No Critics Allowed: Big Three Nets Trumpet 'Historic' End to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
The Big Three networks unequivocally celebrated the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a "historic moment" on their Tuesday morning programs. CBS's "Early Show" turned to a discharged Air Force major who pushed for further recognition of same-sex couples by the military. NBC's "Today" brought on a homosexual playwright to promote his one-man movie on the policy. ABC's "GMA" only had a news brief on the development, but still highlighted how a magazine is "publishing photos of more than 100 active duty gay and lesbian troops who served in silence until now." None of the programs brought on dissenting voices to advocate the continuation of the policy.
"The Early Show" devoted the most amount of air time to the expiration of the policy, and led the 7 am Eastern hour with a slanted report from correspondent David Martin. Martin played sound bites from President Obama and outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, both opponents of the ban on open homosexuals from serving in the military, but none from supporters:
DAVID MARTIN: After 18 years of controversy, 'don't ask, don't tell' died at the stroke of midnight. From now on, gays can serve openly in the military, and the 13,000 who were discharged under 'don't ask, don't tell' can re-enlist.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from December 22, 2010 speech): No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military because they happen to be gay.
MARTIN: President Clinton first tried to repeal the ban on gays, but ran into the objections of then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell. A generation later, President Obama had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on his side. Admiral McMullen was the decisive voice calling for the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.'
ADM. MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are, in order to defend their fellow citizens.
MARTIN: There are thousands of gay men and women in uniform, and, as one of them said, this will be the first day that I can be open and honest about who I am. David Martin, CBS News, the Pentagon.
Over an hour later, substitute anchors Jeff Glor and Rebecca Jarvis conducted a softball interview of former Air Force Major Mike Almy, who appeared unopposed during the segment. Glor cited "some gay rights groups [who] say its only the beginning, that more needs to be done." Almy wholeheartedly agreed, and hinted that the Defense of Marriage Act needed to be overturned:
JARVIS: What do you think the transition is going to be like?
ALMY: For me personally or as a whole?
JARVIS: Both-
GLOR: For the military as a whole. A non-event or a big one?
ALMY: Sure. I think it's- well, there's two answers to that. For LGBT Americans, I think it's a huge event. This is a historic milestone. And now, gays and lesbians can serve honestly and openly in the military with full integrity, and have this 50-pound weight lifted off their back, that constant fear that they could be fired any day if someone overhears a conversation or misreads an e-mail. That fear is now gone, and they can serve openly and honestly, right alongside their straight counterparts.
For straight Americans, for straights who are in the military, I think it's going to be a non-event, which is a good thing, which highlights that gays and lesbians are already serving there. In many cases, they're open about it, and it's had no detrimental effect to the mission. If anything, it's enhanced the mission.
GLOR: This repeal has now happened, but some gay rights groups say its only the beginning, that more needs to be done.
ALMY: Yes-
GLOR: What do you think needs to be done?
ALMY: I think they're correct. This is, obviously, a watershed moment. We now have marriage equality in several states- New York, Massachusetts, Washington, DC- and yet, as of today, you can have servicemembers who are legally married in their state of residence, and yet, have no benefits, no recognition from the military- things such as health care insurance. If a military spouse- or if a military member was to go overseas, they couldn't take their spouse with them.
On the "Today" show, Natalie Morales spotlighted the "navy lieutenant [who] celebrated the end of the ban by marrying his long-time same-sex partner in Vermont in his dress uniform" during two news briefs between 7 am and 9 am Eastern. Morales also interviewed Mark Wolf, an openly homosexual actor and playwright (who also celebrated the end of DADT in a September 1, 2011 item on The Huffington Post), during the 9:30 am Eastern half hour. The NBC personality sympathized with some of the sob stories which Wolf highlighted in his one-man production:
MORALES: What was surprising to you in conducting these interviews? What did you learn out of this?
WOLF: I think what was really mostly surprising to me is, really, how paranoid people were. I met somebody at a cafe- I was sitting along the window- and he came in and said,'What are you doing here? I can't be seen talking here.' So, we had to go to the back. A woman I interviewed told me that someone they knew- the military had threatened to take her child away if she didn't turn other people in. So, yeah there's-
MORALES: Oh, my! Wow- a lot of horror stories.
WOLF: A lot of horror stories, yeah.
MORALES: And we should mention the movie opens today. But more than 13,000 servicemembers, of course, have lost their jobs, as a result of 'don't ask, don't tell.' What do you think now happens in this new era, where this ban has been lifted?
WOLF: I think, in a way, nothing's going to happen, because the straight soldiers have been serving with gay soldiers forever. And so, it's not going to be a big thing. But for-
MORALES: Not a big sea change?
WOLF: Yeah. But for individuals, they won't have to lock their computer when they leave their desk. They won't have to worry about- is somebody going to find this letter to the boyfriend or the girlfriend that reveals something about them?
MORALES: And not lose their jobs, because so many did.
WOLF: And their benefits.
MORALES: Yeah. Marc Wolf, thanks so much for bringing this to light.
ABC's "Good Morning America" devoted a short news brief to the end of "don't ask, don't tell" just after the beginning of the 8 am Eastern hour. News anchor Josh Elliot highlighted how one homosexual publication marked the occasion:
JOSH ELLIOTT: Meanwhile, the U.S. military's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy is now a thing of the past. It expired at midnight. Gays and lesbians can now serve openly without fear of losing their job. And, today, the magazine Out Serve is publishing photos of more than 100 active duty gay and lesbian troops who served in silence until now.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Barf
Submitted by ginagwen7 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:19pm.
that is all
Important history from other homosexual thread
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 5:19pm.
It is a deviant behavior
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:41pm.
The American Psychiatric Association was directly intimidated and overrun by the very active homosexual movement. People were threatened who did not go along. In the end the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) removed homosexuality based ON A VOTE. Not on ANY science. Does that tell you enough on how that all works? If they vote that manic depressive is not a mental disorder, does that make it so? The TRUTH is NO; it does NOT make it so!
M-B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
reply
Oh alright. It wasn't because
Submitted by goldwater89 on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 2:56pm.
Oh alright. It wasn't because they realized they were wrong, it was because they were strong armed by gay people.
Riiiiight!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERVIEW - "PC" intimidation changed the 81 words in the DSM
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 5:00pm.
You clearly don't know history. They self proclaimed infiltrated the annual 1973 meeting in San Francisco and intimidated them:
snip: From NPR's "this American life" http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/transcript
"From its earliest days, one of the main goals of the gay groups, alongside civil rights which was really number one, was removal from the DSM. So naturally Bieber's study, which billed itself as definitive proof that homosexuality was a pathology, kind of rubbed them the wrong way. In 1970, the American Psychiatric Association made the mistake of holding its annual convention in San Francisco, which then, as now, had a large gay community. And the gay activists decided to protest.
Irving Bieber was their very first target.
The Washington Post, May 14, 1970. "The gay liberation and their women allies out shrinked the head shrinkers today and took over an American Psychiatric Association session on sex. Before the morning was over, the 500 psychiatrists who'd gathered to hear scientific studies on sexual problems demonstrated that they're just as prone to anti-social behavior as anyone else. 'This lack of discipline is disgusting,' said doctor Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist at the meeting. Then he diagnosed the problem of one of the lesbian protesters. 'She's a paranoid fool,' the doctors said, 'and a stupid bitch.'"
Garry Allender
As I recall, there were evidently, you know, closeted gay and lesbian people who were inside the APA who wanted something to happen, and I think they just passed along information to us. And somebody got us press passes so that we could get through the front door.
Alix Spiegel
This is Garry Allender, one of the gay activists who infiltrated the APA convention. He says that while one group of activists stormed a session on behavioral therapy, another combed the halls looking for Bieber. They found him at a panel on transsexuals and homosexuality. Bieber, who was sitting in the front of the room, had just settled in for a nice long chat about close-binding mothers when, according to his wife Toby, there was a loud noise from outside the auditorium.
Toby Bieber
And a group came storming in, dressed rather fantastically, with feathers in their hats as though they were going to attend to some costume ball. Making noise, and broke up the meeting. They broke it up.
Garry Allender
We were not polite. We were not quiet. We were not asking for favors. We were just trying to delegitimize their authority and we felt they were oppressing us and here was finally a chance to talk back to them.
Alix Spiegel
The protesters yelled at the psychiatrists. They called them sadists, they called them oppressors. But the protesters had an entirely different word for Irving Bieber. A word, which in the account that circulated after the event got a disproportionate amount of attention. To the protesters Dr. Bieber was not just your run of the mill sadist oppressor. No sir. Irving Bieber was a mother[BLEEP]."
snip 2: "The Young Turks were all psychiatrists, all members of the APA, and all liberal-minded easterners who had decided to reform the American Psychiatric Association from the inside. Specifically, they had decided to replace all the gray-haired conservatives who ran the organization with a new breed of psychiatrist. More sensitive to social issues of the day, with liberal opinions on Kent State, Vietnam, feminism. They figured that once they got this new breed into office, they could fundamentally transform American psychiatry. And one of the things this group was keen to transform was American psychiatry's approach to homosexuality."
snip 3: "But several of the key players were gay. People like Dr. Larry Hartmann, who was a founding member of the Committee for Concerned Psychiatry. And later, like my grandfather, became president of the APA. Of course, none of these men were out at the time. They weren't even members of the GAYPA. They were too buried, buried even to friends and family. Adam Spiegel.
Adam Spiegel
It was not clear to me. In fact, when I learned that Larry was gay, I almost fell out of my chair. Because he was so not gay in his affect. Impossible to discern.
Alix Spiegel
Although the gay activists who were protesting the APA from the outside didn't know it, it was this group of men, these Young Turks and their allies who laid the groundwork for the change in the DSM. Without moving liberal minded psychiatrists into positions of power in the APA, without changing the organization's internal infrastructure, there would have been immediate veto of any attempt to change those extremely troublesome 81 words."
snip 4 "Alix Spiegel
It was around this time, fall of 1972, that the Young Turks saw the first fruits of their labor. One of their candidates for office, a man named Alfred Freedman, was elected president of the APA. My grandfather, John Spiegel, was installed on the board of trustees. And another man, Judd Marmor, one of my grandfather's best friends and an outspoken critic of the idea that homosexuality should be categorized as a disease, was selected as vice president."
snip 5 READ this:
"In fact, it's now considered unethical to treat homosexuality. And any psychiatrist who attempts to change the sexual orientation of his patient can face professional censure. If a gay person finds his sexual preference disturbing, if he's interested in becoming heterosexual-- and there are many people who fit this description-- the APA guidelines suggest that the therapist counsel his patient that change is impossible. He must learn to accept, embrace even.
My family always told me that my grandfather single-handedly changed the DSM. But what's striking is all the different forces that had to be in place in order to make this happen. It took both Evelyn Hooker and Dr. Anonymous, John P. Spiegel and Ronald Gold. People on the outside, people on the inside, and people at every point in between.
snip 6
"There are a couple of interesting postscripts to this story. Dr. Irving Bieber died in 1991 and the New York Times published an obituary which focused on his work in homosexuality in a way that his wife Toby found hostile and insulting. Most of the quotes were from people who never agreed with him. Worse, the newspaper mistakenly printed a picture of Robert Spitzer, Dr. Bieber's longtime opponent, in Dr. Bieber's place."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/09/22/npr-devotes-275-minut...
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
'Historic,' no
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:19pm.
Historic, yes. For the first time in our history openly gay Americans are allowed to serve in our military. While some Americans would like to continue to disqualify gay Americans from serving over their own fears and prejudices, a new day has finally come. Good for you, Mr President. Shame on the rest.
So you're OK with the bias?
Submitted by Matthew Balan on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:44pm.
Am I to assume that you're OK with the one-sided coverage the networks offered?
Also, no one EVER raises this issue, as highlighted by Navy Cross recipient Col. John Ripley, USMC in 1993
If there is one overwhelming characteristic of the battlefield with which I am familiar, it is the extreme and constant likelihood of death; serious injury; traumatic wounds; torn, bleeding bodies seen so shocking that no one in this room could hardly prepare or imagine them. Even realizing that this happens on a frequent, almost daily basis, the combat veteran is still shocked at what he sees when his own men suffer such grievous injuries regularly. Consider the great fear that all military men, in or out of combat, would have knowing that homosexuals serve with them, who comprise at least 2/3 of all current AIDS cases and are far more likely to suffer from and spread infectious diseases such as hepatitis and syphilis than any other group. We see each of them as infectious and life-threatening disease carriers. They are eleven times more probable of having syphilis, they are eight times more probable of having hepatitis, and they are a shocking—incredible—five thousand times more probable of having AIDS. How can any sane person not feel threatened working around such an obvious, extraordinary threat to his personal health. And in combat, the story becomes radicalized on a comparison with non-combat.
This is where blood flows so freely that it is unusual throughout the day not to be wearing someone’s else’s blood. Let me give you an example (the example of the shoot down at Khe Sanh). It seemed to me in combat that on a regular basis, several times a day, I was pinching off someone’s artery, sticking a thumb in a chest hole to prevent loss of breath, giving mouth to mouth resuscitation, pouring a canteen of water into an open abdomen to flush out the filth and blood and try to find the wound, trying to gently put a man’s jaw back into place so he wouldn’t choke to death on his own blood, replacing eyes back in their sockets, collecting limbs and throwing them in ponchos so that they could be evacuated with the body. This was regular activity, normal activity—not unusual at all.
Now, can you imagine the extraordinary fear fighting men have thinking that at least some of that blood may come from a homosexual who, without question to our way of thinking, will carry a life threatening disease? I myself carry a very serious disease because of having been immersed in the blood of those around me. I am disabled because of this and it came from normal circumstances—not those imposed on me by the forced perversion of homosexuals being around me.
For a homosexual to claim that they are just like the rest of us and that this won’t affect them and they will be, so to speak, “clean” is bloody nonsense. We know they have hundreds of sexual partners during their lifetime and they continue to engage in male-to-male sex, not using condoms, with no thought of the spread of disease.
speaking of Marines
Submitted by Rackie on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:10pm.
Come November, the Marine Corps Ball - 2 gays in dress blues slow dancing buckle to buckle... a kiss, a hug... oooh boy...Semper Fi
I do believe I have the vapors
Ai chihuahua.
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:35pm.
Bring on those cute Dutch soldiers..... My eyeballs just exploded.
First off
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:12pm.
It's quite a privilege to receive a response from the author.
Ripley has a point, but you need to consider a few things. For one, HIV, Hepatitis, and Syphilis aren't transmitted by blood to skin contact. Sticking your thumb in a bullet hole of a dying soldier will not give you AIDS. Furthermore, HIV is not transferred through saliva, so mouth to mouth resuscitation is safe as well. That they were available 20 years ago when I trained, resuscitation masks are surely carried by all combat medics.
Another point to consider is the diseased blood of straight soldiers. If you favor STD testing among soldiers, have at it. I have no problem with that notion.
Do you believe gay soldiers are incapable of following orders? And if so, why do you suppose they'd risk a court martial for disobeying orders?
Thank you,
Orangy
OMG, bookmark this one folks.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:20pm.
Now he's Sergeant Zippers, Former Combat Medic.
I'm outta here - good luck, Matthew.
That would be wrong
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:32pm.
It has been established that contaminated blood on skin breaks and saliva both can and do present the opportunity for infection. But that is not even high on the priority list. I'm sure many soldiers have latent viral infections of various types. Still, why would sane policy makers want to willingly open the doors to a myriad of new social and health challenges? Following orders is the least concern. Adding layers upon layers of chain of command, social, and relational problems revolving solely around sexualizing the military work environment makes the military mission itself "unsustainable".
DADT is the only reasonable policy short of prohibiting homosexual participation totally.
Really, you ask
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:58pm.
"Do you believe gay soldiers are incapable of following orders? And if so, why do you suppose they'd risk a court martial for disobeying orders"? Well, approximately 13,000 of them were incapable of following orders. And, of that number, what percentage do you think voluntarily outed themselves to avoid a deployment?
"Sticking your thumb in a bullet hole of a dying soldier will not give you AIDS". Never, not even if they're both wounded and end up transferring blood?
It doesn't really matter does
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:37am.
It doesn't really matter does it orange boy, UCMJ art. 125 still stands. BTW military medical training repeats over and over," Do not come in contact with blood". I inspect military medical facilites on a weekly basis.
Dead angry black and orange Zippers LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 12:39am.
The Impact of Hepatitis C on America’s Veterans
Veterans appear to have unusually high rates of hepatitis C. While the prevalence of hepatitis C in the population as a whole is 1.8%, various special studies of veterans in VA facilities have shown rates of hepatitis C infection between 10 and 20 percent.’
Hepatitis has historically been a disease associated with military service. Military training and combat offer many opportunities for transmission of blood-borne viral hepatitis through blood-to-blood contact. Field bleeding, surgery and transfusions, and exposure to blood by military medics and surgeons all constitute high risks.
Veterans of foreign combat are most at risk, where prevalence of hepatitis C is particularly high. All major engagements of the last 50 years — World War II, Korea, and Vietnam — had high rates of hepatitis. Viral hepatitis was viewed as a single disease in those years, and most treatment and documentation of it was for acute forms of the disease.
There are 3.2 million surviving Vietnam veterans who were in Asia during Vietnam Conflict. A conservative estimate is that 10 percent--320,000--of these veterans are now infected with HCV.
Source -- http://www.heathersveterans.org/hepatitis.htm
That is just hepatitis C. Can't wait 'til we throw other blood to blood diseases that come from voluntary known risk activities such as anal sex into the mix.
Sadly enough...
Submitted by hern2430 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:30pm.
It is not longer a country that is ruled by the majority. Today's rule is by the special interest groups. The political correctness has diseased this country into being a bunch of pansies. If I disagree with whatever the latest "fad" is, then I'm automatically labeled as the racist, xenophobic, non educated bigot who doesn't have other people's feelings in mind. And if I quote any Christian source as to why I don't agree, I'm labeled as one of those backwards Christian extremists. I cannot wear a ball cap into my son's school because it could be gang related, but it's OK for Muslim women to wear their burqa because we don't want to insult their religion.
Being homosexual is not acceptable. If it were, they would be able to reproduce without any intervention. So don't tell me that it's natural for them. It's a choice. Everybody has choices to make. If they would learn about God, they would know that we are tempted all through our lives to sin, and we have to make the effort to opt NOT to sin in His eyes. By their logic pedophiles should have equal rights too as they're just "born that way". Don't tell me it's different. If it's consensual, what's the difference? They're both sick in my book, but by the liberal homosexual logic, they are the same thing.
The difference?
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:34pm.
The law. Look it up.
Weak.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:54pm.
Just like the dipstick who claimed SS wasn't a Ponzi scheme because it wasn't illegal.
Besides that, there are groups working right now to change those laws. As insane and disgusting as it is, there are groups who want to decriminalize pederasty. Even worse, Obama's HHS director called children 'sexual beings', so these groups have friends in high places in the Obama admin.
Equating legality with morality is logically flawed. It assumes moral infallibility of gov't (a misconception common amongst gov worshiping left-wingers) and discounts the existence of moral absolutes. What is and isn't illegal has changed over time, what is right and wrong has not.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Specifically who?
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:00pm.
Who is looking to change minor capacity laws?
Read this:
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:02pm.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/j-matt-barber/sexual-anarchy
The names of the groups are in there. Not going to dignify said groups by naming them in a post here.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
You can do better than that
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:12pm.
A room full of 50 pedophiles hardly constitutes an effective movement. So tell me how the've progressed in repealing age of consent laws.
Thankfully, they haven't progressed.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:28pm.
However, the fact that such a movement even exists is bad enough. Just because they're failing doesn't mean what they're doing is in any way acceptable.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
You are one sick puppy
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:03pm.
You ask for proof, it's given but you excuse it because the movement is small?
You have posted up and down this thread without making any sense or even trying to make a reasonable argument. Pathetic really dont cover it.
Save your 5 word post, I dont care!
Look, you sir
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:19pm.
Don't care, then don't post. Don't like what's on Glee, turn the channel. Your banality is inconsequential. Seemingly explained by your disregard and/or misunderstanding/miscomprehension of the posts prior to this. Perpetuating myths that pedophilia has a chance at becoming allowable, legitimate, legal, and constitutional is demonstrative of your failure to comprehend even the most basic principles of our legal system.
I dont watch degenerate tv shows
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:26pm.
You obviously do. I also havent perpetuated anything other then your idiocy. So maybe it's YOU who should think about NOT posting.
Ha!
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:11pm.
Funny how you lecture others on the most basic principles of our legal system yet you indicate here that people simply have no right whatsoever to criticize television programs or to explain why they wish to change the channel.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
two words...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:15pm.
Kevin Jennings.
Stuff it, Mr. Orange. The "it's the law" argument is so weak and so lame. Anyone with at least half a brain knows that laws can be changed. DO YOU?
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
So how will you be celebrating, Françoise de la Zippers?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:55pm.
A few close friends in the hot tub, perhaps?
Play safe!
Complete BARF Mr. Orange.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:02pm.
Media, including local media here in Dallas, have colluded with the PC LSM and don't say "controversial," of which this certainly meets the term. Shame on you as our "fear" is for the health of all involved and the good fabric of our society. The homosexual life style, among other abusive (to self) behaviors, is not healthy, not moral, and not useful in raising a well adjusted and productive people. You do realize you say "shame on the rest," yet say "over their own fears and prejudices" right above in the same sentence. That is you FYI!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
For our group rights supporter
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:08pm.
Shame on YOU and everyone else, including His Majesty The Shahinshah, for wanting to destroy individual rights and liberties in favor of group rights.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Orange troll, How much are
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:49am.
Orange troll,
How much are they paying you a post? Are you an employee of Attackwatch? Your record of postings makes it seem highly likely.
It's Zippers v.35.8
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:07am.
An obsessive troll.
It's been kicked off of here a million times before, but comes back like the Energizer Bunny....perpetually sliming the boards.
Sick.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
v.35.8
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:40am.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks J.
We Are The 53%
Staying out of the latest Typhoon, Denny?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:54am.
Looks like ya'll got lucky, and it blew right by.
Stay dry....snow is right around the corner....for you!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yep J.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:02am.
But it's been windy and rainy all day.
They're calling it "very strong" but if it were in the Atlantic it would be a strong Cat 3 or even a 4.
Timing couldn't have been better though. Looks like Friday will be nice and sunny. Perfect for a Beer Festival.
We Are The 53%
The issue -
Submitted by JohnK on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:22pm.
The issue is SEX!
What normal hetero guy would be comfortable wondering if the guy in the next bunk is thinking of him in a sexy way?
Or catching an "out" guy looking at him in the shower?
Or wondering if the "out" guy is going to help his "lover" first in a firefight?
I will be waiting to see the recruitment reports in the future.
Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Tis ok,it's military jobs program
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:33pm.
Book Review: Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline by Robert H. Bork
The Left, having renounced any claims to objective truths, embraces moral relativism and eschews institutions that once defined moral constraints on liberty, including religion, family, and community. Consequently, it ignores fact for political expediency—in this case, that laws indeed impose a morality and that a public morality is both unavoidable and necessary.
Liberalism, asserts Bork, is incompatible with true democracy because it seeks to concoct conditions that no individual would actually desire. In fact, the radical egalitarian element of liberalism is necessarily statist because it cannot be implemented and enforced by any entity other than the government. Bork cites Alexis de Toqueville’s observation that Americans are more obsessed with equality than freedom, and notes that this misguided prioritization did not pose a threat to liberty until the twentieth century. Liberals now view inequality of income as one of the most pressing issues that need attention and rectification—by politicians, of course.
You Didn't Build That.
Bork was a genius. No wonder the left lied and smeared...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:36pm.
...him as a racist to keep him off the Supreme Court.
I was going to point out that the left's uncompromising and absolutist approach to integration (e.g. shoving the DADT repeal down the throats of our servicemen and women) reveals the fascistic tendencies of the left.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Don't forget, the Dems did this over the objections of...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:18pm.
..our servicemen and women. Anyone who would argue Obama and the Dems aren't fascist pieces of crap just lost that argument.
Particularly disturbing was Bawney Fwank's remark about straight servicemen and women being uncomfortable with being ogled in the shower, which amounted to him saying "So, what?", which leads me to conclude Fwank is a pervy creep who gets off on the idea of straight servicemembers being embarrassed and humiliated while being leered at.
Is it any wonder I can't stand Dems and knew the supermajority would be the worst thing that ever happened to this country?
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Outstanding!
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:09pm.
Now we can finally have a military just like the Dutch. I look forward to AP stories regaling us with tales of US Marines being dragged buck naked out of their warm tents by Serbs, Turks and Chinese and frog marched down the road of shame. Laughter and good times to be had by all.
I really want to see hot photos of mincing Pentagon admirals in their dress whites at Washington cocktail parties, eating caviar, capers and salmon croquettes, drinking champagne into the wee hours.... What a great career choice after all.
Combat is stress enough
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 4:15pm.
I can't imagine being openly stalked by one of my "buddies" too. Can you imagine the engineering of squads, platoons, and entire companies made up entirely of homsexuals? It can and will likely happen, at least on a abbreviated scale. We may be all dead long before that climax though..... Sorry for the bad pun.
I don't know why this bothers
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:23pm.
I don't know why this bothers everyone so much...
Simple
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:34pm.
Its called Group Cohesion, look it up if you are unfamiliar with how a military unit works. They either work together as a group or they fail and failure means death in combat regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Simple, Bal...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:53pm.
Because it's a big middle finger to heterosexual servicemembers and Christians.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
This is...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:26pm.
This is akin to putting three or four horny young HETEROSEXUALS in a barracks full of HETERESEXUAL women. The guys can't help getting excited and the women will feel like they're being ogled [Which they are!]. This is what bothers me. If I've got a sexy chick in combat with me as we're attempting to take a hill and I see her georgeous butt in front of me, its going to take my mind off staying alive as I fantasize what I could do with her. It will be no different with three or for horny gays looking at the butts of the guys going up the hill. Thats why women have been kept off ships and out of combat. But what does someone like me know, I've only been there!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
This is stupid. We're
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 11:11pm.
This is stupid. We're supposed to believe that these highly disciplined, best-trained forces, the mightiest military in the world is going to fall apart because gays are allowed to openly serve.
Ridiculous.
As usual, you bring NOTHING to the discussion
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:57am.
Merely your left wing DKos talking points.
You know nothing.
But I really don't care to school you, YET AGAIN.
So I'll just leave it at this..."this is stupid".....no, Bal, YOU are the one who is acting stupidly here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Talk about bringing nothing
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:50am.
Talk about bringing nothing to the discussion...
I brought up a relevant point, and you offer zero but the usually blahbity-blah.
Hardly
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:10am.
You are the one shouting "this is stupid" from a standpoint of never having served in the military and then taking up liberal ideology to support your wrong statement.
Your ignorance is showing again, bal.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's a relevant question
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:58am.
It's a relevant question asked, albeit, as an outsider. Don't just dismiss it out-of-hand as ideological foo-fa.
Why?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:06pm.
Did you have some recent conversion to conservative sanity?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Bring up your love of cop killers.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:43am.
That will win over new converts crypto-dummy.
Some thoughts on why
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:20pm.
Look, gays don't bother me as much as others here, but this will create problems needlessly. I don't think people understand how thoroughly simple heterosexual relationships are regulated in the military.
Besides, the people who most love this hate the military with a passion. Remember, the Shahinshah bawled and whined about how unfair it is that this country spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together...this right before He told the AF to make do with the F-22s it has.
The people who celebrate this are behaving as if our feeble military is now completely unstoppable now that we have gays in the military...now, ask them to spend a bit of cash to upgrade components like the tanker fleet (at least that got resolved), and watch those same people whine and scream.
It should also be noted that many people who so ache for "gay rights" are people who, I suspect, are motivated by the guilt they feel in missing a REAL civil rights movement by accident of birth. They missed out on the 1960s so they need their own little civil rights movement to participate in to assuage their own guilt and feel oh so good about themselves.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
it seems to me that the people most excited about this...
Submitted by kata on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:27pm.
are the media.
Typical
Submitted by Utherpend on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:36pm.
One of the national supporters right after it was announced that DADT was no longer valid, then stated that now they needed to focus on helping to get transgendered indiviuals the ability to join and have complete rights in the military.
The Military has only one purpose -
Submitted by JohnK on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:49pm.
The Military has only one purpose - and that is to protect our country against attack and takeover.
It is not the right place for social experimentation, or the exercise of everyone's personal preference.
These experiments have already been tried by other countries, and rejected as interfering with their military's primary objective.
If the military is called upon to perform its primary purpose, and fails, there will not be a second chance.
Any change to the military which can be even imagined to detract from the military's ability to perform its primary purpose should be viewed with alarm.
You can be sure that our potential enemies are doing nothing which can be seen to have any possibility of reducing their military capabilities.
Really?
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:40pm.
"These experiments have already been tried by other countries, and rejected as interfering with their military's primary objective."
Which countries would those be? I've seen the lists of which countries allow homosexuals to serve openly and which don't, but haven't explored the latter looking for cases where it was tried and abandoned. Which countries are you referring to?
hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:23pm.
This comment is laughable. You ONLY like the military when it is the international division of "meals on wheels". It bothers you when the military is "aggressive".
And you are the biggest proponent of group rights here. It sickens you to live in a country where gays don't have more rights and more privileges than the rest of us, simply because they are gay.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Huh?
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:21am.
I asked a pretty straight forward question. The validity of the question is in no way affected by my feelnigs on the military or on gay people, whatever they may be.
I suspect others here might like to know the answer so that they can use those examples when arguing against the inclusion of gays in the military. I want to know so I can make sure that when I comment on what other countries have done with this issue I am including that aspect.
So what's the answer?
Answer:
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:44pm.
The answer is that while you don't think your country isn't worth defending in any way, you WILL FIGHT and DIE for gays. They are by far the most important people in the world to you, and they, in your view, simply deserve more rights and privileges than the rest of us.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, drug-addled bear, really.
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:48pm.
For the military, that which is of the most importance is the MISSION. The MISSION comes first and it cannot be carried out if it is weighed down by social experimentation.
I served with gays when I was in the Air Force. How much did I care? None at all. Why? Because, to their credit, they did take a militant attitude and shoved their LGBT forum in my face.
What preznent Shahinshah (Thank you, Uns) has done, in order to further his re-election campaign, was to turn the entire U.S. military into a laughable and inefficient crew of miscreants. Yes, you read that right. The MISSION is last, a misguided and stupid venture, and the prostitution for votes are the order of the day.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
I've gone on the record before, Trix
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:04am.
...and shall do so again. For the benefit of those like mambear, (liberals!), who have no idea what their little social experiment is really about.
The thing that bothers me, that is NEVER discussed by the media, is the effect on the military community. For those of us who have been there, done that....it goes without saying. The military "life" is nothing like civilian life for the families of those who serve. There are written, as well as unwritten rules, about the who, what, when, where, and why.
I won't get into it, again....but if you've been there, you know....if not....don't ask me stupid questions, do your own homework.
I posted a link the other day about an old fart who was dishonorably discharged as "unsuitable"....now he's after decades of benefits. Just wait, the law of unintended consequences is about to kick in. As well as the GLTB (or whatever it is) lobby, who is going to attempt to use the military community to legislate "more equal" status.
The whole bloody thing disgusts me.
Rant over.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm asking about just that
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:26am.
...the effect on the military community. John says there are countries who tried this and then abandoned it because it interfered with the mission.
If he's not around to answer, surely one of you who is so certain that that is what will happen in this country knows the examples he's referring to. I would assume that some of your certainty is based on knowing that it has failed before.
I'm simply asking which countries I should read about in order to learn more about how it failed and why. I'm sure someone will answer my question eventually!
Then why don't you ask
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:25am.
...the person who made the original comment.
The military community is a place where there are written rules, as well as unwritten rules.
Here's an example. A young lieutenant and his wife arrive at the tennis courts to play, just as the brigade commander, a full colonel, and his wife are finishing their match. The colonel challenges the lieutenant to a set. This is fraught with danger...does the lieutenant let the colonel win (he writes his reviews) or does he go for it to win? What if his wife makes a fuss? (Did you know that wive's routinely used to get a line on performance reviews with something like "Lt. X's wife is an asset to the battalion"?). Fortunately for me, the colonel's wife took pity on us and hustled her husband along....and later apologized to me for her husband's behavior. Military men can be very aggressive, you see, and there was no "win" in that situation for the LT. None. Zero.
Now I was not the ideal little military wife, either. I didn't put up with much bs, and my husband caught grief for it, too. After yet another full colonel at a command function (social thing where attendance is mandatory), in this case a little New Year's Day ritual where you go from command to command drinking and nibbling, made yet another lascivious remark in my direction, about my dress being infantry blue. Instead of putting up with his stupidity, I said "yes, you tell me the same thing every time you see me", shutting him down.
Now insert this kind of bad behavior with a homosexual on any end of it (perhaps who has a partner who is militantly gay) and someone who is opposed to gays in the military, gays in general, or who objects to being forced to socialize with gays...and there you have just a small slice of what I am talking about.
What you need to understand is that the military community is just not the same as society in general. I have no idea what books to tell you to read, mamabear. Perhaps you should go volunteer on a base hospital or something.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thank you Blonde
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:55am.
Those who haven't experienced military life don't understand. They are like the husband telling his wife "Don't worry hon, it won't hurt haveng a baby."
If it ain't broke don't fix it - Obabble is fixing this country beyond repair.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
grislybear is looking for a chance,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 4:54pm.
as usual, to stir the pot by rubbing a liberal victory reference homosexuality in conservative faces.
Period.
The only difference between the posts by grislybear and the many related posts by ADK/Ted/zippers/Mister Orange is that the person of a thousand usernames doesn't hide behind the facade of "I am seeking answers".
MD
No gloating
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:58pm.
I haven't said a word about how I feel about this. You all already know how I feel, I thought it would be unseemly to rehash it.
How about this: if someone will answer my question, I will make one further post in order to say "thank you," and then leave the thread and let you all grieve this loss in peace.
Are you paying tuition?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:08pm.
Nah, thought not, go find your own answers. Then report back with your own interpretation of them. Good freakin grief
Very good Blonde
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:18pm.
Some of us have already experienced this type of stuff at the work place.
Example, we hired a Gay Tech, he was ok, not great at his work. Problem was, he belittled others because of their faith, and I personally heard him call other folks breeders, ogle other guys, and be hostile to Woman, one of which was our Boss, plus he would act like a whiny jerk when confronted with these issues.
Everyone had to walk on egg-shells around him. I personally had 2 privet conversations with him, explaining how our team-work was important to our quality control. He simply didnt care, it was all about him. I told him frankly, that he needed to keep his sexual preferences to himself, and quit making derogatory remarks about others. He then basically dared me to do something about it.
When we had our second meeting, I bought up particular events, where he had said something about some else's faith, and ridiculed someone else's wife. He did both of these in ear shot of several folks, he was not shy about his ridicule. Many on our team were getting so angry with him, it was jeopardizing our project. The last straw, was when we were in a training session and he thought it would be funny to embarrass the trainer with "Gay" humor, of the likes of I will not bother repeating here. I fired him before the Training session was over.
I am now the proud owner of 2 summons, one for discrimination, the other for improper dismissal. I have already had to give 2 depositions for this same event.
Now, we have a couple other Gays, and 1 transgendered person working at our facility. They have never been a problem, in-fact at least one of them is a trusted friend and awesome asset. But the fact is, this guy got away with way more then anyone else would have. Every time I would hear a complaint about him and report it, I was told to talk to him, even ignore him. When I went to our director, I was told of the "complications" and "nuances" of this particular situation. There is no doubt, that if this suit goes badly for us, I will probably loose my job, as well as my Boss. We are not humored in the least. We neither asked for this crap, and in many cases tried in vain to relieve ourselves from it.
That being said, everybody concerned with this situation has supported myself and my Boss 100%, so we feel we will be justified.
Good luck with that, Boudin
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:30pm.
I hope you papered your butt nineteen ways from Sunday to provide the proof you're going to need.
It is going to get "interesting" in the military, to be sure.
I fully expect a full court press by the militant LGBT community for "full benefits". We'll have to wait and see. Much of how this turns out will depend upon the chain of command...and how much PC crap starts flowing downhill from the top. With Obama in charge right now, it could get bad. On the flip side, if the gay service members and their partners keep it cool and don't shove their way into situations, "demanding" special treatment, it might be okay. But call me a skeptic....I this is just an agenda pushing way for the militant gays to get their own way. Too bad, really. The Key West types may ruin it for everyone (that is what I'm afraid of).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yep,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:07pm.
I have, signed EPR's, and at least 12 affidavits from other employees.
LGBT
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:08pm.
I saw yesterday some comments by the gay community that this is only the beginning. I doubt anyone here is surprised, but the gay agenda is not finished with the military yet.
Blonde, I hate to link to HuffPo, but they
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:33am.
have an article about Choi up, that just confirms your thoughts about the "militant LGBT community" and "full benefits". "He(Choi) has his sights on the repeal of Defense of Marriage Act, but also passing the DREAM Act, repealing the Bush tax cuts, and environment issues like stopping the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would connect Canada’s Tar Sands with refineries in Texas". So, not only does one of the "spokesmen" for the LGBT crowd want "full benefits", he wants repeal of DOMA, amnesty for everyone, making sure that only 49% of the country who actually work pay more in taxes, and he wants us forever dependent on Arab oil.
And, Choi wants the Army to take him back. Even though he has "two nervous breakdowns; six trips to jail".
UpNorth
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 2:04am.
I have two words for Choi....
The first begins with an "F", and the second with a "Y".
Freakin' freak!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Boudin
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:46pm.
Some basics that I learned as a manager.
Every employee is a future ex employee. Never do or say anything to them that can be used against you. No matter how much you like them or think they are your friend.
Even when letting an employee slide on the rules, document it. Even if it's just showing up a few minutes late.
Raises are based on 2 things, past performance and what you expect of future performance. When giving a raise, make sure the employee understands both.
Never ask an employee to do something that you won't do.
Train as many people to do your job as possible, when it comes time for YOU to be promoted, it's a good idea to already have your replacement ready.
We Are The 53%
Very good,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:17pm.
Yea, I lead by example. I cut everyone slack. I even intervene, if I must. I am not shy, or afraid to point out faults. Other folks like working with my team, as many have tried to transfer into it. Because we strive for excellence, and dont tolerate bs. I love my folks, I love my work.
Our work is not typical, so watching the clock usually goes the other way, meaning I have to send them home because they work too hard. We worry more about burn-out, then folks missing work. Training is a big effort here, as there is so much for the folks to absorb. I do have folks who can do my job for short stints, when on mandatory vacation like this week. Yea, I know, it's pathetic when you enjoy your work so much, you are required to go on vacation, for your own good? Seriously
Um.
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:55pm.
"Then why don't you ask the person who made the original comment?"
That's funny, I thought I did. Many other people answered, including you, but no one seems inclined to answer the question.
You know what, mamabear?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:15pm.
How utterly typical of a liberal....you expect EVERYONE and ANYONE to PROVIDE you with what YOU want.
Sod off.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
In that case, I want YOU to PROVIDE ME with the meaning
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:34pm.
of "sod off".
Is that some sort of FLA colloquialism for what a hungry Gator does to somebody's leg? ["sawed off"] ;-)
Jer
Look it up, Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:04pm.
Or ask Jack Bauer.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Too lazy...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:07pm.
Jer
Maybe a better idea?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:46pm.
I'd love to see hippiebear squirm as I take her on a tour of San Antonio, Military City USA, culminating in a visit to Lackland AFB on Friday morning. I think that last part would leave her deeply confused.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Really mamabear?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:58am.
Look at the list of countries that allow homosexuals to serve openly and tell us how much better their fighting forces are because of it.
Israel doesn't count, they aren't voluntary.
We Are The 53%
I'm just looking for the answer to a question
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:22am.
Which countries tried allowing gays in the military and then changed their minds because it didn't work or interfered with the mission? John seems to know which countries did that, I'd love to be educated.
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:00am.
To the best of my knowledge none have but that is not the point I believe that is being put forth.
There is room for homosexuals in the military and there has been. The problem is not really the openness of the gay person and their effect on surrounding personnel it is the fact that government, in this case military, bureaucracies cannot treat everyone the same and acknowledge that some are different at the same time; an individual can rationalize this but a bureaucracy cannot. The mere fact that we are talking about homosexuality in the military separates one group from the rest.
To use a bit of an extreme example take a look at Nidal Malik Hasan’s role in the military and how it eventually affected everyone. He was a class of person the military deemed the ‘same but different’ because of his religion so everything that should have been a great big glowing sign of bad things to come was swept under the rug for political and bureaucratic reasons. He received special treatment and special status – how does that incorporate into any military regimen. Homosexual military members will be afforded this ‘special’ status for the same reasons.
To fully answer your question about other nations – it probably works best when done by the military themselves and not strictly for political reasons. Soldiers don’t mind taking orders but having things crammed down their throat by politicians is repulsive to say the least. Take the politics out and the military could very easily adapt to openly gay members of the armed forces – just like they did in the decades before DADT – but more openly.
Somalia.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:06am.
.
Thank you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:04pm.
There, question answered. It sounds from these two posts like maybe the case is that the only country that has tried to allow gays to serve and then changed their mind because it didn't work is Somalia. That answers my question, and I'll see what I can find out about the effect on readiness of gay soldiers in Somalia's military.
I will now go away, as promised!
Good. Stay away failurbear.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 12:07am.
You never could face the tough questions anyway.
Matthew Balen and I raised real issues that require real answers from real people not pushing an agenda such as the likes of failurebear and Dead angry black and orange Zippers.
Matthew Balen: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/09/20/big-three-nets...
Me: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/09/20/big-three-nets...
Failurebear demands we research answer for it but won't give 20 seconds of thought to actual, you know, real world issues.
Oh and by the way, even TV shows recognize why I carried that blood type on my ID card and dog tags. M*A*S*H for one had more that a few episode where soldiers were asked to give blood in an emergency, no checks, no cross typing even, just a glance at the dog tags.
Idiot. Always were. Always will be.
Can't please everyone, I guess
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 6:54am.
Sorry, I offered to leave the thread because matthew, and Blonde, seemed to think I was only here to rub this in your faces. Any actual discussion will most likely involve me telling you why I think the repeal of DADT is a good thing, which matthew can then point to and say "see?"
I think you are still outnumbered by people who would rather I didn't stick around to answer your questions. If I'm wrong, I'll happily add my two cents on the disease issue.
Yes you are sorry.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 8:50am.
It appears your diaper is full and you would rather spend precious minutes whining about that than addressing your utter failure to address anything meaningful to real people so bye...
hippiebear -
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:54pm.
Of course you think it's wonderful. You don't care about anything in the world except for gays.
That includes logistics.
Part of the logistical question is the possible transfusion of blood in emergency situations. Another is the whole issue of the intensive regulation of interpersonal relationships that will undoubtedly result from this. Already, relationships between men and women are subject to rules and regulations the likes of which would shock you (but would not shock any veterans and military personnel here). It's about to get worse.
But thanks, hippiebear. Your true colors as to your attitudes towards the military shine through as always.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm just looking for the answer to a question too.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:11am.
Why was my blood type on my dog tags and ID card for 20 years?
Is it because I will be expected to both give and receive blood on the battlefield whose only testing/check has been a quick glance at the dog tag or ID of another military member that gave the blood?
Nothing like getting blood tainted with deathly diseases because someone engages in blood to blood contact during sex because the walls of the colon are thin and get micro tears because they were really not built for foreign object intrusion.
I would love to be educated why I am expected to happily get any one of the hepatitis, auto-immune, or other nasty blood to blood contact diseases simply because I had the bad luck to get shot on the battlefield.
Idiot.
My uncle is spinning in his grave, today RIP.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:55pm.
During WW-2 my uncle had a mental break down, after being raped repeatedly by his "gay" CO.
The cure was a frontal lobotomy.
In the staunchly traditional military culture, it’s an ugly secret, kept hidden by layers of personal shame and official denial. Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003. For the victims, the experience is a special kind of hell—a soldier can’t just quit his job to get away from his abusers.
You Didn't Build That.
You should have read your own article
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:15pm.
"While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted gay soldiers, military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual. Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, male-on-male assault in the military, experts say, is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination."
"They gays made me do it" excuse won't work here, so don't bother.
Proof once again there ain't no gay Gene.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:40pm.
Homosexually is a BEHAVIOR.
So you think the forced buggery is going to magically Decrease?
Because some alleged former heterosexual is performing it's not really rape-rape
great logic there MO
My uncle was on disability for the rest of his life.
You Didn't Build That.
If that's your proof
Submitted by Mister Orange on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:54pm.
Then this must also prove that heterosexual soldiers are more of a danger to the corps than gay soldiers.
In Zipperland.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 7:29pm.
Lots of years of data on that one MO.
Today the page of homosexual military history has turned.
The up-tick in male on male rape, has begun, data to follow.
You Didn't Build That.
I feel nothing but profound sorrow for your uncle's horrific
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:24am.
experience, but after reading the article you linked--and noting the male and female victims as well as the perpetrators--it appears the problem can be largely traced to assaults committed by heterosexual male predators.
Jer
Thanks Jer,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:40am.
Looks like heterosexual males are justified in pretend raping of males, and it's akin to hazing,er some such. It's what I get for linking a newsweek article, I guess.
Lets all have a good laugh, and thank our lucky stars that it wasn't anything like a real rape rape from a homosexual.
My uncle never knew the difference. As if I'm going to say: Hay unk it's cool he's got a family now.
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:49am.
It's no laughing matter regardless of the orientations of the parties involved.
Jer
There is a word for "heterosexual male predators," Jer.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:37am.
If the victim is another male, it is called GAY! I don't care what macho man thinks he is, he is gay.
I'm glad to see this thread today, because after all these years, I can finally come right out and admit that I am a homo sapien. There, I said it. What a relief.
I know there are some who don't believe it because I have been called a Neanderthal more than once, as well as troglodyte, but now I feel free.
One thing can be said for gay soldiers, however. They never leave their buddy's behind.
The DADT repeal is an area where the left conclusively proves...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:20pm.
...how completely out of touch with reality and human nature they really are. The left shows it's true colors during contentious and controversial issues when it takes up an absolutist position and forces it down everyone's throats rather than accounting for the considerations of those involved. Textbook authoritarianism.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Don't ask...Is Clinton's law
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:52pm.
Don't ask...Is Clinton's law, notice how that is never mentioned. President Clinton could have simply vetoed this bill, instead he championed it. And Bill did it under the advice of Hillary.
Rattling on about your sexual preferences to people you are attracted to, is offensive and actionable conduct in the private sector. Because one is gay does not give them the ability to be inappropriate.
Not talking about your sexual life is not "living a lie" it is simply unprofessional conduct, especially when others are offended.
The military should not be concerned if a person is gay, no need to ask or tell, and they don't need to care either.
HOWEVER, when military professionals allow their bedroom sexuality to enter into their service life, and effect fellow individuals, they need to be immediately sanctioned, and transferred, and if it continues, they need to be discharged.
The tail-hook scandal removed a lot of heterosexual issues of the creation of a hostile work environment, being gay, does not excuse the same.
I hope the next CIC reverses this insanity before it does too...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:00pm.
...terribly much damage to our nation's military.
The United States military's job is to kill people and break things in order to defend this nation from its enemies.
It is not the place to carry out social experiments cooked up by pointy-headed academicians who probably have not only never served, but probably loath the military itself.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November