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 50 839 
White 9,467 426,102 


Now, the first number and the second number should be added together to give the total infection rates.  Whites have 9,467 plus the other 426,102 which equals 435,569.

Blacks have 16,741 plus 466,351, which equals 483,092

Now, 483,092 minus 435,596 equals 47,496, which means blacks have only 10 percent more infections than whites.

Try again ya fucking  moron.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, you should have also read the part where it showed this.....
> 
> Black/African American 16,741 466,351
> Hispanic/Latinob 6,719 190,263
> Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 50 839
> White 9,467 426,102
> 
> 
> Now, the first number and the second number should be added together to give the total infection rates.  Whites have 9,467 plus the other 426,102 which equals 435,569.
> 
> Blacks have 16,741 plus 466,351, which equals 483,092
> 
> Now, 483,092 minus 435,596 equals 47,496, which means blacks have only 10 percent more infections than whites.
> 
> Try again ya fucking  moron.



LMAO Jethro Bodine  -  where did you get yer skoolin?  Bugtussel? 

OK, a little tip, If you are going to post a data link, understand what it is saying.

There are appx 223,563,265 whites in the US - 435,569 get aids  or 1 in 5131

There are appx   38,929,319 blacks in the US - 483,092 get aids  or 1 in 80  

Statistically blacks are 64 times more likely to contract HIV than whites


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey.......you were the one making up the bullshit that no heterosexuals or whites got the disease asshole.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey.......you were the one making up the bullshit that no heterosexuals or whites got the disease asshole.



yea ok, show me where I said no heterosexuals or whites got the disease


----------



## Seawytch

Hey Spoonman, nice to see you back...you never did answer the question...


Should blacks have been kept segregated since it is what a HUGE MAJORITY of the troops (and a majority of Americans) wanted?


----------



## yota5

Seawytch said:


> Hey Spoonman, nice to see you back...you never did answer the question...
> 
> 
> Should blacks have been kept segregated since it is what a HUGE MAJORITY of the troops (and a majority of Americans) wanted?



Seawtch, I can't believe that you're comparing different ethnic groups serving in the military with the service of sexual deviants.  Does that make sense to you?  I don't think that ethnicity has anything to do with sexual deviance, or any other perversion.  But, apparently you do.  How do you make that connection?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Spoonman, nice to see you back...you never did answer the question...
> 
> 
> Should blacks have been kept segregated since it is what a HUGE MAJORITY of the troops (and a majority of Americans) wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, I can't believe that you're comparing different ethnic groups serving in the military with the service of sexual deviants.  Does that make sense to you?  I don't think that ethnicity has anything to do with sexual deviance, or any other perversion.  But, apparently you do.  How do you make that connection?
Click to expand...


Last time I checked, being gay is not sexual deviance anymore than liking oral sex is.   But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.   

It's only those looking to continue discrimination against a law-abiding, tax-paying group of patriotic citizens that are the deviants.


----------



## Steve Hanson

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Spoonman, nice to see you back...you never did answer the question...
> 
> 
> Should blacks have been kept segregated since it is what a HUGE MAJORITY of the troops (and a majority of Americans) wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, I can't believe that you're comparing different ethnic groups serving in the military with the service of sexual deviants.  Does that make sense to you?  I don't think that ethnicity has anything to do with sexual deviance, or any other perversion.  But, apparently you do.  How do you make that connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, being gay is not sexual deviance anymore than liking oral sex is.   But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> It's only those looking to continue discrimination against a law-abiding, tax-paying group of patriotic citizens that are the deviants.
Click to expand...

Only because the Supreme court trampled the rights of the states.


----------



## bodecea

Steve Hanson said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, I can't believe that you're comparing different ethnic groups serving in the military with the service of sexual deviants.  Does that make sense to you?  I don't think that ethnicity has anything to do with sexual deviance, or any other perversion.  But, apparently you do.  How do you make that connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, being gay is not sexual deviance anymore than liking oral sex is.   But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> It's only those looking to continue discrimination against a law-abiding, tax-paying group of patriotic citizens that are the deviants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because the Supreme court trampled the rights of the states.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## Seawytch

yota5 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Spoonman, nice to see you back...you never did answer the question...
> 
> 
> Should blacks have been kept segregated since it is what a HUGE MAJORITY of the troops (and a majority of Americans) wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, I can't believe that you're comparing different ethnic groups serving in the military with the service of sexual deviants.  Does that make sense to you?  I don't think that ethnicity has anything to do with sexual deviance, or any other perversion.  But, apparently you do.  How do you make that connection?
Click to expand...


Let's see...I was comparing discrimination with...oh yeah, discrimination. You think you are justified in wanting to discriminate against gays and lesbians simply for the consenting adult they have relations with. In Truman's day, people wanted to discriminate based on the color of someone's skin. Sure looks like the same whore in a different dress to me. 

The majority of people were *overwhelmingly* opposed to integrating the armed forces. When Truman surveyed the troops prior to integrating the forces, they found that 85% of white soldiers thought it was a good idea to have separate *service clubs*, not just berthing and showers.  Bigotry is bigotry...theirs and now yours. They were on the wrong side of history and so are you.


----------



## Spoonman

Steve Hanson said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, I can't believe that you're comparing different ethnic groups serving in the military with the service of sexual deviants.  Does that make sense to you?  I don't think that ethnicity has anything to do with sexual deviance, or any other perversion.  But, apparently you do.  How do you make that connection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, being gay is not sexual deviance anymore than liking oral sex is.   But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> It's only those looking to continue discrimination against a law-abiding, tax-paying group of patriotic citizens that are the deviants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because the Supreme court trampled the rights of the states.
Click to expand...


Yep, they really overstepped their bounds on that one.


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> Steve Hanson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, being gay is not sexual deviance anymore than liking oral sex is.   But discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
> 
> It's only those looking to continue discrimination against a law-abiding, tax-paying group of patriotic citizens that are the deviants.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the Supreme court trampled the rights of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they really overstepped their bounds on that one.
Click to expand...


That one?


----------



## yota5

Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.  

No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences. 

There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?


----------



## Grace

You have a fascination with that word, don't you?


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?



Hey stupid.........there's a reason that assholes like you aren't needed in the military......it's because you spread lies and dissention in the ranks.

The HIV screening came about because the military KNEW it wasn't just a gay disease, and that it could be transmitted via heterosexual sex.  Incidentally, one of the main things that they tell you when you go to Rio de Janero is that there is a high incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases in the town.  How do I know?  I've been there and received the port brief.

By the way you cock smoking colon jouster, wanna explain why the only HIV person I ever saw in the military was STRAIGHT?  Like I said you inbred retard, the dude had cheated on his wife with a hooker and that's how he contracted the disease.

No.........it's not because they're looking for the "gomers" as you so ineloquently put it, it's because every member onboard the ship is a part of the walking blood bank, and it's gotta stay good.

Walking blood bank for you civilians is what is referred to as the crew in case of severe casualties onboard the ship.

Try again YoTard.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........there's a reason that assholes like you aren't needed in the military......it's because you spread lies and dissention in the ranks.
> 
> The HIV screening came about because the military KNEW it wasn't just a gay disease, and that it could be transmitted via heterosexual sex.  Incidentally, one of the main things that they tell you when you go to Rio de Janero is that there is a high incidence of HIV and other sexual diseases in the town.  How do I know?  I've been there and received the port brief.
> 
> By the way you cock smoking colon jouster, wanna explain why the only HIV person I ever saw in the military was STRAIGHT?  Like I said you inbred retard, the dude had cheated on his wife with a hooker and that's how he contracted the disease.
> 
> No.........it's not because they're looking for the "gomers" as you so ineloquently put it, it's because every member onboard the ship is a part of the walking blood bank, and it's gotta stay good.
> 
> Walking blood bank for you civilians is what is referred to as the crew in case of severe casualties onboard the ship.
> 
> Try again YoTard.
Click to expand...


No, I think it was me who called you gomer.  Or maybe it was jethro


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?



Let me make sure I'm clear.
This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?


----------



## yota5

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make sure I'm clear.
> This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?
Click to expand...



From your tone I can see that we are at opposite ends of this discussion.  Although I can sense that you have a compelling urge to assess blame this isn't about discriminatory practices.  Let me say this again serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.  If this were not the case no one would wash out during Ranger, or Sniper training.  

Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.  

Yes Grace, I am fascinated with the word trust.  Trust, and the value of team is instilled in everyone who has served.  The only ones who disagree with these concepts are found with in the gay community.  

Gaybikersailor, I'm continuously amused at the liberal practice of incoherent personal attacks when you folks can't make a credible argument.  There is a long history of excluding gays from the ranks of the American armed forces.  Gays can't qualify to serve for obvious reasons.  That is why serving gays have been discharged where they have been found.  Openly serving gays will undermine core military values such as trust, team, history, and traditions.  

The CinC, as are most liberals is not a friend of the US Military.  Obama's actions are about to undermine years of achievement and tradition.  The only ones who will be happy about this are his rump rangers.

If you weren't so anally retentive you would admit to the fact that 6 month HIV screening is just a feel good, cover your ass measure (I hope that didn't excite you too much.)  It doesn't solve the problem.  Even you, "the personnel man", should know that HIV screening today wont stop you from engaging in unprotected, deviant sex tomorrow.  The chances are great that you would become infected.  How much damage could you do over the ensuing months before your next screening?    Oops!  Here is another reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve isn't it.


----------



## Spoonman

yota5 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make sure I'm clear.
> This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your tone I can see that we are at opposite ends of this discussion.  Although I can sense that you have a compelling urge to assess blame this isn't about discriminatory practices.  Let me say this again serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.  If this were not the case no one would wash out during Ranger, or Sniper training.
> 
> Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.
> 
> Yes Grace, I am fascinated with the word trust.  Trust, and the value of team is instilled in everyone who has served.  The only ones who disagree with these concepts are found with in the gay community.
> 
> Gaybikersailor, I'm continuously amused at the liberal practice of incoherent personal attacks when you folks can't make a credible argument.  There is a long history of excluding gays from the ranks of the American armed forces.  Gays can't qualify to serve for obvious reasons.  That is why serving gays have been discharged where they have been found.  Openly serving gays will undermine core military values such as trust, team, history, and traditions.
> 
> The CinC, as are most liberals is not a friend of the US Military.  Obama's actions are about to undermine years of achievement and tradition.  The only ones who will be happy about this are his rump rangers.
> 
> If you weren't so anally retentive you would admit to the fact that 6 month HIV screening is just a feel good, cover your ass measure (I hope that didn't excite you too much.)  It doesn't solve the problem.  Even you, "the personnel man", should know that HIV screening today wont stop you from engaging in unprotected, deviant sex tomorrow.  The chances are great that you would become infected.  How much damage could you do over the ensuing months before your next screening?    Oops!  Here is another reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve isn't it.
Click to expand...


What cracks me up about gaybiker is he pretends to defend gays and gay rights but then his most vicious and derogatory attacks he can come up with to flame you are calling you gay or infering you engage in homosexual practices. he demeans gays more than anyone on this board


----------



## jillian

Montrovant said:


> Let me make sure I'm clear.
> This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?



you just did the cliff notes version of the lunatic fringe's feelings on the subject.


----------



## yota5

*"What cracks me up about gaybiker is he pretends to defend gays and gay rights but then his most vicious and derogatory attacks he can come up with to flame you are calling you gay or infering you engage in homosexual practices. he demeans gays more than anyone on this board."*  (Spoonman)

Very perceptive, Spoonman.  It appears that the most derogatory attacks that gaybiker can make is to malign some one with his own deviant practices.  It gives insight as to how gaybiker perceives himself doesn't it?   Very good reply.  

In reply to montrovant's reply Jillian said *"you just did the cliff notes version of the lunatic fringe's feelings on the subject."*

Jillian, no matter how many times that you accuse conservatives of fringe lunacy, the fact of the reality will always come back to roost at the fringe/ communist/ gay/ criminal/ lunatic left.


----------



## bodecea

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make sure I'm clear.
> This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?
Click to expand...


Yeah...when he goes for the BS, he goes all out.

Let me add...that the military tests for HIV because there are many more ways to get HIV than being gay....our biggest problem early on had to do with Sailors NOT being warned about overseas prostitutes, particularly in the Far East and coming back with it.   What about the drug users?  What about the innocent members whose spouses pick it up thru drug use or extramaritial sex?


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seawtch, this isn't about discrimination.  This is about trust.  Bod, this is also about sexual deviance.  Gaybikersailor, you keep hammering the fact that the Navy screens for HIV every six months.  That fact alone gives significance to the fact that the Navy recognizes the risks involved by having you gomers in the ranks.
> 
> No matter how you slice this issue it comes down to the fact that this latest liberal scheme is designed to diminish the capabilities of the US Military, and destroy its Esprit DE Corp.  Liberals are always supportive of anything that will hurt this country.  As civilians you people can ride dirty, and honk on each other all that you want.  You can enjoy all of the HIV that you can handle.   Just don't screw up the military with your deviant sexual preferences.
> 
> There is a reason that you folks haven't been welcome.  That reason keeps bring us back to trust doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make sure I'm clear.
> This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your tone I can see that we are at opposite ends of this discussion.  Although I can sense that you have a compelling urge to assess blame this isn't about discriminatory practices.  Let me say this again serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.  If this were not the case no one would wash out during Ranger, or Sniper training.
> 
> Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.
> 
> Yes Grace, I am fascinated with the word trust.  Trust, and the value of team is instilled in everyone who has served.  The only ones who disagree with these concepts are found with in the gay community.
> 
> Gaybikersailor, I'm continuously amused at the liberal practice of incoherent personal attacks when you folks can't make a credible argument.  There is a long history of excluding gays from the ranks of the American armed forces.  Gays can't qualify to serve for obvious reasons.  That is why serving gays have been discharged where they have been found.  Openly serving gays will undermine core military values such as trust, team, history, and traditions.
> 
> The CinC, as are most liberals is not a friend of the US Military.  Obama's actions are about to undermine years of achievement and tradition.  The only ones who will be happy about this are his rump rangers.
> 
> If you weren't so anally retentive you would admit to the fact that 6 month HIV screening is just a feel good, cover your ass measure (I hope that didn't excite you too much.)  It doesn't solve the problem.  Even you, "the personnel man", should know that HIV screening today wont stop you from engaging in unprotected, deviant sex tomorrow.  The chances are great that you would become infected.  How much damage could you do over the ensuing months before your next screening?    Oops!  Here is another reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve isn't it.
Click to expand...


I'm quoting this whole post but only responding to the part directed at me (I don't want to violate any rules by partially quoting).

I think you are missing the point of my question.  You indicated that the people who push to allow gays to serve openly are actively attempting to weaken the military.  I'm not talking about unintended consequences, your post claimed this was a planned attempt to hurt the military and weaken the country.  

I can understand the belief that having gays serve openly will hurt our military morale.  I don't agree with that, at least not in the long term, but I accept the argument as understandable.  To claim that liberals want to hurt the military and the country, that people who want gays to be able to serve openly actually HOPE for the military to be weakened, on the other hand, strikes me as a bit deranged.  It prevents discussion by labeling all those who disagree with your views as anti-military or anti-American.  It assigns nefarious motive to all opposition, allowing you to self-righteously condemn anyone who argues with you with no need for you to actually pay attention to what they are saying or refute any points they bring up.  

Your response to me backed off of the stance that those for gays serving openly are actively attempting to harm our military.  I don't know which response is indicative of your true beliefs; based on your previous posts in this thread, including your unwillingness or inability to discuss what should be done as far as heterosexual 'sexual deviants' in the military, leads me to think you really do consider all opposition to your view as wanting to weaken the country.  I hope I am wrong.

tl:dr - Wanting gays to be able to serve openly does NOT mean wanting to weaken the military.


----------



## pinqy

yota5 said:


> [Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.



You're wrong.  Again, I've served with many homosexuals, everyone knew, and the effect on morale and unit readiness was zero.  This is in garrison and in combat zones.  I agree that high standards, quality, earned trust, respect, loyalty, and personal courage are important and I've seen those in homosexual and heterosexual soldiers and found them lacking in others.  I've NEVER, in 23 years of service, seen homosexuals cause a single problem or hurt unit morale through being homosexual.

Please cite some examples where this has happened and actually support your claims instead of making assertions.  I'm saying what I've seen, what you backing your claims with?


----------



## iggy pop

pinqy said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Again, I've served with many homosexuals, everyone knew, and the effect on morale and unit readiness was zero.  This is in garrison and in combat zones.  I agree that high standards, quality, earned trust, respect, loyalty, and personal courage are important and I've seen those in homosexual and heterosexual soldiers and found them lacking in others.  I've NEVER, in 23 years of service, seen homosexuals cause a single problem or hurt unit morale through being homosexual.
> 
> Please cite some examples where this has happened and actually support your claims instead of making assertions.  I'm saying what I've seen, what you backing your claims with?
Click to expand...


So why all he bithing about DADT if everyone already knew and nothing happened anyway? Sounds to me like it is nothing than gays pushing an agenda and using the military and tax payers dollars as a tool.   

Can you site some examples of how it hasn't effected moral?


----------



## pinqy

iggy pop said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Again, I've served with many homosexuals, everyone knew, and the effect on morale and unit readiness was zero.  This is in garrison and in combat zones.  I agree that high standards, quality, earned trust, respect, loyalty, and personal courage are important and I've seen those in homosexual and heterosexual soldiers and found them lacking in others.  I've NEVER, in 23 years of service, seen homosexuals cause a single problem or hurt unit morale through being homosexual.
> 
> Please cite some examples where this has happened and actually support your claims instead of making assertions.  I'm saying what I've seen, what you backing your claims with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why all he bithing about DADT if everyone already knew and nothing happened anyway?
Click to expand...

Because in some units the commanders did take action, and in others DADT was used by people to get out rather than deploy.



> Can you site some examples of how it hasn't effected moral?



Yes.  People were gay, and it didn't affect the morale of any unit I was in.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Actually it appears as if those who were on active duty and knew about someone who was serving and was gay, broke regulations by not investigating or taking some type of action. Depending upon their position. Any NCO or Officer who knew of a gay person was obligated by regulation to take action....

Any who did not do so, failed.  There is nothing else to say about it. Regulations are regulations, you cannot pick the ones you want to follow.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually it appears as if those who were on active duty and knew about someone who was serving and was gay, broke regulations by not investigating or taking some type of action. Depending upon their position. Any NCO or Officer who knew of a gay person was obligated by regulation to take action....
> 
> Any who did not do so, failed.  There is nothing else to say about it. Regulations are regulations, you cannot pick the ones you want to follow.




So just wondering, how many persons in your career did you have charged and investigated under Article 125 after a weekends liberty or visiting a whore house in a foreign country and they talked about receiving oral sex?


>>>>


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually it appears as if those who were on active duty and knew about someone who was serving and was gay, broke regulations by not investigating or taking some type of action. Depending upon their position. Any NCO or Officer who knew of a gay person was obligated by regulation to take action....
> 
> Any who did not do so, failed.  There is nothing else to say about it. Regulations are regulations, you cannot pick the ones you want to follow.





Some people realize that losing a good soldier/sailor is not a good idea.  Others....not so much.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Truth is I can't remember anyone ever telling me those details. Other than one member of cadre at an AIT company who was busted for screwing one of the students. If there were others then I suppose I would be guilty on that one.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SFC Ollie said:


> Truth is I can't remember anyone ever telling me those details. Other than one member of cadre at an AIT company who was busted for screwing one of the students. If there were others then I suppose I would be guilty on that one.



We may disagree on some things, but I've come to understand in my short time here that you have a good soul.

Not many would have been able to admit that.


My point was that I can't think of a senior NCO who didn't learn that there were times & places where you turn a blind eye to minor infractions when you know that a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who has their shit in one sock make a mistake.


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make sure I'm clear.
> This isn't a disagreement about what's best for our military, but is instead an active attempt to hurt the military?  Those who are for the allowing gays to serve openly aren't worried about equality, feel no concern about ending discriminatory practices; they want to see us weakened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your tone I can see that we are at opposite ends of this discussion.  Although I can sense that you have a compelling urge to assess blame this isn't about discriminatory practices.  Let me say this again serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.  If this were not the case no one would wash out during Ranger, or Sniper training.
> 
> Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.
> 
> Yes Grace, I am fascinated with the word trust.  Trust, and the value of team is instilled in everyone who has served.  The only ones who disagree with these concepts are found with in the gay community.
> 
> Gaybikersailor, I'm continuously amused at the liberal practice of incoherent personal attacks when you folks can't make a credible argument.  There is a long history of excluding gays from the ranks of the American armed forces.  Gays can't qualify to serve for obvious reasons.  That is why serving gays have been discharged where they have been found.  Openly serving gays will undermine core military values such as trust, team, history, and traditions.
> 
> The CinC, as are most liberals is not a friend of the US Military.  Obama's actions are about to undermine years of achievement and tradition.  The only ones who will be happy about this are his rump rangers.
> 
> If you weren't so anally retentive you would admit to the fact that 6 month HIV screening is just a feel good, cover your ass measure (I hope that didn't excite you too much.)  It doesn't solve the problem.  Even you, "the personnel man", should know that HIV screening today wont stop you from engaging in unprotected, deviant sex tomorrow.  The chances are great that you would become infected.  How much damage could you do over the ensuing months before your next screening?    Oops!  Here is another reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cracks me up about gaybiker is he pretends to defend gays and gay rights but then his most vicious and derogatory attacks he can come up with to flame you are calling you gay or infering you engage in homosexual practices. he demeans gays more than anyone on this board
Click to expand...


Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
You are full of shit.
If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Spoonertard.............ya got any evidence to back up your claims about morale?

I suggest you google Lt. Dan Cho.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it appears as if those who were on active duty and knew about someone who was serving and was gay, broke regulations by not investigating or taking some type of action. Depending upon their position. Any NCO or Officer who knew of a gay person was obligated by regulation to take action....
> 
> Any who did not do so, failed.  There is nothing else to say about it. Regulations are regulations, you cannot pick the ones you want to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people realize that losing a good soldier/sailor is not a good idea.  Others....not so much.
Click to expand...


they get shot and die. it doessn't mean we pass laws to keep them from fighting


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your tone I can see that we are at opposite ends of this discussion.  Although I can sense that you have a compelling urge to assess blame this isn't about discriminatory practices.  Let me say this again serving in the military isn't a right.  Serving is an earned privilege.  If this were not the case no one would wash out during Ranger, or Sniper training.
> 
> Those who complete such a rigorous training regime form a special bond, and a profound trust.  That aspect would be missing if standards were set low enough so that everyone could qualify.  That in its self would hurt the military, and reduce combat readiness.  There are those ugly words again; high standards, qualify, earned trust, respect, loyalty, personal courage.  Gays serving openly will weaken us.
> 
> Yes Grace, I am fascinated with the word trust.  Trust, and the value of team is instilled in everyone who has served.  The only ones who disagree with these concepts are found with in the gay community.
> 
> Gaybikersailor, I'm continuously amused at the liberal practice of incoherent personal attacks when you folks can't make a credible argument.  There is a long history of excluding gays from the ranks of the American armed forces.  Gays can't qualify to serve for obvious reasons.  That is why serving gays have been discharged where they have been found.  Openly serving gays will undermine core military values such as trust, team, history, and traditions.
> 
> The CinC, as are most liberals is not a friend of the US Military.  Obama's actions are about to undermine years of achievement and tradition.  The only ones who will be happy about this are his rump rangers.
> 
> If you weren't so anally retentive you would admit to the fact that 6 month HIV screening is just a feel good, cover your ass measure (I hope that didn't excite you too much.)  It doesn't solve the problem.  Even you, "the personnel man", should know that HIV screening today wont stop you from engaging in unprotected, deviant sex tomorrow.  The chances are great that you would become infected.  How much damage could you do over the ensuing months before your next screening?    Oops!  Here is another reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve isn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cracks me up about gaybiker is he pretends to defend gays and gay rights but then his most vicious and derogatory attacks he can come up with to flame you are calling you gay or infering you engage in homosexual practices. he demeans gays more than anyone on this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
> You are full of shit.
> If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.
Click to expand...


Ok so find some of my vicious, demeaning derogatory attacks against gays?  Welll go ahead.


----------



## Samson

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cracks me up about gaybiker is he pretends to defend gays and gay rights but then his most vicious and derogatory attacks he can come up with to flame you are calling you gay or infering you engage in homosexual practices. he demeans gays more than anyone on this board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
> You are full of shit.
> If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so find some of my vicious, demeaning derogatory attacks against gays?  Welll go ahead.
Click to expand...


By "gays" do you mean Queers?


----------



## Spoonman

Samson said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
> You are full of shit.
> If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so find some of my vicious, demeaning derogatory attacks against gays?  Welll go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "gays" do you mean Queers?
Click to expand...

 I thought we were talking about happy people here?


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cracks me up about gaybiker is he pretends to defend gays and gay rights but then his most vicious and derogatory attacks he can come up with to flame you are calling you gay or infering you engage in homosexual practices. he demeans gays more than anyone on this board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
> You are full of shit.
> If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so find some of my vicious, demeaning derogatory attacks against gays?  Welll go ahead.
Click to expand...


Name one time someone used them and you didn't back them up.
Just one.
You are like the wimp that hangs around at a fight where a bully has bullied some small kid. You sit and watch and do nothing. Same thing as supporting it.


----------



## Steve Hanson

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
> You are full of shit.
> If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so find some of my vicious, demeaning derogatory attacks against gays?  Welll go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one time someone used them and you didn't back them up.
> Just one.
> You are like the wimp that hangs around at a fight where a bully has bullied some small kid. You sit and watch and do nothing. Same thing as supporting it.
Click to expand...


So in other words you couldn't find one. That's what you're really saying, right?


----------



## High_Gravity

Oh no, the gays are coming!


----------



## bodecea

High_Gravity said:


> Oh no, the gays are coming!



Oh NOES!   The Gays have been here all along!!!!


----------



## High_Gravity

bodecea said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, the gays are coming!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NOES!   The Gays have been here all along!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, the gays are coming!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NOES!   The Gays have been here all along!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Shit......I've known they've been in the military since 1983.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NOES!   The Gays have been here all along!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit......I've known they've been in the military since 1983.
Click to expand...


I think they have been in every war this country has fought in to be honest.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit......I've known they've been in the military since 1983.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they have been in every war this country has fought in to be honest.
Click to expand...


Correct.  And, Washington's general Baron von Steuben, who was the guy that sorted out the army in Valley Forge and taught tactics was rumored to be gay.......



> In 1764 Steuben became chamberlain to Fürst Josef Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern-Hechingen. In 1769, he started using the title of baron, based on a falsified lineage prepared by his father.[3] He was the only courtier to accompany his incognito prince to France in 1771, hoping to borrow money. Failing to find funds, they returned to Germany in 1775, deeply in debt.[1]
> 
> In 1776, he was alleged to be homosexual and was accused of improper sexual behavior with young boys.[3] Whether or not Steuben was actually intimate with other men is not entirely known, but the rumors compelled him to seek employment elsewhere.[3] Steuben tried employment in several foreign armies including Austria, Baden, and France.



Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit......I've known they've been in the military since 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they have been in every war this country has fought in to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  And, Washington's general Baron von Steuben, who was the guy that sorted out the army in Valley Forge and taught tactics was rumored to be gay.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1764 Steuben became chamberlain to Fürst Josef Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern-Hechingen. In 1769, he started using the title of baron, based on a falsified lineage prepared by his father.[3] He was the only courtier to accompany his incognito prince to France in 1771, hoping to borrow money. Failing to find funds, they returned to Germany in 1775, deeply in debt.[1]
> 
> In 1776, he was alleged to be homosexual and was accused of improper sexual behavior with young boys.[3] Whether or not Steuben was actually intimate with other men is not entirely known, but the rumors compelled him to seek employment elsewhere.[3] Steuben tried employment in several foreign armies including Austria, Baden, and France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


From what I can remember homosexuality goes back to the days of Alexander the Great so they have always been here, they just couldn't say anything because of the bigotry and intolerance in those days.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I am sure you find vicious, demeaning and derogatory attacks against gays and lesbians insulting.
> You are full of shit.
> If that doesn't close the book on your dumb ass nothing will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so find some of my vicious, demeaning derogatory attacks against gays?  Welll go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one time someone used them and you didn't back them up.
> Just one.
> You are like the wimp that hangs around at a fight where a bully has bullied some small kid. You sit and watch and do nothing. Same thing as supporting it.
Click to expand...


So in other words - yada, yada, yada.  You are just another empty suit flapping his gums and shouting out false accusations.


----------



## Spoonman

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit......I've known they've been in the military since 1983.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they have been in every war this country has fought in to be honest.
Click to expand...


And you didn't hear them bitching about it until now.  interesting


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit......I've known they've been in the military since 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they have been in every war this country has fought in to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you didn't hear them bitching about it until now.  interesting
Click to expand...


You keep going on about us "whining" and "bitching"....but we won...nothing to whine and bitch about now....at least by us.


----------



## SFC Ollie

We'll see.......


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they have been in every war this country has fought in to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't hear them bitching about it until now.  interesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep going on about us "whining" and "bitching"....but we won...nothing to whine and bitch about now....at least by us.
Click to expand...


interesting choice of an avatar.  She bucked the system and got her daughters raped.  Then out of revenge she fought some small army groups on extended supply lines and let it get to her head that she was actually winning something.  She let her arrogance and rage lead her to some grievous strategy decisions and not only destroyed herself but her followers.


----------



## Spoonman

SFC Ollie said:


> We'll see.......



What did they win? was there a trophy awarded? did they get their names on a plaque?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did they win? was there a trophy awarded? did they get their names on a plaque?
Click to expand...


Hey Spooner'tard.........two quick questions sportcheck.....

1.  Did you ever serve in the military at all?

2.  If the answer is yes, how many gays were you aware of that were serving alongside you?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did they win? was there a trophy awarded? did they get their names on a plaque?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Spooner'tard.........two quick questions sportcheck.....
> 
> 1.  Did you ever serve in the military at all?
> 
> 2.  If the answer is yes, how many gays were you aware of that were serving alongside you?
Click to expand...

Short term memory problems there bro?


----------



## ABikerSailor

You've never answered the question.  What service, for how long, and did you know any gays?

Pretty simple questions actually.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> You've never answered the question.  What service, for how long, and did you know any gays?
> 
> Pretty simple questions actually.



Well actually I did, and somehow you took it as I was a sailor.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never answered the question.  What service, for how long, and did you know any gays?
> 
> Pretty simple questions actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually I did, and somehow you took it as I was a sailor.
Click to expand...


Actually......no you didn't.  What service, how long, and did you know any gays?

Until those questions are answered fully, consider yourself to not be an expert.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never answered the question.  What service, for how long, and did you know any gays?
> 
> Pretty simple questions actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually I did, and somehow you took it as I was a sailor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually......no you didn't.  What service, how long, and did you know any gays?
> 
> Until those questions are answered fully, consider yourself to not be an expert.
Click to expand...

 Those questions have been answered.  you are to clueless to remember, in fact you even got it wrong.  And i could give a rats ass about what criteria you set as being an expert.  you sure as hell aren't one yourself.  For someone who claims to have been in the military you are the one who has posted incorrect facts.  shit you missed stuff you could have googled  and gotten right


----------



## ABikerSailor

If you wanna, you can call and ask Amarillo MEPS who was serving as the LPO from 1999 until 2002 May.............

It's the same name that I have on my certificate on my profile.


Try again you poor clueless bastard.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> If you wanna, you can call and ask Amarillo MEPS who was serving as the LPO from 1999 until 2002 May.............
> 
> It's the same name that I have on my certificate on my profile.
> 
> 
> Try again you poor clueless bastard.



sure I'll call up and ask them, do you know abikersailor


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanna, you can call and ask Amarillo MEPS who was serving as the LPO from 1999 until 2002 May.............
> 
> It's the same name that I have on my certificate on my profile.
> 
> 
> Try again you poor clueless bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure I'll call up and ask them, do you know abikersailor
Click to expand...


Like I said.......ask who ran the MEPS for the Navy office.  They will tell you it was me.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanna, you can call and ask Amarillo MEPS who was serving as the LPO from 1999 until 2002 May.............
> 
> It's the same name that I have on my certificate on my profile.
> 
> 
> Try again you poor clueless bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure I'll call up and ask them, do you know abikersailor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said.......ask who ran the MEPS for the Navy office.  They will tell you it was me.
Click to expand...


yea, i'm sure they are going to be giving out all kinds of information. they are really free with that kind of stuff.  besides, it was probably your neighbor.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure I'll call up and ask them, do you know abikersailor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.......ask who ran the MEPS for the Navy office.  They will tell you it was me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea, i'm sure they are going to be giving out all kinds of information. they are really free with that kind of stuff.  besides, it was probably your neighbor.
Click to expand...


Actually, under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), you can ask if a person was ever stationed someplace.  Name, rank, past and current duty stations, as well as future ones if hte member has orders are all releaseable information.

If you'd actually served in the military, you'd know that.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.......ask who ran the MEPS for the Navy office.  They will tell you it was me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, i'm sure they are going to be giving out all kinds of information. they are really free with that kind of stuff.  besides, it was probably your neighbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), you can ask if a person was ever stationed someplace.  Name, rank, past and current duty stations, as well as future ones if hte member has orders are all releaseable information.
> 
> If you'd actually served in the military, you'd know that.
Click to expand...


sure I'll ask if PK abikersailor ever served      First question - what the fuck is a pk? ? ?


----------



## ABikerSailor

No.......I was PN1.  The new rate didn't come out until 2 years after I retired.

Try again retard.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> No.......I was PN1.  The new rate didn't come out until 2 years after I retired.
> 
> Try again retard.



so you were in the bowels of the ship


----------



## ABikerSailor

PN is a Personnelman, which is someone that is in charge of the service records and pay of other members of the command.  No, they don't work in the engine rooms.  I thought Gunny schooled you on that.  But then again.......you're just a troll with nothing better to do than spread a bunch of bullshit.

/unsubscribe


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> PN is a Personnelman, which is someone that is in charge of the service records and pay of other members of the command.  No, they don't work in the engine rooms.  I thought Gunny schooled you on that.  But then again.......you're just a troll with nothing better to do than spread a bunch of bullshit.
> 
> /unsubscribe


Hmm,  does that mean I win?


----------



## FrancisABoyd

slukasiewski said:


> Do some of you bull dykes and pole smokers in this thread have fucking jobs?
> 
> Some of you carpet munchers and faggots have been posting in this thread for days now, 24/7.
> 
> Get a fucking life...



Looks like someone didn't take the sexual harassment training program and may be feeling a little left out.


----------



## yota5

Oprah Winfrey, just aired a show the clearly illustrates the impact that the gay community has on our society.  A Two-Day Oprah Show Event: 200 Adult Men Who Were Molested Come Forward - Oprah.com  This story is about 200 male children who were violated to the core by homosexual males/ sexual deviants.  Gaybikersailor/ personnel man, will probably try to convince us that the real issue here is heterosexuality.  This type of activity in the military will not contribute to a units combat readiness or its esprit de corps.


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> Oprah Winfrey, just aired a show the clearly illustrates the impact that the gay community has on our society.  A Two-Day Oprah Show Event: 200 Adult Men Who Were Molested Come Forward - Oprah.com  This story is about 200 male children who were violated to the core by homosexual males/ sexual deviants.  Gaybikersailor/ personnel man, will probably try to convince us that the real issue here is heterosexuality.  This type of activity in the military will not contribute to a units combat readiness or its esprit de corps.



Actually, the majority of child molestations are done by heterosexuals.  Daddys and brothers diddling the little sis and the like.  

The question you should be asking is how many of them were Catholics?


----------



## Grace

OIC. If Oprah has it on her show, it must be true.


----------



## iggy pop

Grace said:


> OIC. If Oprah has it on her show, it must be true.



Only if it made book of the month.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oprah Winfrey, just aired a show the clearly illustrates the impact that the gay community has on our society.  A Two-Day Oprah Show Event: 200 Adult Men Who Were Molested Come Forward - Oprah.com  This story is about 200 male children who were violated to the core by homosexual males/ sexual deviants.  Gaybikersailor/ personnel man, will probably try to convince us that the real issue here is heterosexuality.  This type of activity in the military will not contribute to a units combat readiness or its esprit de corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the majority of child molestations are done by heterosexuals.  Daddys and brothers diddling the little sis and the like.
> 
> The question you should be asking is how many of them were Catholics?
Click to expand...


proportionately more are done by homosexuals


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oprah Winfrey, just aired a show the clearly illustrates the impact that the gay community has on our society.  A Two-Day Oprah Show Event: 200 Adult Men Who Were Molested Come Forward - Oprah.com  This story is about 200 male children who were violated to the core by homosexual males/ sexual deviants.  Gaybikersailor/ personnel man, will probably try to convince us that the real issue here is heterosexuality.  This type of activity in the military will not contribute to a units combat readiness or its esprit de corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the majority of child molestations are done by heterosexuals.  Daddys and brothers diddling the little sis and the like.
> 
> The question you should be asking is how many of them were Catholics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proportionately more are done by homosexuals
Click to expand...


Totally not true.

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the majority of child molestations are done by heterosexuals.  Daddys and brothers diddling the little sis and the like.
> 
> The question you should be asking is how many of them were Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proportionately more are done by homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
Click to expand...




The difference between heterosexuals, and homosexuals is simple.  heterosexuals don't support sexual deviance.  Even so what Bod says is true.  Sexual deviants lurk on both sides of the sexual aisle.  The difference comes in the fact that 100% of the homo community is considered deviant.  A small portion the the heterosexual community is deviant.  

Heterosexuals arrest, and incarcerate their deviants where they are found.  Homos, have the propensity of elevating their deviants to positions of desirable social icons.  This can be likened to the liberal camps treatment, and adulation of slick Willie, during the Lewinsky affair.  Slick Willies, tenure in the White House gives credence to the fact that you can't trust a deviant.

Openly serving gays will accompany an up spike in nefarious gay behavior.  This can only have a negative impact on the American society.   A precursor to what is about to happen comes in the revelation of 200 children molested by gays put in positions of absolute trust.  These children had their Innocence, and childhood stripped of them.  They were then violated to the core. 

Even so the gay community still supports, and protects them.  Why should the military community respect, or trust them with he track record that they bring to the table?


Oops, there is that trust issue again.  Lack of trust will have a negative impact on combat readiness, and esprit de corps.  

Hey bod.  When you post facts why don't you post a link to the source.  That way we can all evaluate your evidence and determine how you arrived at your conclusion? I challenge your statement that the majority of child molestations are performed by heterosexuals.  

One last thing.  It doesn't matter who is doing the molestation.  This practice is not acceptable.  Sexual deviance is never acceptable.  All sexual deviants belong in jail; not walking the streets.


----------



## slukasiewski

Glad I am not serving any longer. The military must surely be in the shitter. They have a Democrat in the White House - which is traditionally a bad time for those serving, and now gays are allowed in? What next? The transgendered?

Back in my day, we'd throw the queers over the side...

The good old days at sea...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah.........sure You Tard...........all the fetish porn is from homos (not).


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.........sure You Tard...........all the fetish porn is from homos (not).



This is a very weak, hysterical reply gaybikersailor.


----------



## bodecea

slukasiewski said:


> Glad I am not serving any longer. The military must surely be in the shitter. They have a Democrat in the White House - which is traditionally a bad time for those serving, and now gays are allowed in? What next? The transgendered?
> 
> Back in my day, we'd throw the queers over the side...
> 
> The good old days at sea...



Ah, that's right.   You admit to cold blooded murder.


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the majority of child molestations are done by heterosexuals.  Daddys and brothers diddling the little sis and the like.
> 
> The question you should be asking is how many of them were Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proportionately more are done by homosexuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
Click to expand...


links


----------



## Spoonman

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.........sure You Tard...........all the fetish porn is from homos (not).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very weak, hysterical reply gaybikersailor.
Click to expand...


what  did you expect?


----------



## ABikerSailor

You people who are against gays in the military should consider one thing.........

Gays have a better attention to detail than straights.  Why?  Because they've had to cover their tracks all their life and they know that it's the little things that can cause others to behave in a prejudiced manner to them.

What is one of the most prized traits for a military person?  That's right........attention to detail, which is drilled into you from boot camp day 1.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> You people who are against gays in the military should consider one thing.........
> 
> Gays have a better attention to detail than straights.  Why?  Because they've had to cover their tracks all their life and they know that it's the little things that can cause others to behave in a prejudiced manner to them.
> 
> What is one of the most prized traits for a military person?  That's right........attention to detail, which is drilled into you from boot camp day 1.



lamo - documented facts no doubt.  Damn you really are a stereotyping master


----------



## Spoonman

you forgot to add they are better at desigining ships decor too


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> proportionately more are done by homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> links
Click to expand...


I will be glad to:
The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will be glad to:
> The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer
Click to expand...


ok and now one that says it isn't homosexuals, you know, the point you were trying to infer


----------



## Gadawg73

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> proportionately more are done by homosexuals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between heterosexuals, and homosexuals is simple.  heterosexuals don't support sexual deviance.  Even so what Bod says is true.  Sexual deviants lurk on both sides of the sexual aisle.  The difference comes in the fact that 100% of the homo community is considered deviant.  A small portion the the heterosexual community is deviant.
> 
> Heterosexuals arrest, and incarcerate their deviants where they are found.  Homos, have the propensity of elevating their deviants to positions of desirable social icons.  This can be likened to the liberal camps treatment, and adulation of slick Willie, during the Lewinsky affair.  Slick Willies, tenure in the White House gives credence to the fact that you can't trust a deviant.
> 
> Openly serving gays will accompany an up spike in nefarious gay behavior.  This can only have a negative impact on the American society.   A precursor to what is about to happen comes in the revelation of 200 children molested by gays put in positions of absolute trust.  These children had their Innocence, and childhood stripped of them.  They were then violated to the core.
> 
> Even so the gay community still supports, and protects them.  Why should the military community respect, or trust them with he track record that they bring to the table?
> 
> 
> Oops, there is that trust issue again.  Lack of trust will have a negative impact on combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> Hey bod.  When you post facts why don't you post a link to the source.  That way we can all evaluate your evidence and determine how you arrived at your conclusion? I challenge your statement that the majority of child molestations are performed by heterosexuals.
> 
> One last thing.  It doesn't matter who is doing the molestation.  This practice is not acceptable.  Sexual deviance is never acceptable.  All sexual deviants belong in jail; not walking the streets.
Click to expand...


You need psychiatric help. You are crazy if you believe any of that.
I am 56 years old, Southern and Republican. What you claim is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between heterosexuals, and homosexuals is simple.  heterosexuals don't support sexual deviance.  Even so what Bod says is true.  Sexual deviants lurk on both sides of the sexual aisle.  The difference comes in the fact that 100% of the homo community is considered deviant.  A small portion the the heterosexual community is deviant.
> 
> Heterosexuals arrest, and incarcerate their deviants where they are found.  Homos, have the propensity of elevating their deviants to positions of desirable social icons.  This can be likened to the liberal camps treatment, and adulation of slick Willie, during the Lewinsky affair.  Slick Willies, tenure in the White House gives credence to the fact that you can't trust a deviant.
> 
> Openly serving gays will accompany an up spike in nefarious gay behavior.  This can only have a negative impact on the American society.   A precursor to what is about to happen comes in the revelation of 200 children molested by gays put in positions of absolute trust.  These children had their Innocence, and childhood stripped of them.  They were then violated to the core.
> 
> Even so the gay community still supports, and protects them.  Why should the military community respect, or trust them with he track record that they bring to the table?
> 
> 
> Oops, there is that trust issue again.  Lack of trust will have a negative impact on combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> Hey bod.  When you post facts why don't you post a link to the source.  That way we can all evaluate your evidence and determine how you arrived at your conclusion? I challenge your statement that the majority of child molestations are performed by heterosexuals.
> 
> One last thing.  It doesn't matter who is doing the molestation.  This practice is not acceptable.  Sexual deviance is never acceptable.  All sexual deviants belong in jail; not walking the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need psychiatric help. You are crazy if you believe any of that.
> I am 56 years old, Southern and Republican. What you claim is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life.
Click to expand...


Forest Gump?


----------



## Gadawg73

Gump played at Bama. 
I am a BULLDOG.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Gump played at Bama.
> I am a BULLDOG.



i call bullshit.  you ain't nothin but a hound dog


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gump played at Bama.
> I am a BULLDOG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i call bullshit.  you ain't nothin but a hound dog
Click to expand...


BBA UGA
MBA Georgia State University
Agency Owner Private Detective Agency since 1982


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> You people who are against gays in the military should consider one thing.........
> 
> Gays have a better attention to detail than straights.  Why?  Because they've had to cover their tracks all their life and they know that it's the little things that can cause others to behave in a prejudiced manner to them.
> 
> What is one of the most prized traits for a military person?  That's right........attention to detail, which is drilled into you from boot camp day 1.



They have to cover their tracks huh? 

Well, if they didn't do anything illegal or immoral, they wouldn't have to worry about that, huh? 

Freaking idiot....


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people who are against gays in the military should consider one thing.........
> 
> Gays have a better attention to detail than straights.  Why?  Because they've had to cover their tracks all their life and they know that it's the little things that can cause others to behave in a prejudiced manner to them.
> 
> What is one of the most prized traits for a military person?  That's right........attention to detail, which is drilled into you from boot camp day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to cover their tracks huh?
> 
> Well, if they didn't do anything illegal or immoral, they wouldn't have to worry about that, huh?
> 
> Freaking idiot....
Click to expand...


Hey.........Slut Cow Ski........I never made a moral judgement on them, you did.

Incidentally, did anyone see the Nat Geo special last night on gender?  Seems that scientists have discovered quite a bit over the past couple of years. 

Incidentally, one of the people featured on the program was a Desert Storm veteran (male), who after getting stationed in Germany had some back problems.  They gave him an MRI and discovered that not only did he look male, but he ALSO had 2 ovaries and a very underdeveloped uterus.  They're called intersexed people, and it happens to about 1 percent of the population in the US.  Now, if it happens on it's own, then it's part of nature, right?

Otherwise, you'd have to abort the children, because according to you, they're immoral and not right.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people who are against gays in the military should consider one thing.........
> 
> Gays have a better attention to detail than straights.  Why?  Because they've had to cover their tracks all their life and they know that it's the little things that can cause others to behave in a prejudiced manner to them.
> 
> What is one of the most prized traits for a military person?  That's right........attention to detail, which is drilled into you from boot camp day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to cover their tracks huh?
> 
> Well, if they didn't do anything illegal or immoral, they wouldn't have to worry about that, huh?
> 
> Freaking idiot....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey.........Slut Cow Ski........I never made a moral judgement on them, you did.
> 
> Incidentally, did anyone see the Nat Geo special last night on gender?  Seems that scientists have discovered quite a bit over the past couple of years.
> 
> Incidentally, one of the people featured on the program was a Desert Storm veteran (male), who after getting stationed in Germany had some back problems.  They gave him an MRI and discovered that not only did he look male, but he ALSO had 2 ovaries and a very underdeveloped uterus.  They're called intersexed people, and it happens to about 1 percent of the population in the US.  Now, if it happens on it's own, then it's part of nature, right?
> 
> Otherwise, you'd have to abort the children, because according to you, they're immoral and not right.
Click to expand...

  So are you implying gays are genetic defects?


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gump played at Bama.
> I am a BULLDOG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i call bullshit.  you ain't nothin but a hound dog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BBA UGA
> MBA Georgia State University
> Agency Owner Private Detective Agency since 1982
Click to expand...


So are you like dog the bounty hunter?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Never said anything about gays Spoonertard.........I was talking about intersexed people (people born with both male and female parts).

However, they've also shown the brains of people who were gay, straight and transgendered, and showed that the sexual response for gay males and females is identical, and much different from a hetero brain.

Never said they were defects.  You did.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Never said anything about gays Spoonertard.........I was talking about intersexed people (people born with both male and female parts).
> 
> However, they've also shown the brains of people who were gay, straight and transgendered, and showed that the sexual response for gay males and females is identical, and much different from a hetero brain.
> 
> Never said they were defects.  You did.



ok, so you are saying intersexed people are genetic defects.  thanks for clearing that up


----------



## bodecea

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be glad to:
> The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok and now one that says it isn't homosexuals, you know, the point you were trying to infer
Click to expand...


Wait....you are saying that homosexuals abuse girls?


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people who are against gays in the military should consider one thing.........
> 
> Gays have a better attention to detail than straights.  Why?  Because they've had to cover their tracks all their life and they know that it's the little things that can cause others to behave in a prejudiced manner to them.
> 
> What is one of the most prized traits for a military person?  That's right........attention to detail, which is drilled into you from boot camp day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to cover their tracks huh?
> 
> Well, if they didn't do anything illegal or immoral, they wouldn't have to worry about that, huh?
> 
> Freaking idiot....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey.........Slut Cow Ski........I never made a moral judgement on them, you did.
> 
> Incidentally, did anyone see the Nat Geo special last night on gender?  Seems that scientists have discovered quite a bit over the past couple of years.
> 
> Incidentally, one of the people featured on the program was a Desert Storm veteran (male), who after getting stationed in Germany had some back problems.  They gave him an MRI and discovered that not only did he look male, but he ALSO had 2 ovaries and a very underdeveloped uterus.  They're called intersexed people, and it happens to about 1 percent of the population in the US.  Now, if it happens on it's own, then it's part of nature, right?
> 
> Otherwise, you'd have to abort the children, because according to you, they're immoral and not right.
Click to expand...


Remember?   He admits to throwing them off the fantail.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah.....I do remember that.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not true.
> 
> 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused BEFORE they reach 18....and that is NOT by homosexuals, my friend....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will be glad to:
> The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer
Click to expand...


This was an interesting article Bod.  Unfortunately it doesn't support your premise. 

However I've included links in this reply that will take you to articles that clearly illustrate how gays use positions of power to prey on vulnerable children, teens, and adults.  Gay predators are found in the clergy, and in lay/ professional career tracks.  every socioeconomic group.  

Gays in positions of power are gifted in the art of manipulating or threatening their victims, using aggression or employing a combination of these tactics.  Imagine what will happen in the military when openly serving gay officers, and NCO's use their positions to intimidate, and manipulate subordinates. 

Openly serving gays will not contribute to combat readiness, and they will seriously erode a units esprit de corps.  

Alabama Confidential: Gay (and Lesbian) Sexual Predators in Positions of Trust in Alabama

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2633

Tennessee Considers Banning Teaching Homosexuality in Elementary Schools - FoxNews.com

Some of our most infamous serial killers were gay. Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, were homosexuals.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.

Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.

Are you saying they're right?


----------



## Spoonman

yota5 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be glad to:
> The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was an interesting article Bod.  Unfortunately it doesn't support your premise.
> 
> However I've included links in this reply that will take you to articles that clearly illustrate how gays use positions of power to prey on vulnerable children, teens, and adults.  Gay predators are found in the clergy, and in lay/ professional career tracks.  every socioeconomic group.
> 
> Gays in positions of power are gifted in the art of manipulating or threatening their victims, using aggression or employing a combination of these tactics.  Imagine what will happen in the military when openly serving gay officers, and NCO's use their positions to intimidate, and manipulate subordinates.
> 
> Openly serving gays will not contribute to combat readiness, and they will seriously erode a units esprit de corps.
> 
> Alabama Confidential: Gay (and Lesbian) Sexual Predators in Positions of Trust in Alabama
> 
> http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2633
> 
> Tennessee Considers Banning Teaching Homosexuality in Elementary Schools - FoxNews.com
> 
> Some of our most infamous serial killers were gay. Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, were homosexuals.
Click to expand...


See just what i told her and she never responded. She knows she's beat here


----------



## Spoonman

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will be glad to:
> The National Center for Victims of Crime - Library/Document Viewer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok and now one that says it isn't homosexuals, you know, the point you were trying to infer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait....you are saying that homosexuals abuse girls?
Click to expand...


lesbians, did you forget about lesbians?   now how about that link that actually supports your claim


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.
> 
> Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.
> 
> Are you saying they're right?



is this in code or something?   i mean it wasn't actually meant to be a legible scentence was it?


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i call bullshit.  you ain't nothin but a hound dog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BBA UGA
> MBA Georgia State University
> Agency Owner Private Detective Agency since 1982
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you like dog the bounty hunter?
Click to expand...


When I was young and dumb I did bond forfeitures.
There are old private investigators and there are bold private investigators.
There are NO old and bold private investigators.
Dog has a lot more $$$ than me but I am better looking.


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.
> 
> Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.
> 
> Are you saying they're right?




Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.  

GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.  

It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?  

History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?


----------



## ROBESPIERRE

Things are changing fast in America. It is now OK for Gays to serve openly in the military. I suppose GIs are also allowed to have Gay spouses. This also means that many a GI will choose  to marry a Transgendered Person. There is no disgrace, it is all allowed now.

But the latest out of California is; they are now protesting against the US Military for not allowing Transgenders to openly serve.

This will make for a rather coloful military someday:

Can you imagine having a flamboyant Three Star General in Drag leading our troops into battle someday? I bet that would scare the enemy! 

After all, I am sure there are many a good soldier who are desperately trapped in the body of the wrong gender. 

Do we really want to deprive our country of their service?


----------



## High_Gravity

ROBESPIERRE said:


> Things are changing fast in America. It is now OK for Gays to serve openly in the military. I suppose GIs are also allowed to have Gay spouses. This also means that many a GI will choose  to marry a Transgendered Person. There is no disgrace, it is all allowed now.
> 
> But the latest out of California is, they are now protesting against the US Military for not allowing Transgenders to openly serve. This will make for a rather coloful military someday.
> 
> Can you imagine having a flamboyant Three Star General in Drag leading our troops into battle someday? I bet that would scare the enmy!
> 
> After all, I am sure there are many a good soldier who are helplessly trapped in the body of the wrong gender.
> 
> Do we want to deprive our country of their service?



Its going to happen, transgenders will be able to serve openly in the Military in less than 20 years.


----------



## Spoonman

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.
> 
> Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.
> 
> Are you saying they're right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.
> 
> GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.
> 
> It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?
> 
> History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?
Click to expand...


you were actually able to make sense out of that mess?


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBA UGA
> MBA Georgia State University
> Agency Owner Private Detective Agency since 1982
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you like dog the bounty hunter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was young and dumb I did bond forfeitures.
> There are old private investigators and there are bold private investigators.
> There are NO old and bold private investigators.
> Dog has a lot more $$$ than me but I am better looking.
Click to expand...


but is your wife as *coughs* hot as his


----------



## Gadawg73

ROBESPIERRE said:


> Things are changing fast in America. It is now OK for Gays to serve openly in the military. I suppose GIs are also allowed to have Gay spouses. This also means that many a GI will choose  to marry a Transgendered Person. There is no disgrace, it is all allowed now.
> 
> But the latest out of California is; they are now protesting against the US Military for not allowing Transgenders to openly serve.
> 
> This will make for a rather coloful military someday:
> 
> Can you imagine having a flamboyant Three Star General in Drag leading our troops into battle someday? I bet that would scare the enemy!
> 
> After all, I am sure there are many a good soldier who are desperately trapped in the body of the wrong gender.
> 
> Do we really want to deprive our country of their service?



Who said the Vietnamese ARVN was the only military to have a General Tran?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYv4EUV_dD0&feature=related]YouTube - Sweet Transexual´s Transilvania travesti[/ame]


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you like dog the bounty hunter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was young and dumb I did bond forfeitures.
> There are old private investigators and there are bold private investigators.
> There are NO old and bold private investigators.
> Dog has a lot more $$$ than me but I am better looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but is your wife as *coughs* hot as his
Click to expand...


Wife?
I thought she was Dog the Bounty Hunter.


----------



## Spoonman

Gadawg73 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was young and dumb I did bond forfeitures.
> There are old private investigators and there are bold private investigators.
> There are NO old and bold private investigators.
> Dog has a lot more $$$ than me but I am better looking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but is your wife as *coughs* hot as his
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wife?
> I thought she was Dog the Bounty Hunter.
Click to expand...


lmao! sorry dude, i'm out of reps, but that one was totally repable


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.
> 
> Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.
> 
> Are you saying they're right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.
> 
> GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.
> 
> It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?
> 
> History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?
Click to expand...


Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.

Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.

And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?

Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.
> 
> Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.
> 
> Are you saying they're right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.
> 
> GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.
> 
> It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?
> 
> History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.*Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
Click to expand...


I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.
> 
> GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.
> 
> It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?
> 
> History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.*Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
Click to expand...


In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.

Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.

Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.*Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
Click to expand...


it  will be interesting to see what happens when an enlisted gay and an officer start to get it on.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it  will be interesting to see what happens when an enlisted gay and an officer start to get it on.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid.......what part of NO FRATERNIZING between officer and enlisted do you not get?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it  will be interesting to see what happens when an enlisted gay and an officer start to get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.......what part of NO FRATERNIZING between officer and enlisted do you not get?
Click to expand...


yea, we'll see how that plays out.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.*Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
Click to expand...


I guess it depends on the service and base, when I was at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska my friend was having a full blown affair with our section commander who was a Second Lieutenant (I don't know what it is about hot Air Force section commanders), they would go out for lunch, attend squadron functions together, go out to clubs together the whole nine, they tried to keep it private but everyone knew what was going on, one time I joined them for lunch at Applebees and we got spotted by our First Sergeant and Commander who were also there waiting for a table, strangely enough none of us were even questioned about it. At Vandenberg they were stricter about it but no one told me anything when I made out with my old former section commander and the fact I was the only enlisted man invited to her going away.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it  will be interesting to see what happens when an enlisted gay and an officer start to get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.......what part of NO FRATERNIZING between officer and enlisted do you not get?
Click to expand...


I would imagine the fraternizing rule would still stand regardless of sexual orientation, if not they need to scrap it altogether.


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced.  Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it  will be interesting to see what happens when an enlisted gay and an officer start to get it on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.......what part of NO FRATERNIZING between officer and enlisted do you not get?
Click to expand...


Indeed...big trouble for Fraternizing...


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.*Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
Click to expand...


Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?  

Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?

Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.


----------



## SFC Ollie

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
Click to expand...


Actually as a personnel man you would think that biker would know better than someone having 2 different ID's and that the Spouses rank is not listed on a dependent ID at all. 

No one who has an Active Duty ID also receives a dependent ID. 

Not saying you made it up or anything........


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
Click to expand...


Wanna bet?  I saw an HTFN go to mast and almost get kicked out of the military for fraternizing with a LT on my first ship.  Lt. Murukis was told to leave after we got back from UNITAS (he was caught partying with the HTFN when the skipper walked into the bar).

Try again stupid.  Oh yeah.......the LT's name?  Roux.  When he left Newport RI, he went to another command and retired as a LCDR.  

As far as gays not serving in the military because they cause a disruption?  Never saw one while on duty cause any kind of problems.  What service and how long did YOU serve, because I've known there were gays in the military from 1983 until 2002. 

In other words.......from my first permanent command until I retired.


----------



## Spoonman

SFC Ollie said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually as a personnel man you would think that biker would know better than someone having 2 different ID's and that the Spouses rank is not listed on a dependent ID at all.
> 
> No one who has an Active Duty ID also receives a dependent ID.
> 
> Not saying you made it up or anything........
Click to expand...


bikersailor seems to not know an aweful lot about what it is he allegedly did.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually as a personnel man you would think that biker would know better than someone having 2 different ID's and that the Spouses rank is not listed on a dependent ID at all.
> 
> No one who has an Active Duty ID also receives a dependent ID.
> 
> Not saying you made it up or anything........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bikersailor seems to not know an aweful lot about what it is he allegedly did.
Click to expand...


Actually, on the dependent ID card, there is a block that shows the spouses name and rank.

It's shown as a basic rank, PO3, PO2, PO1, LT, CPO, SCPO, MCPO, etc.

The reason she had to get it?  So that she could get into the Officer's Club without being hassled.  The officer was someone I served with at Newport RI named LT Roux.


----------



## ABikerSailor

> Dual Status. A person who is entitled to privileges from two sources (e.g., a retired member, who is also the dependent of an active duty member; a member of a Reserve component who is an eligible dependent of a military sponsor; or a child, who is the natural child of one sponsor and the stepchild and member of a household of another sponsor).



ID Card Office RAPIDS Information - United States Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma, California


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually as a personnel man you would think that biker would know better than someone having 2 different ID's and that the Spouses rank is not listed on a dependent ID at all.
> 
> No one who has an Active Duty ID also receives a dependent ID.
> 
> Not saying you made it up or anything........
Click to expand...


Actually Ollie I used to work in Customer Service in the Air Force where we issued ID's and dependent ID's do have the spouses rank on there, people need to know whether they are just dealing with a Privates spouse or a Full Bird Colonels wife.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> Dual Status. A person who is entitled to privileges from two sources (e.g., a retired member, who is also the dependent of an active duty member; a member of a Reserve component who is an eligible dependent of a military sponsor; or a child, who is the natural child of one sponsor and the stepchild and member of a household of another sponsor).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID Card Office RAPIDS Information - United States Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma, California
Click to expand...


God its been 10 years since the last time I issued a ID Card but I do remember people being able to have 2, I know Reservists were allowed their Reservist ID Card and a dependent one if they were a dependent of a Military member, a Retired Military member could also have his Retiree ID Card and a Dependent one if they were still married to a Military member, I don't know remember if an Active Duty member can have more than 1 but my instincts tell me no.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?  I saw an HTFN go to mast and almost get kicked out of the military for fraternizing with a LT on my first ship.  Lt. Murukis was told to leave after we got back from UNITAS (he was caught partying with the HTFN when the skipper walked into the bar).
> 
> Try again stupid.  Oh yeah.......the LT's name?  Roux.  When he left Newport RI, he went to another command and retired as a LCDR.
> 
> As far as gays not serving in the military because they cause a disruption?  Never saw one while on duty cause any kind of problems.  What service and how long did YOU serve, because I've known there were gays in the military from 1983 until 2002.
> 
> In other words.......from my first permanent command until I retired.
Click to expand...


Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dual Status. A person who is entitled to privileges from two sources (e.g., a retired member, who is also the dependent of an active duty member; a member of a Reserve component who is an eligible dependent of a military sponsor; or a child, who is the natural child of one sponsor and the stepchild and member of a household of another sponsor).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ID Card Office RAPIDS Information - United States Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma, California
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God its been 10 years since the last time I issued a ID Card but I do remember people being able to have 2, I know Reservists were allowed their Reservist ID Card and a dependent one if they were a dependent of a Military member, a Retired Military member could also have his Retiree ID Card and a Dependent one if they were still married to a Military member, I don't know remember if an Active Duty member can have more than 1 but my instincts tell me no.
Click to expand...


She was first class active duty, but she also held dual status as an officer's wife, resulting in her having a dependent officer ID card and an active duty ID card.


----------



## High_Gravity

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?  I saw an HTFN go to mast and almost get kicked out of the military for fraternizing with a LT on my first ship.  Lt. Murukis was told to leave after we got back from UNITAS (he was caught partying with the HTFN when the skipper walked into the bar).
> 
> Try again stupid.  Oh yeah.......the LT's name?  Roux.  When he left Newport RI, he went to another command and retired as a LCDR.
> 
> As far as gays not serving in the military because they cause a disruption?  Never saw one while on duty cause any kind of problems.  What service and how long did YOU serve, because I've known there were gays in the military from 1983 until 2002.
> 
> In other words.......from my first permanent command until I retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?
Click to expand...


Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID Card Office RAPIDS Information - United States Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma, California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God its been 10 years since the last time I issued a ID Card but I do remember people being able to have 2, I know Reservists were allowed their Reservist ID Card and a dependent one if they were a dependent of a Military member, a Retired Military member could also have his Retiree ID Card and a Dependent one if they were still married to a Military member, I don't know remember if an Active Duty member can have more than 1 but my instincts tell me no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was first class active duty, but she also held dual status as an officer's wife, resulting in her having a dependent officer ID card and an active duty ID card.
Click to expand...


I ran into all kinds of wierd situations when I was making ID Cards so I don't doubt what you are saying is true, it makes sense if one spouse is enlisted and the other is an officer.


----------



## Spoonman

High_Gravity said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?  I saw an HTFN go to mast and almost get kicked out of the military for fraternizing with a LT on my first ship.  Lt. Murukis was told to leave after we got back from UNITAS (he was caught partying with the HTFN when the skipper walked into the bar).
> 
> Try again stupid.  Oh yeah.......the LT's name?  Roux.  When he left Newport RI, he went to another command and retired as a LCDR.
> 
> As far as gays not serving in the military because they cause a disruption?  Never saw one while on duty cause any kind of problems.  What service and how long did YOU serve, because I've known there were gays in the military from 1983 until 2002.
> 
> In other words.......from my first permanent command until I retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
Click to expand...


that's what star magazine said about tom cusise's wife


----------



## Spoonman

High_Gravity said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?  I saw an HTFN go to mast and almost get kicked out of the military for fraternizing with a LT on my first ship.  Lt. Murukis was told to leave after we got back from UNITAS (he was caught partying with the HTFN when the skipper walked into the bar).
> 
> Try again stupid.  Oh yeah.......the LT's name?  Roux.  When he left Newport RI, he went to another command and retired as a LCDR.
> 
> As far as gays not serving in the military because they cause a disruption?  Never saw one while on duty cause any kind of problems.  What service and how long did YOU serve, because I've known there were gays in the military from 1983 until 2002.
> 
> In other words.......from my first permanent command until I retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
Click to expand...


I knew a John Murukis. He was a Marine though. Wonder if it's the same guy?


----------



## High_Gravity

Spoonman said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew a John Murukis. He was a Marine though. Wonder if it's the same guy?
Click to expand...


Who knows? you'd have to check with Biker on that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?  I saw an HTFN go to mast and almost get kicked out of the military for fraternizing with a LT on my first ship.  Lt. Murukis was told to leave after we got back from UNITAS (he was caught partying with the HTFN when the skipper walked into the bar).
> 
> Try again stupid.  Oh yeah.......the LT's name?  Roux.  When he left Newport RI, he went to another command and retired as a LCDR.
> 
> As far as gays not serving in the military because they cause a disruption?  Never saw one while on duty cause any kind of problems.  What service and how long did YOU serve, because I've known there were gays in the military from 1983 until 2002.
> 
> In other words.......from my first permanent command until I retired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
Click to expand...


I only told you he got separated.  I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.

Rio is a fun place by the way........


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Lt. Murukis know you are talking openly about him and his affairs like this on a public message board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only told you he got separated.  I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.
> 
> Rio is a fun place by the way........
Click to expand...


I bet, its my dream to go down there.


----------



## Spoonman

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only told you he got separated.  I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.
> 
> Rio is a fun place by the way........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet, its my dream to go down there.
Click to expand...


check out the olympics


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only told you he got separated.  I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.
> 
> Rio is a fun place by the way........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet, its my dream to go down there.
Click to expand...


If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.

Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single.  I know this for a fact.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only told you he got separated.  I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.
> 
> Rio is a fun place by the way........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet, its my dream to go down there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.
> 
> Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single.  I know this for a fact.
Click to expand...


Yeah I definently don't want to go there with my girlfriend lol.


----------



## Spoonman

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet, its my dream to go down there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.
> 
> Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single.  I know this for a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I definently don't want to go there with my girlfriend lol.
Click to expand...


Look up the girl from Ipanema.  I hear she's tall and tan, and young and lovely


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet, its my dream to go down there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.
> 
> Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single.  I know this for a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I definently don't want to go there with my girlfriend lol.
Click to expand...


Well......you could, but unless she's VERY open minded, you'd end up single.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I had to look up the Dep ID online, I was wrong the Spouses rank is listed. Seems to me it never was in the past. At any rate I was wrong.

I called my nearest RAPIDS about the double ID. From what I was told (Remember these guys are reservists) They have seen it when one spouse is Active and the other is Reserve, And I can understand that. But they have doubts about it being authorized if both are Active duty.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> I had to look up the Dep ID online, I was wrong the Spouses rank is listed. Seems to me it never was in the past. At any rate I was wrong.
> 
> I called my nearest RAPIDS about the double ID. From what I was told (Remember these guys are reservists) They have seen it when one spouse is Active and the other is Reserve, And I can understand that. But they have doubts about it being authorized if both are Active duty.



I was an active duty Personnelman.  And yes, I've seen it happen.  But, the only reason she was authorized to have it was because she had to be able to get into the Officer's Mess without being signed in.  That is why I posted the part about the dual status people.

BTW Ollie, have a pos rep for being able to admit when you're wrong.


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
Click to expand...


Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?

I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.


----------



## yota5

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced.  *Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program.  He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars.  They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. * Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.
> 
> Me?  When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service.  One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living.  My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base.  At the time, I was a 2nd Class.  I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date.  It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?
> 
> I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.
Click to expand...


Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay.  In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are.  Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements.  You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.  

History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society.  One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.  

I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view.  I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard. 

Yes.  I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.
> 
> Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.
> 
> Are you saying they're right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.
> 
> GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.
> 
> It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?
> 
> History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.
> 
> Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
Click to expand...


There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military.  Yet there you are.  Now explain to me again how the UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file.  The units that I served with were decidedly professional.  As a added enhancement we didn't have any known rump rangers running around.  Life was good.


----------



## Grace

Good morning Yota! Have you spit on any deviants today?


----------



## bodecea

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good morning gaybikersailor.  I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather.  As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion.  I presented verifiable fact.  You countered with an unsupported rant.  Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.
> 
> GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another.  With history the facts, and events are what they are.  You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.
> 
> It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society.  Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?
> 
> History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates.  How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.
> 
> Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military.  Yet there you are.  Now explain to me again how the* UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file. * The units that I served with were decidedly professional.  As a added enhancement we didn't have any known rump rangers running around.  Life was good.
Click to expand...


The same way the UCMJ prevents straight officers and NCOs from preying on the rank and file.   You really need someone to point that out for you?


----------



## WorldWatcher

yota5 said:


> There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military.



Not for long, you may have heard about it, DADT has been repealed and the military is currently conducting training.  Reports are that the training phase will soon be complete and that the 90-day clock will be started.  Should be gone by the end of summer or early fall.




yota5 said:


> Now explain to me again how the UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file.




Most of us that were in the military understand that fraternization is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134 as a primary offense or even as a secondary offense with the primary offense being a violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation).  As such commands will always have instructions/policies/standing orders prohibiting fraternization and sexual harassment.


*Manual of the Courts Martial
Uniform Code of Military Justice
Article 134(Fraternization)*
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant
officer;
(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military
equality with one or more certain enlisted member(
s) in a certain manner;
(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to
be (an) enlisted member(s);
(4) That such fraternization violated the custom
of the accuseds service that officers shall not fraternize
with enlisted members on terms of military
equality; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of
the accused was to the prejudice of good order and
discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to
bring discredit upon the armed forces.
c. Explanation.
(1) In general. The gist of this offense is a viola-
tion of the custom of the armed forces against fratern
ization. Not all contact or association between
officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether
the contact or association in question is an offense
depends on the surrounding circumstances. Factors
to be considered include whether the conduct has
compromised the chain of command, resulted in the
appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined
good order, discipline, authority, or morale. The acts
and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable
person experienced in the problems of military
leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline
of the armed forces has been prejudiced by
their tendency to compromise the respect of enlisted
persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations
of an officer.
(2) Regulations. Regulations, directives, and orders
may also govern conduct between officer and
enlisted personnel on both a service-wide and a local
basis. Relationships between enlisted persons of different
ranks, or between officers of different ranks
may be similarly covered. Violations of such regulations,
directives, or orders may be punishable under
Article 92. See paragraph 16.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf​

>>>>


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good day gay biker.  It took me a while to respond.  I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT.    That was the funniest *"story"*that I've ever heard.  Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?
> 
> Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time.  Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced.  Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays?  Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out?  Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?
> 
> Gays don't belong in the military.  When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors.  Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?
> 
> I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay.  In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are.  Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements.  You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.
> 
> History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society.  One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.
> 
> I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view.  I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.
> 
> Yes.  I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".
Click to expand...


I see you didn't answer my question.  I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be.  As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes?  If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway.  Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.

As it happens, I am not gay.  However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment.  By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.  

I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse.  However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators.  There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature.  There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction).  Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy.  There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators.  Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.

I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now.  You ask for historical precedent.  If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve.  Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent.  In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.

I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.

Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you?  I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve.  With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind.  If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.

There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly.  You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones.  Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.


----------



## yota5

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?
> 
> I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay.  In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are.  Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements.  You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.
> 
> History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society.  One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.
> 
> I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view.  I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.
> 
> Yes.  I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you didn't answer my question.  I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be.  As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes?  If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway.  Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.
> 
> As it happens, I am not gay.  However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment.  By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.
> 
> I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse.  However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators.  There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature.  There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction).  Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy.  There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators.  Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now.  You ask for historical precedent.  If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve.  Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent.  In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.
> 
> I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.
> 
> Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you?  I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve.  With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind.  If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.
> 
> There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly.  You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones.  Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.
Click to expand...



Montrovant, I've read your reply with great interest.  I was surprised to see that you made my point for me.  You provide the references to gays in positions of power preying on their subordinates.  The harmful activities of gay clergy was a good reference to cite.  It clearly illustrates what happens when gays ascend in stature and become "trusted" authority figures.  Thank you.  

Unfortunately, you still seem to feel that the sexual deviance of gays is validated by the nefarious activities of heterosexual deviants.  Irregardless of sexual preference sexual deviance is never acceptable.  It is like say that just because Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks it isn't OK that the rest of us rob banks too.  You say that you've served, and therefore should know that all deviance is vigorously prosecuted by the USMJ.  

The fact that you served as an  undeclared deviant lets us know that not all deviants were ferreted out.  It was fortunate that DADT mandated that you remain very discreet about your deviant behavior.  This mandate protected those around you.


----------



## yota5

Grace said:


> Good morning Yota! Have you spit on any deviants today?





Good morning Grace.  I don't associate with deviants of any kind.  Therefore there weren't any deviants to spit on.  This is a good thing.  I hope that you have a blessed day.


----------



## yota5

bodecea said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank?  It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.
> 
> Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.
> 
> And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad  brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak.  When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays?  If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?
> 
> Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military.  Yet there you are.  Now explain to me again how the* UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file. * The units that I served with were decidedly professional.  As a added enhancement we didn't have any known rump rangers running around.  Life was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way the UCMJ prevents straight officers and NCOs from preying on the rank and file.   You really need someone to point that out for you?
Click to expand...



My point exactly Bod.  Once openly serving gay officers and NCO's are given a free hand the USMJ will be just as ineffectual in protecting the troops against them.  I'm surprised that I have to point that out to you.


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay.  In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are.  Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements.  You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.
> 
> History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society.  One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.
> 
> I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view.  I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.
> 
> Yes.  I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't answer my question.  I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be.  As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes?  If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway.  Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.
> 
> As it happens, I am not gay.  However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment.  By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.
> 
> I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse.  However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators.  There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature.  There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction).  Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy.  There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators.  Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now.  You ask for historical precedent.  If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve.  Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent.  In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.
> 
> I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.
> 
> Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you?  I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve.  With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind.  If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.
> 
> There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly.  You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones.  Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant, I've read your reply with great interest.  I was surprised to see that you made my point for me.  You provide the references to gays in positions of power preying on their subordinates.  The harmful activities of gay clergy was a good reference to cite.  It clearly illustrates what happens when gays ascend in stature and become "trusted" authority figures.  Thank you.
> 
> Unfortunately, you still seem to feel that the sexual deviance of gays is validated by the nefarious activities of heterosexual deviants.  Irregardless of sexual preference sexual deviance is never acceptable.  It is like say that just because Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks it isn't OK that the rest of us rob banks too.  You say that you've served, and therefore should know that all deviance is vigorously prosecuted by the USMJ.
> 
> The fact that you served as an  undeclared deviant lets us know that not all deviants were ferreted out.  It was fortunate that DADT mandated that you remain very discreet about your deviant behavior.  This mandate protected those around you.
Click to expand...


You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension.  When did I say I have served?  I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.

I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals.  As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed.  You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term.  You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.

I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up.  Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals.  Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.

You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.

So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions.  Pretty damn unsatisfactory.


----------



## yota5

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't answer my question.  I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be.  As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes?  If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway.  Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.
> 
> As it happens, I am not gay.  However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment.  By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.
> 
> I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse.  However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators.  There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature.  There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction).  Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy.  There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators.  Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now.  You ask for historical precedent.  If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve.  Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent.  In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.
> 
> I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.
> 
> Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you?  I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve.  With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind.  If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.
> 
> There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly.  You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones.  Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant, I've read your reply with great interest.  I was surprised to see that you made my point for me.  You provide the references to gays in positions of power preying on their subordinates.  The harmful activities of gay clergy was a good reference to cite.  It clearly illustrates what happens when gays ascend in stature and become "trusted" authority figures.  Thank you.
> 
> Unfortunately, you still seem to feel that the sexual deviance of gays is validated by the nefarious activities of heterosexual deviants.  Irregardless of sexual preference sexual deviance is never acceptable.  It is like say that just because Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks it isn't OK that the rest of us rob banks too.  You say that you've served, and therefore should know that all deviance is vigorously prosecuted by the USMJ.
> 
> The fact that you served as an  undeclared deviant lets us know that not all deviants were ferreted out.  It was fortunate that DADT mandated that you remain very discreet about your deviant behavior.  This mandate protected those around you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension.  When did I say I have served?  I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.
> 
> I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals.  As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed.  You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term.  You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.
> 
> I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up.  Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals.  Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.
> 
> You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.
> 
> So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions.  Pretty damn unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...



The fact that you haven't served is interesting.  Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume.  I incorrectly lumped you into this category.  However, this fact remains self evident.  Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue.  If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub.  So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.

You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society.  To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on?  It is hard to look in a  newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.

I would also like to make one other point very clear to you.  I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread.  For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier.  If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear.  Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK.  Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people.  Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives.  They have no place in the United States Military.  Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.

Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military.  These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.  

Unfortunately DADT is dead.  Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President.  After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military.   Happy days will be here again.


----------



## Spoonman

i'm curious.  was bin laden killed by gay or straight troops?


----------



## High_Gravity

Spoonman said:


> i'm curious.  was bin laden killed by gay or straight troops?



Neither, they were bisexual.


----------



## Montrovant

yota5 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant, I've read your reply with great interest.  I was surprised to see that you made my point for me.  You provide the references to gays in positions of power preying on their subordinates.  The harmful activities of gay clergy was a good reference to cite.  It clearly illustrates what happens when gays ascend in stature and become "trusted" authority figures.  Thank you.
> 
> Unfortunately, you still seem to feel that the sexual deviance of gays is validated by the nefarious activities of heterosexual deviants.  Irregardless of sexual preference sexual deviance is never acceptable.  It is like say that just because Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks it isn't OK that the rest of us rob banks too.  You say that you've served, and therefore should know that all deviance is vigorously prosecuted by the USMJ.
> 
> The fact that you served as an  undeclared deviant lets us know that not all deviants were ferreted out.  It was fortunate that DADT mandated that you remain very discreet about your deviant behavior.  This mandate protected those around you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension.  When did I say I have served?  I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.
> 
> I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals.  As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed.  You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term.  You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.
> 
> I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up.  Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals.  Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.
> 
> You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.
> 
> So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions.  Pretty damn unsatisfactory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you haven't served is interesting.  Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume.  I incorrectly lumped you into this category.  However, this fact remains self evident.  Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue.  If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub.  So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society.  To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on?  It is hard to look in a  newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.
> 
> I would also like to make one other point very clear to you.  I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread.  For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier.  If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.
> 
> Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear.  Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK.  Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people.  Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives.  They have no place in the United States Military.  Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.
> 
> Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military.  These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.
> 
> Unfortunately DADT is dead.  Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President.  After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military.   Happy days will be here again.
Click to expand...


I hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I have as great an understanding of the military and the life serving entails as someone who has or is a soldier.  I further hope I have not given the impression that I think I do.

I consider fears about the effect on morale, depending on their basis, valid.  I am not saying I agree with them necessarily, but I can certainly understand worrying that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some strife.

I asked for specifics concerning your use of the term sexual deviants for a (IMO) good reason, not just as some goad to try and 'catch you out' in some non-PC response.  Your point about the military vigorously prosecuting heterosexual deviants furthers that reason.  Without knowing what you consider a sexual deviant, I and others cannot know if you are consistent in your arguments.  You say sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve, but other than gays, we don't know what that means.  Now there is the further question of what the military considers sexual deviants if they are prosecuting them vigorously.  What does the military consider unacceptable sexual deviance?  What, specifically, were these soldiers prosecuted for?  Was it for sexual acts done in private, was it for talking about said acts, was it for fraternization in the chain of command, etc.?  I realize that, in your mind, it may seem obvious and clear what constitutes sexual deviance, but different people will have different definitions of what that means.

If you take a dictionary definition of deviant, departing from the norm, and apply it to your criteria, I imagine a large majority of soldiers would not be allowed to serve.  Most people have some sort of fetish, or fantasy, or desire, or practice which departs from the norm to some extent.  Some are certainly more extreme, but even something as simple as dirty talk during sex could be considered sexually deviant.

You say that you can hardly read a newspaper or watch the news without seeing some example of gay predation.  I read my news online, so perhaps there is a disconnect between what is posted on online news sites and newspapers and television, but I think that is unlikely.  Rather, I think you are wrong that examples of gay predation are so prevalent.  Certainly some gays prey on the weak.  That's part of human nature and something not limited in any way to homosexuals.  More importantly, I have not seen compelling evidence that homosexuals are any more prone to such behavior than heterosexuals.  I expect this is a point we are never going to agree on.

Let me finish by saying that I think most of my questions and arguments with you are based on what you have posted rather than any knowledge or lack thereof I have of life in the military.  You have made various statements which I feel lack clarity and/or evidence.  Whether or not I have served is immaterial when it comes to you being more exact in your arguments or asking you to provide evidence of a claim.  You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone, but as there are others on here who also claim military background and disagree with you, I don't think you would consider it reasonable for me to just accept your opinions because you have served and I have not.  Perhaps if every military member in the thread agreed on a point about military life I should accept it, but that has not been the case in our discussion.  I don't have to have served to realize things are different in a squad bay than in my local pub (and that was certainly an odd turn of phrase, was it intended as a subtle insult?), but neither do I assume you know everything there is to know about military life.  Your experiences may differ from others based on branch, rank, location, time, personality, and who knows how many other factors.  There are things I will not know, having not experienced them first-hand, but that doesn't automatically invalidate any opinion I hold about the military.


----------



## Spoonman

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension.  When did I say I have served?  I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.
> 
> I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals.  As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed.  You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term.  You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.
> 
> I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up.  Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals.  Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.
> 
> You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.
> 
> So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions.  Pretty damn unsatisfactory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you haven't served is interesting.  Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume.  I incorrectly lumped you into this category.  However, this fact remains self evident.  Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue.  If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub.  So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society.  To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on?  It is hard to look in a  newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.
> 
> I would also like to make one other point very clear to you.  I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread.  For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier.  If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.
> 
> Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear.  Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK.  Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people.  Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives.  They have no place in the United States Military.  Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.
> 
> Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military.  These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.
> 
> Unfortunately DADT is dead.  Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President.  After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military.   Happy days will be here again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I have as great an understanding of the military and the life serving entails as someone who has or is a soldier.  I further hope I have not given the impression that I think I do.
> 
> I consider fears about the effect on morale, depending on their basis, valid.  I am not saying I agree with them necessarily, but I can certainly understand worrying that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some strife.
> 
> I asked for specifics concerning your use of the term sexual deviants for a (IMO) good reason, not just as some goad to try and 'catch you out' in some non-PC response.  Your point about the military vigorously prosecuting heterosexual deviants furthers that reason.  Without knowing what you consider a sexual deviant, I and others cannot know if you are consistent in your arguments.  You say sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve, but other than gays, we don't know what that means.  Now there is the further question of what the military considers sexual deviants if they are prosecuting them vigorously.  What does the military consider unacceptable sexual deviance?  What, specifically, were these soldiers prosecuted for?  Was it for sexual acts done in private, was it for talking about said acts, was it for fraternization in the chain of command, etc.?  I realize that, in your mind, it may seem obvious and clear what constitutes sexual deviance, but different people will have different definitions of what that means.
> 
> If you take a dictionary definition of deviant, departing from the norm, and apply it to your criteria, I imagine a large majority of soldiers would not be allowed to serve.  Most people have some sort of fetish, or fantasy, or desire, or practice which departs from the norm to some extent.  Some are certainly more extreme, but even something as simple as dirty talk during sex could be considered sexually deviant.
> 
> You say that you can hardly read a newspaper or watch the news without seeing some example of gay predation.  I read my news online, so perhaps there is a disconnect between what is posted on online news sites and newspapers and television, but I think that is unlikely.  Rather, I think you are wrong that examples of gay predation are so prevalent.  Certainly some gays prey on the weak.  That's part of human nature and something not limited in any way to homosexuals.  More importantly, I have not seen compelling evidence that homosexuals are any more prone to such behavior than heterosexuals.  I expect this is a point we are never going to agree on.
> 
> Let me finish by saying that I think most of my questions and arguments with you are based on what you have posted rather than any knowledge or lack thereof I have of life in the military.  You have made various statements which I feel lack clarity and/or evidence.  Whether or not I have served is immaterial when it comes to you being more exact in your arguments or asking you to provide evidence of a claim.  You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone, but as there are others on here who also claim military background and disagree with you, I don't think you would consider it reasonable for me to just accept your opinions because you have served and I have not.  Perhaps if every military member in the thread agreed on a point about military life I should accept it, but that has not been the case in our discussion.  I don't have to have served to realize things are different in a squad bay than in my local pub (and that was certainly an odd turn of phrase, was it intended as a subtle insult?), but neither do I assume you know everything there is to know about military life.  Your experiences may differ from others based on branch, rank, location, time, personality, and who knows how many other factors.  There are things I will not know, having not experienced them first-hand, but that doesn't automatically invalidate any opinion I hold about the military.
Click to expand...


i've made 2000 posts here and i haven't typed that many words - in total


----------



## Montrovant

Spoonman said:


> i've made 2000 posts here and i haven't typed that many words - in total


----------



## Spoonman

Montrovant said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've made 2000 posts here and i haven't typed that many words - in total
Click to expand...


now that's more like it


----------



## Gadawg73

The Navy Seal that gave Bin Laden a 3rd eye just came out as gay. 
Every one of the other Seals has resigned.


----------



## yota5

Gadawg73 said:


> The Navy Seal that gave Bin Laden a 3rd eye just came out as gay.
> Every one of the other Seals has resigned.


----------



## yota5

Montrovant said:


> yota5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension.  When did I say I have served?  I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.
> 
> I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals.  As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed.  You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term.  You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.
> 
> I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up.  Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals.  Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.
> 
> You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.
> 
> So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions.  Pretty damn unsatisfactory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you haven't served is interesting.  Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume.  I incorrectly lumped you into this category.  However, this fact remains self evident.  Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue.  If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub.  So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society.  To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on?  It is hard to look in a  newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.
> 
> I would also like to make one other point very clear to you.  I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread.  For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier.  If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.
> 
> Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear.  Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK.  Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people.  Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives.  They have no place in the United States Military.  Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.
> 
> Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military.  These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.
> 
> Unfortunately DADT is dead.  Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President.  After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military.   Happy days will be here again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I have as great an understanding of the military and the life serving entails as someone who has or is a soldier.  I further hope I have not given the impression that I think I do.
> 
> I consider fears about the effect on morale, depending on their basis, valid.  I am not saying I agree with them necessarily, but I can certainly understand worrying that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some strife.
> 
> I asked for specifics concerning your use of the term sexual deviants for a (IMO) good reason, not just as some goad to try and 'catch you out' in some non-PC response.  Your point about the military vigorously prosecuting heterosexual deviants furthers that reason.  Without knowing what you consider a sexual deviant, I and others cannot know if you are consistent in your arguments.  You say sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve, but other than gays, we don't know what that means.  Now there is the further question of what the military considers sexual deviants if they are prosecuting them vigorously.  What does the military consider unacceptable sexual deviance?  What, specifically, were these soldiers prosecuted for?  Was it for sexual acts done in private, was it for talking about said acts, was it for fraternization in the chain of command, etc.?  I realize that, in your mind, it may seem obvious and clear what constitutes sexual deviance, but different people will have different definitions of what that means.
> 
> If you take a dictionary definition of deviant, departing from the norm, and apply it to your criteria, I imagine a large majority of soldiers would not be allowed to serve.  Most people have some sort of fetish, or fantasy, or desire, or practice which departs from the norm to some extent.  Some are certainly more extreme, but even something as simple as dirty talk during sex could be considered sexually deviant.
> 
> You say that you can hardly read a newspaper or watch the news without seeing some example of gay predation.  I read my news online, so perhaps there is a disconnect between what is posted on online news sites and newspapers and television, but I think that is unlikely.  Rather, I think you are wrong that examples of gay predation are so prevalent.  Certainly some gays prey on the weak.  That's part of human nature and something not limited in any way to homosexuals.  More importantly, I have not seen compelling evidence that homosexuals are any more prone to such behavior than heterosexuals.  I expect this is a point we are never going to agree on.
> 
> Let me finish by saying that I think most of my questions and arguments with you are based on what you have posted rather than any knowledge or lack thereof I have of life in the military.  You have made various statements which I feel lack clarity and/or evidence.  Whether or not I have served is immaterial when it comes to you being more exact in your arguments or asking you to provide evidence of a claim.  You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone, but as there are others on here who also claim military background and disagree with you, I don't think you would consider it reasonable for me to just accept your opinions because you have served and I have not.  Perhaps if every military member in the thread agreed on a point about military life I should accept it, but that has not been the case in our discussion.  I don't have to have served to realize things are different in a squad bay than in my local pub (and that was certainly an odd turn of phrase, was it intended as a subtle insult?), but neither do I assume you know everything there is to know about military life.  Your experiences may differ from others based on branch, rank, location, time, personality, and who knows how many other factors.  There are things I will not know, having not experienced them first-hand, but that doesn't automatically invalidate any opinion I hold about the military.
Click to expand...


Montrovant, the fact that you've never served is very material.  You don't have a frame of reference from which to base your argument.  That is my opinion, and it is a fact.  You are right on one aspect though.  Serving in combat arms does give one a fairly uncompromising out look on life.  

Gay service members serve in the shadows.  They can't reveal their true sexual proclivity.  If they do they are prosecuted under the UCMJ, and discharged.  I feel that this has inhibited their negative impact on their units.  Now those restrictions have been removed, and all of us will be able to see how the gay community handles their new found freedom.  It shouldn't surprise you that their opinions would differ from mine.

The military has always vigorously prosecuted sexual deviance.  As you've stated deviance is a departure from the norm.  The military doesn't view kinky sex between consenting males, and females deviant.  The UCMJ views gay sex as a crime, and deviant.  Any sexual assault is both a crime and deviant.  Child pornography is both a crime and deviant.  This list goes on and on.  

Maybe the enclosed URL will clarify this issue for you.  You will note that deviance occupies both the heterosexual, and the homosexual camps.  But I have a feeling that you already knew the answer to your question. 

My my son-in-law is a detective.  My daughter is a deputy sheriff.  They too have first hand knowledge of this subject, and the consequences.  That also colors my view point.

As an American you have a right to your opinion.  I have the same right.  It appears that we'll have to respectively agree to disagree.  

Sex crimes Archives - True Crime Report


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?


so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
Click to expand...


What the fuck do you know about the military again?

Oh yeah......nothing.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
Click to expand...


Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....
Click to expand...


Would have been more wrong to turn her in.  Wanna know why?  We were short handed and if she would have been sent back to the States, we would have had a serious problem with radio communications, as we'd been without someone for about 2 months and it was a serious strain on the comm department.


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
Click to expand...


You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...


----------



## Gadawg73

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
Click to expand...


Someone broke a rule!!! An admitted criminal!!!!


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....
Click to expand...


And conservatives never do that.


----------



## High_Gravity

Wer just repeating the same stuff over and over again in this thread now fellas.


----------



## Gadawg73

Yeah, I am going fishing and hunting next week. Need to start getting my gear together.


----------



## High_Gravity

Gadawg73 said:


> Yeah, I am going fishing and hunting next week. Need to start getting my gear together.



Neat, I'll be guzzling 40s and spending all night at the club as usual.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Gadawg73 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And conservatives never do that.
Click to expand...


Of course they do. Chances are we have all at least bent a regulation at one time or another. But to flaunt it?


----------



## CountofTuscany

SFC Ollie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And conservatives never do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do. Chances are we have all at least bent a regulation at one time or another. But to flaunt it?
Click to expand...


It's a sad thing when you can take pride in your fuck up or indescrtions.


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............
> 
> We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship.  guess who came out to assist?  It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.
> 
> Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?
> 
> She was sent, because she was the best.
> 
> BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
Click to expand...

'

From what I can see REMF, Spoonman, knows a hell of a lot more about the military then you do.  He also doesn't resort to telling a bunch of questionable tall tales to prove his point.  He is far more credible then you are.  I don't have to tell you how much gays hurt the service.  You only have to look back over your own service record to see that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...
Click to expand...


Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.

Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.

As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.

What you got?


----------



## ABikerSailor

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal.  why should we listen to anythng you have to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> From what I can see REMF, Spoonman, knows a hell of a lot more about the military then you do.  He also doesn't resort to telling a bunch of questionable tall tales to prove his point.  He is far more credible then you are.  I don't have to tell you how much gays hurt the service.  You only have to look back over your own service record to see that.
Click to expand...


REMF?  Ya may wish to read my reply to Slut Cowski there Yo Turd.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
Click to expand...


Lucky bastard, I was dying to get MEPS duty when I was in the Air Force but when I got my 15 everything got fucked up.


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
Click to expand...


Good for you asshole. 

Then in that case, you worked for me. I LED the fucking fire party - you Admin REMF puke.


----------



## Spoonman

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you know about the military again?
> 
> Oh yeah......nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
Click to expand...


2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party?  ok that sounds really gay.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party?  ok that sounds really gay.
Click to expand...


He lacked the leadership to be the on-scene leader. So they put his gay ass in the second position on the fire hose.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucky bastard, I was dying to get MEPS duty when I was in the Air Force but when I got my 15 everything got fucked up.
Click to expand...


Only reason I got it was because on the MSC vessel, I was known up and down the waterfront (recommended by MSC by the way) as the best PN around.  Why?  Because a pay error rate of 5 percent or LESS is considered outstanding.  Me?  I was sitting at 2 percent.

And lemmie tell ya........being at a MEPS isn't as easy as you may think.  First, you don't have ANY military facilities around, everything has to go through civilian channels, or you travel 90-150 miles to the nearest base.  Oh yeah........how you look in public and your actions while in uniform are VERY carefully scrutinized by the community.

And then.........there's the loss of your military bearing that happens if you don't make sure that EVERYONE is 4.0, because there aren't any officers to bark at you, or if there is, many times they aren't of your service.

Finally, there are the cute chicks that come in and flirt with you.  Temptation is everywhere, and if you fuck up, you're returned to the Fleet.

All that aside, I'm glad that is what I got for my final tour, as it made the transition from military to civilian life a whole lot easier.


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party?  ok that sounds really gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lacked the leadership to be the on-scene leader. So they put his gay ass in the second position on the fire hose.
Click to expand...


hmmmmm and you would have thought all those years of pushing a pencil would have given him real hands on experience.  I thought the pen was mightier than the sword


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party?  ok that sounds really gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lacked the leadership to be the on-scene leader. So they put his gay ass in the second position on the fire hose.
Click to expand...


Wrong Slut Cowski, if you really served, you would know that the on scene leader has to be at least an E-6, and preferrably someone from the HT shop.  Since on my first command I started out as an E-1 and made E-4 in three years, and a tour is only 4, I was ineligible to be the on scene leader.  However, the fact that I made it onto the at sea fire party (as opposed to the inport fire party), would beg to differ.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the YN's that took care of the officers.  PN's were designated to take care of the enlisted crew.
> 
> Oh yeah Slut Cowski, I was also 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party, was part of the Security Force in Newport RI, as well as did 2 independent duty stations (MSC vessel followed by running the Navy office for MEPS Amarillo).  Both are NOT assignments that you get by the luck of the draw.  In both instances you have to pass a command, as well as specific overseas screening criteria.
> 
> As far as duty?  I stood more than my fair share.  Why?  Because I volunteered for so many different collateral duties.  Unlike you, I actually wanted to learn as much as I could.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty proud of my career and where I've been.......26 different countries and 49 different states.
> 
> What you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucky bastard, I was dying to get MEPS duty when I was in the Air Force but when I got my 15 everything got fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only reason I got it was because on the MSC vessel, I was known up and down the waterfront (recommended by MSC by the way) as the best PN around.  Why?  Because a pay error rate of 5 percent or LESS is considered outstanding.  Me?  I was sitting at 2 percent.
> 
> And lemmie tell ya........being at a MEPS isn't as easy as you may think.  First, you don't have ANY military facilities around, everything has to go through civilian channels, or you travel 90-150 miles to the nearest base.  Oh yeah........how you look in public and your actions while in uniform are VERY carefully scrutinized by the community.
> 
> And then.........there's the loss of your military bearing that happens if you don't make sure that EVERYONE is 4.0, because there aren't any officers to bark at you, or if there is, many times they aren't of your service.
> 
> Finally, there are the cute chicks that come in and flirt with you.  Temptation is everywhere, and if you fuck up, you're returned to the Fleet.
> 
> All that aside, I'm glad that is what I got for my final tour, as it made the transition from military to civilian life a whole lot easier.
Click to expand...


No doubt, after being stationed at shitty Vandenberg Air Force base I wanted MEP's duty to get away from the daily grind of being on a base, but its all good everything happens for a reason.


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd nozzleman for the at sea fire party?  ok that sounds really gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lacked the leadership to be the on-scene leader. So they put his gay ass in the second position on the fire hose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong Slut Cowski, if you really served, you would know that the on scene leader has to be at least an E-6, and preferrably someone from the HT shop.  Since on my first command I started out as an E-1 and made E-4 in three years, and a tour is only 4, I was ineligible to be the on scene leader.  However, the fact that I made it onto the at sea fire party (as opposed to the inport fire party), would beg to differ.
Click to expand...


Not aboard my ship(s) junior.


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lacked the leadership to be the on-scene leader. So they put his gay ass in the second position on the fire hose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Slut Cowski, if you really served, you would know that the on scene leader has to be at least an E-6, and preferrably someone from the HT shop.  Since on my first command I started out as an E-1 and made E-4 in three years, and a tour is only 4, I was ineligible to be the on scene leader.  However, the fact that I made it onto the at sea fire party (as opposed to the inport fire party), would beg to differ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not aboard my ship(s) junior.
Click to expand...


Really?  You do realize that HT converted and became DC later, right?  The requirements for experience don't change, unless of course, you think that an E-4 is qualified over an E-6?


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Slut Cowski, if you really served, you would know that the on scene leader has to be at least an E-6, and preferrably someone from the HT shop.  Since on my first command I started out as an E-1 and made E-4 in three years, and a tour is only 4, I was ineligible to be the on scene leader.  However, the fact that I made it onto the at sea fire party (as opposed to the inport fire party), would beg to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not aboard my ship(s) junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You do realize that HT converted and became DC later, right?  The requirements for experience don't change, unless of course, you think that an E-4 is qualified over an E-6?
Click to expand...


Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer. 

Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy. 

So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not aboard my ship(s) junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You do realize that HT converted and became DC later, right?  The requirements for experience don't change, unless of course, you think that an E-4 is qualified over an E-6?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer.
> 
> Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy.
> 
> So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.
Click to expand...


You're just pissed that you got exposed for not knowing much about damage control requirements.  Too bad you got your ass kicked by a "bootcamp PN-suckass".

Sucks to be you.......really.  And, what's more, knowing that you retired prior to DADT being enacted tells me quite a bit about your mentality.  The Navy is glad that dinosaurs like you are no longer there.

By the way cock smoker, got news for you..........the E-6 lesbian thing was in the late 90's, AFTER DADT had been enacted.

Try again loser.


----------



## yota5

Fishing? Hunting? I can't fault either pursuit.  Tight lines and good hunting.


----------



## yota5

Gadawg73 said:


> Yeah, I am going fishing and hunting next week. Need to start getting my gear together.



Oops, sorry about this.  I forgot to include this quote for my previous post.  Tight lines, and good hunting once more.


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You do realize that HT converted and became DC later, right?  The requirements for experience don't change, unless of course, you think that an E-4 is qualified over an E-6?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer.
> 
> Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy.
> 
> So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just pissed that you got exposed for not knowing much about damage control requirements.  Too bad you got your ass kicked by a "bootcamp PN-suckass".
> 
> Sucks to be you.......really.  And, what's more, knowing that you retired prior to DADT being enacted tells me quite a bit about your mentality.  The Navy is glad that dinosaurs like you are no longer there.
> 
> By the way cock smoker, got news for you..........the E-6 lesbian thing was in the late 90's, AFTER DADT had been enacted.
> 
> Try again loser.
Click to expand...


I got my ESWS pin in 1984. Way before you were the #2 nozzle man. You were probably still experimenting with your own nozzle then, in a bathroom with a Playboy magazine.

Non-sea-going, non-duty standing Admin puke suck ass boot camp


----------



## Spoonman

i hear that now that the navy has done away with DADT they are replacing their fight song, anchors ahweigh with the village peoples  "In the navy"


----------



## Spoonman

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer.
> 
> Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy.
> 
> So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just pissed that you got exposed for not knowing much about damage control requirements.  Too bad you got your ass kicked by a "bootcamp PN-suckass".
> 
> Sucks to be you.......really.  And, what's more, knowing that you retired prior to DADT being enacted tells me quite a bit about your mentality.  The Navy is glad that dinosaurs like you are no longer there.
> 
> By the way cock smoker, got news for you..........the E-6 lesbian thing was in the late 90's, AFTER DADT had been enacted.
> 
> Try again loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got my ESWS pin in 1984. Way before you were the #2 nozzle man. You were probably still experimenting with your own nozzle then, in a bathroom with a Play*girl* magazine.
> 
> Non-sea-going, non-duty standing Admin puke suck ass boot camp
Click to expand...

  fixed that for you


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> i hear that now that the navy has done away with DADT they are replacing their fight song, anchors ahweigh with the village peoples  "In the navy"



I'm glad I am out. 
Too political correct. 
And the military is no place to experiment with crapola like "gays" serving side by side with "straights." 

I wonder how many Seal Team Six members have proudly proclaimed they're gay. 

My guess would be none.


----------



## slukasiewski

Spoonman said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just pissed that you got exposed for not knowing much about damage control requirements.  Too bad you got your ass kicked by a "bootcamp PN-suckass".
> 
> Sucks to be you.......really.  And, what's more, knowing that you retired prior to DADT being enacted tells me quite a bit about your mentality.  The Navy is glad that dinosaurs like you are no longer there.
> 
> By the way cock smoker, got news for you..........the E-6 lesbian thing was in the late 90's, AFTER DADT had been enacted.
> 
> Try again loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got my ESWS pin in 1984. Way before you were the #2 nozzle man. You were probably still experimenting with your own nozzle then, in a bathroom with a Play*girl* magazine.
> 
> Non-sea-going, non-duty standing Admin puke suck ass boot camp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fixed that for you
Click to expand...


Appreciate it. I don't know what I was thinking....


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer.
> 
> Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy.
> 
> So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just pissed that you got exposed for not knowing much about damage control requirements.  Too bad you got your ass kicked by a "bootcamp PN-suckass".
> 
> Sucks to be you.......really.  And, what's more, knowing that you retired prior to DADT being enacted tells me quite a bit about your mentality.  The Navy is glad that dinosaurs like you are no longer there.
> 
> By the way cock smoker, got news for you..........the E-6 lesbian thing was in the late 90's, AFTER DADT had been enacted.
> 
> Try again loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got my ESWS pin in 1984. Way before you were the #2 nozzle man. You were probably still experimenting with your own nozzle then, in a bathroom with a Playboy magazine.
> 
> Non-sea-going, non-duty standing Admin puke suck ass boot camp
Click to expand...


Actually, I've served on USS CONCORD, USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, and USNS CONCORD.

Kinda nice to check onboard a Navy vessel as an E-1, and then go back on it after it's been converted to MSC as a Department Head.  

And, I've got more sea time than the average PN.  Why?  Ever heard about how many months an MSC vessel spends in homeport?  Not much........out of the 2 years I was onboard, I only got to see homeport for a grand total of 3 months.  Rest of the time it was underway in the Med.

As far as when you got your ESWS?  Thats the same year that I made E-4.  And yeah.....I was the only admin puke to make it to the at sea fire party.  Started out as a messenger and worked my way up doing the PQS.


----------



## yota5

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not aboard my ship(s) junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You do realize that HT converted and became DC later, right?  The requirements for experience don't change, unless of course, you think that an E-4 is qualified over an E-6?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer.
> 
> Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy.
> 
> So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.
Click to expand...


Great reply.  His kind wasn't welcome in the Army either.  A senior NCO would've locked his heels there too.  

However you're wasting your time with the gay biker.  Engaging in debate with him is like arguing a point with your pet rock.  The intellectual capacity is the same.  I have heard that this theory was tested, and gay biker lost to the pet rock.


----------



## slukasiewski

You were a Department Head as an E4? Quite an achievement. Was your skipper an E6? 

What an idiot. 

No further explanation of your failed service record is needed.

Seriously. 

You don't impress.


----------



## slukasiewski

yota5 said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You do realize that HT converted and became DC later, right?  The requirements for experience don't change, unless of course, you think that an E-4 is qualified over an E-6?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah bootcamp PN-suckass, I know all about the turd-chaser's rating merger. I got more time in the CPO Mess head taking shits than you had in the Navy. I also completed my last sea duty assignment in 1990 - and I don't have the desire, nor do I really give a shit - who's title is what on a fire party any longer.
> 
> Retired almost 15 years ago as a Senior Chief. And if you and I were serving together aboard ship - and if I caught you covering-up for carpet munchers and other criminals like you admitted to be doing earlier in this thread, I would have taken your punk ass to Mast and not only had you thrown off of my ship - but out of my Navy.
> 
> So STFU, you dishonorable boot camp douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great reply.  His kind wasn't welcome in the Army either.  A senior NCO would've locked his heels there too.
> 
> However you're wasting your time with the gay biker.  Engaging in debate with him is like arguing a point with your pet rock.  The intellectual capacity is the same.  I have heard that this theory was tested, and gay biker lost to the pet rock.
Click to expand...


You are correct. Every time I come in contact with this flaming disgrace to the Navy, he attempts to impress with his lame-dick military achievements. We had mess cooks in the CPO mess who were more experienced than that turd.


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> You were a Department Head as an E4? Quite an achievement. Was your skipper an E6?
> 
> What an idiot.
> 
> No further explanation of your failed service record is needed.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> You don't impress.



No actually.  The tour I served as a Department Head was on the last vessel I served on.  It was an MSC vessel and the crew consisted of 1 Commander, 1 Chief, and several E-6's, with the rest being E-5 and below.  Why was I named department head?  Because I was the only PN onboard, and yeah, that's when I held it as an E-6, but here's the interesting thing........that billet is usually required to be held by an E-7 or higher because of the custody of Navy Wide Advancement Exams, which could only be held onto by an E-7 or higher, unless you get special approval from BUPERS (which I had, because as stated before, I was the best PN on the MSC waterfront).

No, I didn't make Captain as an E-6.  I was a Department Head because of positional authority, which incidentally, is what set me up to become the head of the Navy office at MEPS.  My boss was in San Antonio and only came up every month or so.

Independent duty..........ever heard of it? Or, did you not qualify for it because you had your head so far up you ass?


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were a Department Head as an E4? Quite an achievement. Was your skipper an E6?
> 
> What an idiot.
> 
> No further explanation of your failed service record is needed.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> You don't impress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually.  The tour I served as a Department Head was on the last vessel I served on.  It was an MSC vessel and the crew consisted of 1 Commander, 1 Chief, and several E-6's, with the rest being E-5 and below.  Why was I named department head?  Because I was the only PN onboard, and yeah, that's when I held it as an E-6, but here's the interesting thing........that billet is usually required to be held by an E-7 or higher because of the custody of Navy Wide Advancement Exams, which could only be held onto by an E-7 or higher, unless you get special approval from BUPERS (which I had, because as stated before, I was the best PN on the MSC waterfront).
> 
> No, I didn't make Captain as an E-6.  I was a Department Head because of positional authority, which incidentally, is what set me up to become the head of the Navy office at MEPS.  My boss was in San Antonio and only came up every month or so.
> 
> Independent duty..........ever heard of it? Or, did you not qualify for it because you had your head so far up you ass?
Click to expand...


The only reason you were such a rewarded PN3 is because you gave the best head on the waterfront, right? Had to be. Most PNs I knew were caniving dumb fucks. 

In any event yes, I indeed have heard of Independent Duty. I was an MAC aboard three ships, before being selected for SCPO and sent off to be a detailer. During my independent duty tours, I brought many sea-lawyer lying asses like you to Mast many, many times. Loved every minute of it. 

Have a nice life, boot camp.


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were a Department Head as an E4? Quite an achievement. Was your skipper an E6?
> 
> What an idiot.
> 
> No further explanation of your failed service record is needed.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> You don't impress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually.  The tour I served as a Department Head was on the last vessel I served on.  It was an MSC vessel and the crew consisted of 1 Commander, 1 Chief, and several E-6's, with the rest being E-5 and below.  Why was I named department head?  Because I was the only PN onboard, and yeah, that's when I held it as an E-6, but here's the interesting thing........that billet is usually required to be held by an E-7 or higher because of the custody of Navy Wide Advancement Exams, which could only be held onto by an E-7 or higher, unless you get special approval from BUPERS (which I had, because as stated before, I was the best PN on the MSC waterfront).
> 
> No, I didn't make Captain as an E-6.  I was a Department Head because of positional authority, which incidentally, is what set me up to become the head of the Navy office at MEPS.  My boss was in San Antonio and only came up every month or so.
> 
> Independent duty..........ever heard of it? Or, did you not qualify for it because you had your head so far up you ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason you were such a rewarded PN3 is because you gave the best head on the waterfront, right? Had to be. Most PNs I knew were caniving dumb fucks.
> 
> In any event yes, I indeed have heard of Independent Duty. I was an MAC aboard three ships, before being selected for SCPO and sent off to be a detailer. During my independent duty tours, I brought many sea-lawyer lying asses like you to Mast many, many times. Loved every minute of it.
> 
> Have a nice life, boot camp.
Click to expand...


Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.

And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.

Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually.  The tour I served as a Department Head was on the last vessel I served on.  It was an MSC vessel and the crew consisted of 1 Commander, 1 Chief, and several E-6's, with the rest being E-5 and below.  Why was I named department head?  Because I was the only PN onboard, and yeah, that's when I held it as an E-6, but here's the interesting thing........that billet is usually required to be held by an E-7 or higher because of the custody of Navy Wide Advancement Exams, which could only be held onto by an E-7 or higher, unless you get special approval from BUPERS (which I had, because as stated before, I was the best PN on the MSC waterfront).
> 
> No, I didn't make Captain as an E-6.  I was a Department Head because of positional authority, which incidentally, is what set me up to become the head of the Navy office at MEPS.  My boss was in San Antonio and only came up every month or so.
> 
> Independent duty..........ever heard of it? Or, did you not qualify for it because you had your head so far up you ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason you were such a rewarded PN3 is because you gave the best head on the waterfront, right? Had to be. Most PNs I knew were caniving dumb fucks.
> 
> In any event yes, I indeed have heard of Independent Duty. I was an MAC aboard three ships, before being selected for SCPO and sent off to be a detailer. During my independent duty tours, I brought many sea-lawyer lying asses like you to Mast many, many times. Loved every minute of it.
> 
> Have a nice life, boot camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.
> 
> And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  *The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.*Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.
Click to expand...


A civilian doesn't have to worry about being chewed out by an officer or the whole rank has its privilege thing, as a civilian I had an interview with a 3 Star General from the Air Force for a job at the Pentagon and I felt alot more confident talking with him as a civilian than I would if I were still enlisted.


----------



## ABikerSailor

High_Gravity said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason you were such a rewarded PN3 is because you gave the best head on the waterfront, right? Had to be. Most PNs I knew were caniving dumb fucks.
> 
> In any event yes, I indeed have heard of Independent Duty. I was an MAC aboard three ships, before being selected for SCPO and sent off to be a detailer. During my independent duty tours, I brought many sea-lawyer lying asses like you to Mast many, many times. Loved every minute of it.
> 
> Have a nice life, boot camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.
> 
> And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  *The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.*Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civilian doesn't have to worry about being chewed out by an officer or the whole rank has its privilege thing, as a civilian I had an interview with a 3 Star General from the Air Force for a job at the Pentagon and I felt alot more confident talking with him as a civilian than I would if I were still enlisted.
Click to expand...


Actually, I've taken on people who outranked me (one was a CDR), and handed their asses to them many times.  Why?  Because I remember what my first supervisor told me.  He said learn the book and know it inside and out, and nobody will ever be able to fuck with you.  The regs outweigh the orders of idiots who should know better.

But.......then again......I've questioned authority all my life, because I've known many times that the people giving orders were wrong, and I had to have backup in the regs.

Now that I'm retired?  Not much to worry about.  Had some Westpoint wanna be (he said he was going after he graduated college in a year and a half), and he told me I would have to salute him.

However........as a retiree, I don't have to do that unless for some reason I put my uniform back on for some kind of event.  I don't see that happening any time soon, as I like long hair.


----------



## slukasiewski

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually.  The tour I served as a Department Head was on the last vessel I served on.  It was an MSC vessel and the crew consisted of 1 Commander, 1 Chief, and several E-6's, with the rest being E-5 and below.  Why was I named department head?  Because I was the only PN onboard, and yeah, that's when I held it as an E-6, but here's the interesting thing........that billet is usually required to be held by an E-7 or higher because of the custody of Navy Wide Advancement Exams, which could only be held onto by an E-7 or higher, unless you get special approval from BUPERS (which I had, because as stated before, I was the best PN on the MSC waterfront).
> 
> No, I didn't make Captain as an E-6.  I was a Department Head because of positional authority, which incidentally, is what set me up to become the head of the Navy office at MEPS.  My boss was in San Antonio and only came up every month or so.
> 
> Independent duty..........ever heard of it? Or, did you not qualify for it because you had your head so far up you ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason you were such a rewarded PN3 is because you gave the best head on the waterfront, right? Had to be. Most PNs I knew were caniving dumb fucks.
> 
> In any event yes, I indeed have heard of Independent Duty. I was an MAC aboard three ships, before being selected for SCPO and sent off to be a detailer. During my independent duty tours, I brought many sea-lawyer lying asses like you to Mast many, many times. Loved every minute of it.
> 
> Have a nice life, boot camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.
> 
> And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.
> 
> Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.
Click to expand...


Actually, an MAC is a Chief Master at Arms - not a Master Chief -  but, thanks for trying poser. 

The only thing you've managed to fight off, so far, is AIDS. But, keep trying. 

Your legal knowledge, gleaned in YN/PN A school (AKA Faggot U) is on par with Deputy Fife's. You couldn't fight your way out of a citation for spitting on a sidewalk - which is your usual MO, after sucking off a Sailor or two.

Case closed on your RER-4 gay-ass failed career.

Next !!!!

Oh - and you're on Iggy now too!!!

Congrats!!! It takes a lot to achieve that. At least you did one thing right.


----------



## High_Gravity

ABikerSailor said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.
> 
> And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  *The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.*Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A civilian doesn't have to worry about being chewed out by an officer or the whole rank has its privilege thing, as a civilian I had an interview with a 3 Star General from the Air Force for a job at the Pentagon and I felt alot more confident talking with him as a civilian than I would if I were still enlisted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Actually, I've taken on people who outranked me (one was a CDR), and handed their asses to them many times.  Why?  Because I remember what my first supervisor told me.  He said learn the book and know it inside and out, and nobody will ever be able to fuck with you.  The regs outweigh the orders of idiots who should know better.*
> But.......then again......I've questioned authority all my life, because I've known many times that the people giving orders were wrong, and I had to have backup in the regs.
> 
> Now that I'm retired?  Not much to worry about.  Had some Westpoint wanna be (he said he was going after he graduated college in a year and a half), and he told me I would have to salute him.
> 
> However........as a retiree, I don't have to do that unless for some reason I put my uniform back on for some kind of event.  I don't see that happening any time soon, as I like long hair.
Click to expand...


Your first supervisor sounds awesome, actually I had a friend like that who would always piss off our chain of command by using the regs against them when they tried to make us doing something, they hated him with a passion and started looking for other ways to fuck with him, he got a DUI and they turned it into an Article 15 Non Judicial punishment and had him removed from the service, god Vandenberg was a shit hole.


----------



## ABikerSailor

slukasiewski said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason you were such a rewarded PN3 is because you gave the best head on the waterfront, right? Had to be. Most PNs I knew were caniving dumb fucks.
> 
> In any event yes, I indeed have heard of Independent Duty. I was an MAC aboard three ships, before being selected for SCPO and sent off to be a detailer. During my independent duty tours, I brought many sea-lawyer lying asses like you to Mast many, many times. Loved every minute of it.
> 
> Have a nice life, boot camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.
> 
> And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.
> 
> Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, an MAC is a Chief Master at Arms - not a Master Chief -  but, thanks for trying poser.
> 
> The only thing you've managed to fight off, so far, is AIDS. But, keep trying.
> 
> Your legal knowledge, gleaned in YN/PN A school (AKA Faggot U) is on par with Deputy Fife's. You couldn't fight your way out of a citation for spitting on a sidewalk - which is your usual MO, after sucking off a Sailor or two.
> 
> Case closed on your RER-4 gay-ass failed career.
> 
> Next !!!!
> 
> Oh - and you're on Iggy now too!!!
> 
> Congrats!!! It takes a lot to achieve that. At least you did one thing right.
Click to expand...


Being on ignore from you is a relief.  At least I didn't have to resort to sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting nyahh nyahhh nyahh.

But, what else can you expect from someone who is losing quite badly?


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......sure......"independent" indeed.  Independent duty is generally characterized as being in a remote location with little to no military support services available.  Sorry, as an MAC you're the Command Master Chief, but you're still onboard a Navy vessel.  In DC, you still had Crystal City and the Pentagon.  Epic fail ya crusty bastard, fail yet again.
> 
> And.......FWIW, while I was at the MEPS for 2 1/2 years, we never missed goal, not once.  Why?  Because I knew the book and was able to fight off egotistic asshole SCPO's like yourself.  After I left?  The guy that took over from me didn't have half the spine I did, and they MISSED goal for 10 months straight.  Took someone to PCS from San Antonio (civilian incidentally) to set it straight again.
> 
> Sea lawyer?  Not hardly, because when I was in Newport, they sent me to PN/YN school, which meant I learned not only my job, but the legal issues that the YN's had to deal with as well, so yeah......I know the UCMJ.  Matter of fact, that's what set me up to go onboard USNS CONCORD independent duty.  And oh yeah.......part of independent duty is a command, as well as an overseas screening due to the nature of the posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an MAC is a Chief Master at Arms - not a Master Chief -  but, thanks for trying poser.
> 
> The only thing you've managed to fight off, so far, is AIDS. But, keep trying.
> 
> Your legal knowledge, gleaned in YN/PN A school (AKA Faggot U) is on par with Deputy Fife's. You couldn't fight your way out of a citation for spitting on a sidewalk - which is your usual MO, after sucking off a Sailor or two.
> 
> Case closed on your RER-4 gay-ass failed career.
> 
> Next !!!!
> 
> Oh - and you're on Iggy now too!!!
> 
> Congrats!!! It takes a lot to achieve that. At least you did one thing right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being on ignore from you is a relief.  At least I didn't have to resort to sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting nyahh nyahhh nyahh.
> 
> But, what else can you expect from someone who is losing quite badly?
Click to expand...


Fact is you had your ass handed to you. but keep pretending....


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slukasiewski said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an MAC is a Chief Master at Arms - not a Master Chief -  but, thanks for trying poser.
> 
> The only thing you've managed to fight off, so far, is AIDS. But, keep trying.
> 
> Your legal knowledge, gleaned in YN/PN A school (AKA Faggot U) is on par with Deputy Fife's. You couldn't fight your way out of a citation for spitting on a sidewalk - which is your usual MO, after sucking off a Sailor or two.
> 
> Case closed on your RER-4 gay-ass failed career.
> 
> Next !!!!
> 
> Oh - and you're on Iggy now too!!!
> 
> Congrats!!! It takes a lot to achieve that. At least you did one thing right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being on ignore from you is a relief.  At least I didn't have to resort to sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting nyahh nyahhh nyahh.
> 
> But, what else can you expect from someone who is losing quite badly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is you had your ass handed to you. but keep pretending....
Click to expand...


Fact is, you don't know your ID cards for dependents, and didn't believe in the dual status thing.  

Nope......my ass is still firmly attached, without glue, because it's never been removed.

Try again.


----------



## yota5

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being on ignore from you is a relief.  At least I didn't have to resort to sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting nyahh nyahhh nyahh.
> 
> But, what else can you expect from someone who is losing quite badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is you had your ass handed to you. but keep pretending....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, you don't know your ID cards for dependents, and didn't believe in the dual status thing.
> 
> Nope......my ass is still firmly attached, without glue, because it's never been removed.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Don't you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being on ignore from you is a relief.  At least I didn't have to resort to sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting nyahh nyahhh nyahh.
> 
> But, what else can you expect from someone who is losing quite badly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is you had your ass handed to you. but keep pretending....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, you don't know your ID cards for dependents, and didn't believe in the dual status thing.
> 
> Nope......my ass is still firmly attached, without glue, because it's never been removed.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Excuse me? What does me being wrong about something and admitting it have to do with you getting your braggart ass handed to you?


----------



## Steve Hanson

yota5 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is you had your ass handed to you. but keep pretending....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, you don't know your ID cards for dependents, and didn't believe in the dual status thing.
> 
> Nope......my ass is still firmly attached, without glue, because it's never been removed.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?
Click to expand...


Reading his last 20 or so entries I'd say no


----------

