I Just Got My DADT Brief

One thing that stuck out was how little it changed in current policy.

The briefer kept saying no change, no change.

It all has to do with dignity. No more discharges. Dealing with harrassment will be handled the same as any sexual-harrassment?

So what's the big deal?

truthfully, what did you expect?
 
Whether it has to do with hookers, contraband, war souvenirs, local restaurants, snakes, stray dogs, drinking fountains, local bars, OPLANS, PCS orders, SOPs, weapons, ammo, OPSEC, the commander's wife.....the military has a briefing for EVERYTHING: "don't touch it, don't pick it up, don't look at it, don't talk about it, don't bring it to the barracks, don't take it home, don't leave it behind, don't forget it, don't drink it, don't eat it, don't ride it, don't drive it, don't harass it, don't, don't, don't....."

.......And Don't Ask Don't Tell!!!!

Whoopsie.....
 
One thing that stuck out was how little it changed in current policy.

The briefer kept saying no change, no change.

It all has to do with dignity. No more discharges. Dealing with harrassment will be handled the same as any sexual-harrassment?

So what's the big deal?

truthfully, what did you expect?

Uh......a change in policies.

What do you expect when someone says they want to brief you on policy changes? More of the same???
 
You forget all of the sexual-harrassment briefs we got.

Those were fun.

Yeah, that was a riot. Sitting around with all those pregnant women getting out of going on deployment becuase they purposely got themselves knocked up...

As we all know...women can get pregnant all on their own......:eusa_whistle:


Believe it or not, men do not get out of deployment if they get pregnant. They don't even get out of it if their wives get pregnant. By arguing for the right of women to get out of deployment if they are pregnant you are actually arguing that women are not capable of doing their jobs.
 
Yeah, that was a riot. Sitting around with all those pregnant women getting out of going on deployment becuase they purposely got themselves knocked up...

As we all know...women can get pregnant all on their own......:eusa_whistle:


Believe it or not, men do not get out of deployment if they get pregnant. They don't even get out of it if their wives get pregnant. By arguing for the right of women to get out of deployment if they are pregnant you are actually arguing that women are not capable of doing their jobs.

I think they should stay put, if you were to ask my opinion on that. But you didn't, did you?

I was replying to the comment "Because they purposely got themselves knocked up".
 
As we all know...women can get pregnant all on their own......:eusa_whistle:


Believe it or not, men do not get out of deployment if they get pregnant. They don't even get out of it if their wives get pregnant. By arguing for the right of women to get out of deployment if they are pregnant you are actually arguing that women are not capable of doing their jobs.

I think they should stay put, if you were to ask my opinion on that. But you didn't, did you?

I was replying to the comment "Because they purposely got themselves knocked up".

Only problem I have with that is they don't wear a sign that says "Will give it up to get preggo".
 
As we all know...women can get pregnant all on their own......:eusa_whistle:


Believe it or not, men do not get out of deployment if they get pregnant. They don't even get out of it if their wives get pregnant. By arguing for the right of women to get out of deployment if they are pregnant you are actually arguing that women are not capable of doing their jobs.

I think they should stay put, if you were to ask my opinion on that. But you didn't, did you?

I was replying to the comment "Because they purposely got themselves knocked up".

Which they do, at least some of them.
 
possum playin' Village People's In the Navy in the background onna kazoo...
:confused:
Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ in Naval Chapels
Monday, May 09, 2011 – Anticipating the elimination of the military ban on homosexuality, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains has decided that same-sex couples in the Navy will be able to get married in Navy chapels, and that Navy chaplains will be allowed to perform the ceremonies -- if homosexual marriage is legal in the state where the unions are to be performed.
The advisory came in the form of an April 13 memo issued to all chaplains, in which the Chief of Navy Chaplains, Admiral Michael Tidd, said the Chaplain Corps was revising its Tier I training manuals, which had previously indicated that same-sex marriages are not authorized on federal property. Instead, Tidd called for chaplains to comply with service-wide efforts underway to be more accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as the end of the military policy on homosexuality nears. Citing "additional legal review" by Navy attorneys, the admiral said the Navy "has concluded that, generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral.”

“If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then the base facilities may be used to celebrate the marriage,” the admiral’s directive states. The admiral’s memo also gives chaplains permission to "marry" homosexual couples – but would not force them to perform ceremines. “Regarding chaplain participation, consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of the state which permits same-sex marriages or union; and if the chaplain is, according to applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages.”

Navy spokeswoman Alana Garas confirmed the change was ordered, but told CNSNews.com that the document “does not reflect a change in policy, but a change in Tier I training for Navy chaplains that looks forward to when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is removed”— something which will not happen, she said, until 60 days after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that repeal will not harm military readiness. But Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, is concerned that, in its haste to “hustle-in homosexuality,” the Navy may be violating federal law – the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Offering up federal facilities and federal employees for same-sex marriage violates DOMA, which is still the law of the land and is bound to the duties of our military, including chaplains,” Steve Taylor, communications director for Akin, told CNSNews.com. “The administration and various states may be operating as if DOMA doesn't exist, but the Navy and Marine Corps and all the Armed Services are sworn to obey the law, which this new instruction violates,” he added.

MORE

See also:

Gay men 'report higher cancer rate than straight men'
9 May 2011 - Gay men are twice as likely to have had cancer, a study says
Homosexual men are more likely to have had cancer than heterosexual men, a US study has suggested. The study of more than 120,000 people in California has led to calls for more specialist support. Lesbians and bisexual women also had poorer health after cancer than heterosexuals, according to research published in the journal Cancer. Cancer Research UK said more research was needed as the reasons for any difference were unclear.

In the 2001, 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview surveys, a total of 3,690 men and 7,252 women said they had been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. Out of the 122,345 people interviewed, 1,493 men and 918 women described themselves as gay, while 1,116 women said they were bisexual. Gay men were twice as likely to have been diagnosed with cancer as straight men and, on average, it happened a decade earlier. There was no such link in women.

Survival or risk?

The survey interviews "survivors" so is not a true representation of the number of cancer cases. Some patients will have died before the survey and others would have been too ill to take part. Dr Ulrike Boehmer, from the Boston University School of Public Health, said it was not possible to conclude "gay men have a higher risk of cancer" because the underlying reasons for the higher incidence could be more complicated. Further research would be needed to determine if homosexual men were actually getting more tumours or had greater survival rates, she said.

The authors speculate that the difference in the numbers of cancer survivors could be down to the higher rate of anal cancer in homosexual men or HIV infection, which has been linked to cancer. Jason Warriner, clinical director for HIV and sexual health at the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We know that HIV can cause certain types of cancer, and that gay men are at a greater risk of HIV than straight men. "Another factor potentially having an impact is Human Papilloma Virus, which can lead to anal cancer in gay men.

More BBC News - Gay men 'report higher cancer rate than straight men'
 
Court concedes to Obama...
:cool:
Obama Wants Military - Not Courts - to Lift Ban
Friday, July 15, 2011 — Critics say the Obama administration is waging an unnecessary legal battle to try and stop the court system from beating it to the punch in the rush to eliminate the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops.
A little over a week after a federal appeals court halted the policy, the Department of Justice has filed an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider its order, saying ending the ban now would pre-empt the "orderly process" for rolling it back as outlined in the law passed and signed by President Barack Obama in December.

Critics say reinstating the ban so the military can end it on its own terms within weeks is unnecessary and would only hurt gay and lesbian troops by restarting investigations of service members.

Obama Wants Military- Not Courts - to Lift Ban | CNSnews.com

See also:

Court: 'don't ask, don't tell' will stay in place
Jul 16,`11 - The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is back in place for the time being, with one major caveat: the government is not allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who is openly gay.
A San Francisco federal appeals court ordered the military to temporarily continue the controversial policy in an order late Friday, the court's response to a request from the Obama administration. The order is the latest twist in the legal limbo gay service members have found themselves in as the policy is fought in the courts simultaneous to its slow dismantling by the federal government, which expects to do away with it by later this year. In its three-page ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling was based on new information provided by the federal government, including a declaration from Major General Steven A. Hummer, who is leading the effort to repeal the policy.

"In order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented in the light of these previously undisclosed facts," the court wrote, that it would uphold an earlier order to keep the policy in place. The court of appeals had halted "don't ask, don't tell" July 6 but the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion Thursday saying ending the policy now would pre-empt the orderly process for rolling it back, per a law signed by President Barack Obama in December. The ruling was supported by Servicemembers United, an organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, but the group's executive director Alexander Nicholson voiced frustration over the slow process of dismantling "don't ask, don't tell."

"The situation with finally ending this outdated and discriminatory federal policy has become absolutely ridiculous," said Nicholson. "It is simply not right to put the men and women of our armed forces through this circus any longer." The Department of Justice said in a statement that it asked the court to reconsider its order "to avoid short-circuiting the repeal process established by Congress during the final stages of the implementation of the repeal."

It said senior military leaders are expected to make their decision on certifying repeal within the next few weeks. In the meantime, the Justice Department said "it remains the policy of the Department of Defense not to ask service members or applicants about their sexual orientation, to treat all members with dignity and respect, and to ensure maintenance of good order and discipline." The Justice Department noted that the Defense Department has discharged only one service member since Congress voted to repeal the policy, and that was done at the request of the service member.

MORE
 
The military is no place for social experimentation.
Especially now with six freaking global conflicts we have our brave men and women involved in.
And on top of that, the WH wants to cut defense.
Brilliant.
Obvious Chickenhawk Obama never wore a uniform. If he did, perhaps he'd understand.

How about a PAYRAISE for our men and women Barry, vs. a gay marriage licence.

Idiotic.
 
They had to give a briefing on the topic? Christ... special treatment for the gays right from the git-go. I don't recall any special briefings that straight people would be serving with us...

You forget all of the sexual-harrassment briefs we got.

Those were fun.

Yeah, that was a riot. Sitting around with all those pregnant women getting out of going on deployment becuase they purposely got themselves knocked up...

NO wonder this guy is banned.:cuckoo:
 
Obama is merely putting more bullets in his gun for next year.

He's gonna try to have a full agenda, illegal immigration, gays in the military, tax-cuts for the rich. None of this will be addressed because he needs something to beat over the heads of the GOP during an election year.

He was hoping to use anti-gun programs too, but that blew up in his face.

Speaking of anti-gun issues......this is how Democrats sometimes deal with legal issues that belong in the court but the know they can't win:

elian.jpg
 
The military is no place for social experimentation.
Especially now with six freaking global conflicts we have our brave men and women involved in.
And on top of that, the WH wants to cut defense.
Brilliant.
Obvious Chickenhawk Obama never wore a uniform. If he did, perhaps he'd understand.

How about a PAYRAISE for our men and women Barry, vs. a gay marriage licence.

Idiotic.

Defense is bloated, redundant and needs to be cut. Anyone who served can point out all the waste. They can start with the procurement process and weed out the shitty parts/equipment suppliers.

Gays have and will always be in the military.
 
Obama is merely putting more bullets in his gun for next year.

He's gonna try to have a full agenda, illegal immigration, gays in the military, tax-cuts for the rich. None of this will be addressed because he needs something to beat over the heads of the GOP during an election year.

He was hoping to use anti-gun programs too, but that blew up in his face.

Speaking of anti-gun issues......this is how Democrats sometimes deal with legal issues that belong in the court but the know they can't win:

elian.jpg

So father's have no rights?
 
Obama is merely putting more bullets in his gun for next year.

He's gonna try to have a full agenda, illegal immigration, gays in the military, tax-cuts for the rich. None of this will be addressed because he needs something to beat over the heads of the GOP during an election year.

He was hoping to use anti-gun programs too, but that blew up in his face.

Speaking of anti-gun issues......this is how Democrats sometimes deal with legal issues that belong in the court but the know they can't win:

elian.jpg

So father's have no rights?

Lets not forget, neither parent dead or alive was a US citizen. It was not a US matter, and the child's relative had no rights over the child.
Just because we don't like communist does not mean our laws and our beliefs trump the rights of a father.
 
Obama is merely putting more bullets in his gun for next year.

He's gonna try to have a full agenda, illegal immigration, gays in the military, tax-cuts for the rich. None of this will be addressed because he needs something to beat over the heads of the GOP during an election year.

He was hoping to use anti-gun programs too, but that blew up in his face.

Speaking of anti-gun issues......this is how Democrats sometimes deal with legal issues that belong in the court but the know they can't win:

elian.jpg

So father's have no rights?

Not if Castro is holding a gun to his head.

This was one of Eric Holder's deals.

I remember seeing him shake the hand of a Cuban official when they handed Elian off to them. He had less gray hair back then.....and you'll never see the video of it.
 
They had to give a briefing on the topic? Christ... special treatment for the gays right from the git-go. I don't recall any special briefings that straight people would be serving with us...


Funny I was a Navy Rights and Responsibilities Workshop instructor for 10 years over multiple commands and provided quarterly training to "straights" as part of their annual training requirements. So the idea that there were no "special briefings" for straights is incorrect. Straight males and females have been taught about acceptable conduct for years, especially following the Tail Hook scandal.


>>>>
 
Obama is merely putting more bullets in his gun for next year.

He's gonna try to have a full agenda, illegal immigration, gays in the military, tax-cuts for the rich. None of this will be addressed because he needs something to beat over the heads of the GOP during an election year.

He was hoping to use anti-gun programs too, but that blew up in his face.

Speaking of anti-gun issues......this is how Democrats sometimes deal with legal issues that belong in the court but the know they can't win:

elian.jpg

So father's have no rights?

Lets not forget, neither parent dead or alive was a US citizen. It was not a US matter, and the child's relative had no rights over the child.
Just because we don't like communist does not mean our laws and our beliefs trump the rights of a father.

I noticed the left seems to want human-rights as long as it's convenient for them, but if it clashes with something a Democrat President does......pffffft.

Oh, and his father it seems is too busy these days to have Elian 16 living with him.....being that he's been made a member of Parliament and a national hero like the boy. He lives with his grandmother now.

Link
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/t...years-later-exiles-577430.html?printArticle=y
 
Last edited:
elian04042010AAA.jpg
Elian02022010AA.jpg


Hey Libs.....Elian in his uniform.

You should be very proud of yourselves.

Elian Gonzalez: Who told the truth and who lied?



After 5 years of indoctrination Elian Gonzalez told the CBS 60 Minutes interviewer that 'he never had a good moment in Miami.' Is that true? You decide.

Janet Reno said that she ordered the raid to forcefully remove Elian from his house inMiami, because "the child had to be returned to his father." Now, five years later, Elian told 60 Minutes that he considers Castro his 'father.' Was Castro the 'father' that Reno had in mind for Elian? You decide. Fidel Castro promised that he would never use Elian Gonzalez for political purposes if the child was returned to Cuba. Did he lie? You decide.

Poorelian1206D.jpg

Elian Gonzalez
 
Last edited:
They had to give a briefing on the topic? Christ... special treatment for the gays right from the git-go. I don't recall any special briefings that straight people would be serving with us...


Funny I was a Navy Rights and Responsibilities Workshop instructor for 10 years over multiple commands and provided quarterly training to "straights" as part of their annual training requirements. So the idea that there were no "special briefings" for straights is incorrect. Straight males and females have been taught about acceptable conduct for years, especially following the Tail Hook scandal.


>>>>

Rights and Responsibilites Workshop.
Sounds perfectly PC idiotic.

Sailors don't know their rights/responsibilities?
I sure as hell did when I served.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top