Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
What you got? 4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?
I'm an E-7 with almost 15 years in the Army and I have seen the problems that homosexuals and homosexual behavior has caused units all the way down to squad level and believe me when I tell you there was no trust of homosexuals, regardless of how well they did their jobs. Soldiers were very uncomfortable around people they perceived to be gay, imagine if DADT is lifted and soldiers are faced with having to share close and private quarters with a known and open homosexual, all hell would break lose. If a straight soldiers doesn't want to share his barracks room with a gay person because of concerns about his privacy, who am I to force him?
I'll take better unit cohesion and higher morale over having to manage the problem of giving a soldier extra special attention and protection because he's gay, better if he kept it to himself and who ever he's having sex with.
Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
Another no-brainer. The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males. When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.
No one wants them around. Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.
Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with. That's for both hetero-and homosexuals. Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that? That's nobody's business.
It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing. A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
Another no-brainer. The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males. When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.
No one wants them around. Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.
Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with. That's for both hetero-and homosexuals. Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that? That's nobody's business.
It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing. A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
IMO, the flamers and bleeding hearts have a one-sided agenda and that is to look solely after the interests of homosexuals, they care about the long and short term fallout of their agendas. IF DADT is rescinded and things become problematic, they not going to take the blame for it, they're going to pass the buck and blame the opposition.
I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?
Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.
How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?
Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.
First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?
Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?
Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.
You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?
On the other hand, we have been presented with a great tool in DADT if it makes the Homosexual recruit reach for the sky before the CO can finish issuing the command!! I tell you, DADT is like super soldier serum--but you don't have to mix a damn thing to get the homosexuals Fighting mad!! That is the kind of policy the military needs!! A policy that turns a soldier into Hardened Soldiers on the first day they step onto the training fields.
So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?
Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.
The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!! Now that would be an even meaner military!! Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!
I can already see them on the go!! Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!! What a concept!! DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!
Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.
But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.
It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
Another no-brainer. The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males. When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.
No one wants them around. Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.
Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with. That's for both hetero-and homosexuals. Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that? That's nobody's business.
It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing. A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
IMO, the flamers and bleeding hearts have a one-sided agenda and that is to look solely after the interests of homosexuals, they care about the long and short term fallout of their agendas. IF DADT is rescinded and things become problematic, they not going to take the blame for it, they're going to pass the buck and blame the opposition.
Agreed.
You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
People like Ollie are the last of the old guard. They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.
You're stereotyping and I disagree.
True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?
This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
Forget that crap. That's not "old guard". That's common sense.
Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit. They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.
Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?
If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me.
Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.
Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
People like Ollie are the last of the old guard. They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.
You're stereotyping and I disagree.
True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?
This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay. Yup makes perfect sense.
Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit. They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.
Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
What you got? 4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?
I'm an E-7 with almost 15 years in the Army and I have seen the problems that homosexuals and homosexual behavior has caused units all the way down to squad level and believe me when I tell you there was no trust of homosexuals, regardless of how well they did their jobs. Soldiers were very uncomfortable around people they perceived to be gay, imagine if DADT is lifted and soldiers are faced with having to share close and private quarters with a known and open homosexual, all hell would break lose.
If a straight soldiers doesn't want to share his barracks room with a gay person because of concerns about his privacy, who am I to force him?
I'll take better unit cohesion and higher morale over having to manage the problem of giving a soldier extra special attention and protection because he's gay, better if he kept it to himself and who ever he's having sex with.
You're stereotyping and I disagree.
True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have. So where's the problem?
This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay. Yup makes perfect sense.
Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
Once again, the color of a persons skin and their sexual orientation are two different things.
First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?
Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?
Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.
You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?
So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?
Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.
The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!! Now that would be an even meaner military!! Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!
I can already see them on the go!! Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!! What a concept!! DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!
Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.
But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.
It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"?? I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!! How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual? There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.
You take pride in a very useless characterization!!
2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
For the sexual preference losers? Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.
Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?
Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.
You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?
So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?
Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.
Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.
But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.
It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"?? I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!! How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual? There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.
You take pride in a very useless characterization!!
I NEVER said that.
2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
For the sexual preference losers? Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.
"Life's unfair therefore it's Ok for us to make it more unfair"
The official cop out of anyone with no other arguments.
Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"?? I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!! How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual? There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.
You take pride in a very useless characterization!!
I NEVER said that.
2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
For the sexual preference losers? Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.
"Life's unfair therefore it's Ok for us to make it more unfair"
The official cop out of anyone with no other arguments.
Well how about this arguement.
We do it because we CAN!!
PS--If you think it is only because we "breeders" are the majority, then understand this. If homosexuals were the majority, the end of the human race is at hand!!
Yes but in both cases people can be uncomfortable bunking with someone because of it.
Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
