Don't Ask, Don't TELL

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The only portion of the electorate that rejects DADT repeal is conservative Republicans, and they don't even reject it as strongly as the electorate at large accepts it.

 

[Cancel8]

Whats the big uproar..???
I can hardly wait to see a couple of big bad-ass Marines kissing and hugging in the next parade, maybe even some serious ass grabbing, and some cutey sailors smooching it up at the next Army/Navy game.... its gonna be a blast

His title says "NAVY". If he didn't serve in the Navy, maybe he's trolling for the above?

 

[WinterBorn]

His title says "NAVY". If he didn't serve in the Navy, maybe he's trolling for the above?

I think he, like many others, dislikes the repeal but doesn't have any legitimate reasons for being against it.

 

[Immanuel]

Do hetrosexuals get to "flaunt" their preferences, in the military?

No, and neither should homosexuals.

As I said, it seems that the left think they have won some grand victory with this... which makes me believe that they think they will begin to be allowed to flaunt it. Otherwise, there would be no change between before and after the repeal of DADT.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

How will they flaunt it anymore than the hetrosexuals? I doubt they will act any different than they already do, most are highly trained professional soldiers.

Okay, then why is the left singing the "Hallelujah Chorus" over this "victory"?

Immie

 

[Phantasmal]

Immie,

It is the fact that they are no longer discriminated against, that they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be! If you go to Arlington, you can not tell which soldiers are hetro and which a homo, the tomb stones all look the same!

 

[Immanuel]

It makes our nation stronger, we now allow everyone to serve openly and honestly about who they are!

Another Obama Campaign promise Complete!

In other words, the statements before Clinton signed DADT that it was a first step towards admitting homosexuals who are open about their preferences was correct. Does that mean we should be concerned about the warnings that the Health Insurance (note it did nothing to reform health care) reform bill passed earlier this year is only step one towards full government control of the health care industry?

Immie

 

[Phantasmal]

I sure hope so! It is in dire need of regulation and overhaul! Starting with insurance companies that are just plain criminal!

 

[NOVA]

I think he, like many others, dislikes the repeal but doesn't have any legitimate reasons for being against it.

Clinton's policy of DADT was working just as intended....Homosexuals were serving and no one was making waves about it.....
As long as no one 'flaunted' their sexual preferences, no one really cared what you did in you own bedroom.
Keep your private life private and mind your own business....that was the crux of DADT.....
It was like a football player making a TD and dancing like a jackass for the crowd...what did he get in return.... a penalty.....
That is the DADT of football....
Changing Clintons policy was not needed to allow homosexuals to serve....thousands were serving before this nonsense and only those that advertised their sexuality were penalized...and I seriously doubt that will policy will change.
So you guys can all get to your nearest recruiter and join up at your earliest convenience....I've already done my duty to give you the freedom to be the pinheads you are.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie,

It is the fact that they are no longer discriminated against, that they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be! If you go to Arlington, you can not tell which soldiers are hetro and which a homo, the tomb stones all look the same!

I appreciate your belief that this is the reason, however, I don't see it as that. Is that really something they would be doing back flips over? They have been serving freely for decades even before DADT was passed. Now, when you say, "they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be!" that says to me, that they will be flaunting it openly in the military. What else can that possibly mean?

Let me say this, I really don't care. I don't see a problem with homosexuals in the military as long as they are not involved in sexual activity while on duty. What bugs me is the attitude that I see taken here. What bugs me is the knowledge that what happened with DADT is exactly what the left expects to happen with HCR. I do not want Nancy Pelosi or her cohorts deciding what form of health care I can have now or in the future!

One more question? What on earth was wrong with simply keeping their sexual preferences to themselves?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I sure hope so! It is in dire need of regulation and overhaul! Starting with insurance companies that are just plain criminal!

You want Nancy Pelosi to decide what kind of health care you are entitled to in the future? How about John Boehner?

Sorry, I agree it needs to be over-hauled. I do not believe over-hauling it means that our politicians in Washington, (regardless of what initial they place after their names) must be allowed to dictate to us what kind of health insurance policies we carry, what our deductibles will be etc. etc. etc.

I have lost faith in the politicians in Washington. I do not want them controlling my life to that degree!

Immie

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well, I read what you suggested, but all I see is a bunch of gay people who are elated this is finally being passed. I don't see any argument on why or how it makes the military stronger or better. Polls don't really matter much to me on this, I don't base my viewpoints on the polls. As I said, I thought DADT was a pretty smart way to handle this issue, when Clinton proposed it. I would have also passed Don't Know, Don't Care! But, that's just me. The military serves a specific function for all of America, and the paramount importance in this debate, is what makes our military function and perform its best, because nothing else is as important as this. Here, we have allowed Liberal sentiment, our emotional feelings for the plight of the gay service member, to dictate our policy. To what advantage has it served our military? I see nothing it can do positively for our military, I see plenty of negatives, but we shall see. Perhaps we live in a new era, where this just isn't a big deal to the younger generation who are serving, and there will be no problems?

..................Is it just me, or hasn't the sailor's uniform ALWAYS looked queer?

Dixie you're using the same warped lame logic that southern conservatives used when they opposed integrating the Armed services. The problem with DADT is that this is a free nation and our armed services represent the defense of those freedoms. The Armed services does not have the right to deny a person their basic fundamental human rights and that's the problem with DADT, it gives Gay and Lesbian second class citizenship. Imagine the military establishing a "DADT" policy against Catholics cause some redneck from Podunk, Alabama doesn't feel comfortable serving with some Papal worshiping bead jiggler. The first time that poor schmuck did a rosary or a hail Mary his/her military career would be over. Get it? That's whats wrong with DADT. As a free American you have the right to serve as a free Catholic American, Muslim American, African American, Native American, Jewish American and Gay or Lesbian American cause were all Americans and were all in this together and defending the nation we all love is an obligation and commitment that all of us share as Americans. There's not an argument you've made about legitimizing bigotry and descrimination in the military that hasn't all ready been debunked many years ago. This is quite simply long over due.

But I'll make you a compromise Dixie. Us up here in the North are very uncomfortable serving with rednecks from Alabama, their lack of literacy and numeracy and their fanatical devotion of archaic social patterns make them a certain liablity on a battlefield and I sure as fuck don't want some illterate Alabaman getting me killed cause their so ignorant. But hey, a few Alabamans are educated and are not complete mouth breathers so as long as we "Don't Ask or Don't Tell" that their mouth breathers from Alabama then I have no problem serving with them, that is, until they talk and I hear their southern accent then we should have every right to expel them from the military due to the hugely negative potential they would have on moral and combat operations. So I'll agree with you to keep DADT as long as we can expand it to include Gays, Lesbians and Alabamans.

 

[WinterBorn]

Clinton's policy of DADT was working just as intended....Homosexuals were serving and no one was making waves about it.....
As long as no one 'flaunted' their sexual preferences, no one really cared what you did in you own bedroom.
Keep your private life private and mind your own business....that was the crux of DADT.....
It was like a football player making a TD and dancing like a jackass for the crowd...what did he get in return.... a penalty.....
That is the DADT of football....
Changing Clintons policy was not needed to allow homosexuals to serve....thousands were serving before this nonsense and only those that advertised their sexuality were penalized...and I seriously doubt that will policy will change.
So you guys can all get to your nearest recruiter and join up at your earliest convenience....I've already done my duty to give you the freedom to be the pinheads you are.

I did my duty as well.

And you are absolutely wrong about how DADT worked. If someone found out a service member was gay, and wanted to mess up his service, he would report him. This happened plenty of time.

This entire plan was bullshit from the beginning. The deal Clinton made was that if the gay service member would pretend to be straight, the military would pretend they believed him. If any evidence surfaced that they were gay, they were discharged.

 

[WinterBorn]

I appreciate your belief that this is the reason, however, I don't see it as that. Is that really something they would be doing back flips over? They have been serving freely for decades even before DADT was passed. Now, when you say, "they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be!" that says to me, that they will be flaunting it openly in the military. What else can that possibly mean?

Let me say this, I really don't care. I don't see a problem with homosexuals in the military as long as they are not involved in sexual activity while on duty. What bugs me is the attitude that I see taken here. What bugs me is the knowledge that what happened with DADT is exactly what the left expects to happen with HCR. I do not want Nancy Pelosi or her cohorts deciding what form of health care I can have now or in the future!

One more question? What on earth was wrong with simply keeping their sexual preferences to themselves?

Immie

A friend of my wife's, named David Hall, was serving in the US Air Force for a good while. Someone found out he was gay, and turned him in. He was discharged from the US Air Force for that.

We spent untold thousands training this man. He had an excellent service record. And yet he was discharged from the military when they found out he was gay. He fought it and has been fighting to return to active duty since his discharge.

Keeping sexual preferences to themselves is the way it should be. But that has not been the issue.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You want Nancy Pelosi to decide what kind of health care you are entitled to in the future? How about John Boehner?

Sorry, I agree it needs to be over-hauled. I do not believe over-hauling it means that our politicians in Washington, (regardless of what initial they place after their names) must be allowed to dictate to us what kind of health insurance policies we carry, what our deductibles will be etc. etc. etc.

I have lost faith in the politicians in Washington. I do not want them controlling my life to that degree!

Immie

Fine then Immie. You tell us what will work to reduce cost and improve outcomes that will bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. You're argument is based on a false premise. Our elected officials answer to us, the people and if we want government to curb the accesses of the market to improve the quality and access to health care in this nation then by god WE THE PEOPLE have that right!

 

[Immanuel]

Fine then Immie. You tell us what will work to reduce cost and improve outcomes that will bring us in line with the rest of the industrialized world. You're argument is based on a false premise. Our elected officials answer to us, the people and if we want government to curb the accesses of the market to improve the quality and access to health care in this nation then by god WE THE PEOPLE have that right!

I honestly wish I had the answer. I do not.

However, you are entirely wrong if you think our elected officials answer to us. They do not. Incumbents practically need to murder a child in order to be removed from office. Anything short of that and they are nearly guaranteed to continue as long as they so desire.

Improve the quality and access to health care! Is that really what you believe this bill has done?

Immie

 

[Mott the Hoople]

A friend of my wife's, named David Hall, was serving in the US Air Force for a good while. Someone found out he was gay, and turned him in. He was discharged from the US Air Force for that.

We spent untold thousands training this man. He had an excellent service record. And yet he was discharged from the military when they found out he was gay. He fought it and has been fighting to return to active duty since his discharge.

Keeping sexual preferences to themselves is the way it should be. But that has not been the issue.

Exactly. It's a preposterous notion that one can hide and/or disguise who and what they are. It's like asking someone to hide their religion or national origin or race and equally as impossible to do. The descrimination against gays in the military is no different then the arguments made for descriminating against blacks and jews in our military.

 

[NOVA]

I did my duty as well.

And you are absolutely wrong about how DADT worked. If someone found out a service member was gay, and wanted to mess up his service, he would report him. This happened plenty of time.

This entire plan was bullshit from the beginning. The deal Clinton made was that if the gay service member would pretend to be straight, the military would pretend they believed him. If any evidence surfaced that they were gay, they were discharged.

If evidence surfaced?
If you can't ask....and you don't tell.....then any evidence MUST have to do with a persons conduct in public....and that public conduct applies to everyone, hetro or homosexual....

You just can't reasonably accuse someone of something out of thin air.

 

[NOVA]

A friend of my wife's, named David Hall, was serving in the US Air Force for a good while. Someone found out he was gay, and turned him in. He was discharged from the US Air Force for that.

We spent untold thousands training this man. He had an excellent service record. And yet he was discharged from the military when they found out he was gay. He fought it and has been fighting to return to active duty since his discharge.

Keeping sexual preferences to themselves is the way it should be. But that has not been the issue.

If that is the case, then someone isn't playing by the rules...but the devil is in the details....details I know nothing about....
It sounds like Mr. Hall was mistreated....

 

[WinterBorn]

If evidence surfaced?
If you can't ask....and you don't tell.....then any evidence MUST have to do with a persons conduct in public....and that public conduct applies to everyone, hetro or homosexual....

You just can't reasonably accuse someone of something out of thin air.

Your reply shows the level of prejudice involved.

Can you imagine if straight members of the military were held to the same standards? Can you imagine if someone reporting that you had premarital sex was grounds for discharge?