Majority of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Accepting to Serving With Openly Gay Troops

[California Girl]

http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/poll-details-031610.pdf

Some interesting stats:

67% believe Gender has little bearing on a service's member ability to perform their duties.

82% believe Race or Ethnicity have little bearing on a service's member ability to perform their duties.

60% believe being Gay or Lesbian have little bearing on a service's member ability to perform their duties. 66% 35 and under agreed with this statement, 57% of those 35 and over.

73% are comfortable in the presence of Gays and Lesbians. This is true for 80% of those 35 and under, while true for 69% of those over 35.

73% would find it acceptable to serve with openly gay or lesbian people in the Military.

And interesting considering some other things:

45% Republican, 25% Independent, 20% Democratic for those that are known.

And lastly:

In your most recent unit, were there people you think are gay or lesbian but don't know for sure?

58% said yes, and 19% were unsure.

Right. You keep believing the propaganda.

Maybe it was all Navy vets who responded.

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/poll-details-031610.pdf

Some interesting stats:

67% believe Gender has little bearing on a service's member ability to perform their duties.

82% believe Race or Ethnicity have little bearing on a service's member ability to perform their duties.

60% believe being Gay or Lesbian have little bearing on a service's member ability to perform their duties. 66% 35 and under agreed with this statement, 57% of those 35 and over.

73% are comfortable in the presence of Gays and Lesbians. This is true for 80% of those 35 and under, while true for 69% of those over 35.

73% would find it acceptable to serve with openly gay or lesbian people in the Military.

And interesting considering some other things:

45% Republican, 25% Independent, 20% Democratic for those that are known.

And lastly:

In your most recent unit, were there people you think are gay or lesbian but don't know for sure?

58% said yes, and 19% were unsure.

Right. You keep believing the propaganda.

Maybe it was all Navy vets who responded.

if you look at the PDF file, it was mostly Army
but they only polled 100 individuals
thats kinda of a small sample

 

[California Girl]

Right. You keep believing the propaganda.

Maybe it was all Navy vets who responded.

if you look at the PDF file, it was mostly Army
but they only polled 100 individuals
thats kinda of a small sample

I know lots of Army, and lots of Marines, never met one who supports open service.

 

[JW Frogen]

Navy reporting for open duty, aye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[maineman]

I mean WHO could argue that Guaranteed, unquestionable rights to bargain collectively... which of course implies coercive, dictatorial powers of the proletariat... could in ANY WAY be correlated to Marxism and his theory on the Value of Labor... why that's just NUTS!

sure.... the fact that the term "labor unions" and "labor theory of value" both have the word "labor" in them clealy implies a direct connection. idiot.
AGAIN... you clearly do NOT understand what Marx was talking about when he formulated his "labor theory of value". Suffice it to say that it had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with workers forming unions and bargaining with capitalist owners in a capitalistic economy.

"that attempts to secure the means to unilaterally determine the value of their labor; without regard to any other consideration; that where they demand GUARANTEED, UNLIMITED RIGHTS to determine the value of their labor; that cannot possibly be construed to reflect Marx' theories of the value of the labor commodity."

"collective bargaining" means - on its face - that the decision as to labor's wages are NOT made unilaterally. They are "bargained for". Again. The labor union movement in America is predicated on the concept of working WITHIN the capitalistic free market system to improve the lot of workers and to increase their share of the profits that their efforts help to produce. That is NOT synonymous with Marx's labor theory of value which completely discounts and disregards the value of investment and risk and capital - AND DEMAND - in determining the value of products. "Collective bargaining" inherently acknowledges the value of those inputs.


and finally, the DFL IS NOT a communist front group any more than the democratic party IS a front group for southern slave owners. The fact that communists and socialists were part of the mix at the inception of the DFL does not equate to that party TODAY being a "front group for communism" TODAY.

Can you understand that?

 

[maineman]

Maybe it was all Navy vets who responded.

if you look at the PDF file, it was mostly Army
but they only polled 100 individuals
thats kinda of a small sample

I know lots of Army, and lots of Marines, never met one who supports open service.

and that is certainly "scientific"

I think that might only prove that you hang out with bigoted homophobes.

 

[bodecea]

Conspiracy Theories? Really?

 

[bodecea]

Great, thanks for the statistics update, all great stuff, I have a statistic for you though




100% - Chance of butt stroke to the forehead for any queer that even looks at me the wrong way.

And I suppose you support the right of any female soldier to do the same to you if you look at her the wrong way without invitation?

No I dont support that right because I have a double standard. Me looking at chicks in uniform is OK, queers lookin at me get jacked, I bet you dont like that now do ya?

Well, you can put me down as NOT being fond of your hypocrisy.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I mean WHO could argue that Guaranteed, unquestionable rights to bargain collectively... which of course implies coercive, dictatorial powers of the proletariat... could in ANY WAY be correlated to Marxism and his theory on the Value of Labor... why that's just NUTS!

sure.... the fact that the term "labor unions" and "labor theory of value" both have the word "labor" in them clealy implies a direct connection. idiot.
AGAIN... you clearly do NOT understand what Marx was talking about when he formulated his "labor theory of value". Suffice it to say that it had abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with workers forming unions and bargaining with capitalist owners in a capitalistic economy.

Oh I hear ya and may I just say, what a LOVELY thatchy little pooch you've built there...

What's interesting here; as is ALWAYS the case, where a Leftist comes along and declares that the opposition is ignorant of whatever happens to be at issue; in this particular case: Marx' Labor Theory of Value... is that they need to chronically rest on the implication itself.

Meaning that the implication itself declares the opposition is ignorant; thus their professed knolwedge of the issue trumps the implied ignorance of the opposition.

Now this reasoning represents a fatally flawed logical construct known as Argumentum ad ignorantum... or the appeal to ignorance.

This species of reasoning is invalid; in that even where it is true, that the opposition is ignorant of the advanced fact or subject; that the ignorance itself does not prove the speakers argument...

So the question becomes: What would prove the argument?

In this case, the speaker would simply have to show what Marx' Theory of Labor represents and compare that to the opposing argument.

Easy peasy...

Sadly; again, as is nearly always the case; the Leftist speaker is prevented from doing so here; because where she does; she folds her argument; by default; on the certainty that Marx simply took the position that Labor is a commodity which, when added to the other representative commodities inherent in a product; the sum of those commodities represents the value of the product; excluding all other considerations; not the least of which is what?

Marx specifically excludes things like profit for Bourgeois ownership... Marx rejects the value of that labor... as does the demand for guaranteed unlimited rights to bargain collectively...

Ya see kids... the Bourgeois ownership does not possess guaranteed unlimited rights to anything; thus where such sets itself against those who represent an essential commodity inherent in the product or service being offered; and where the value of that commodity is declared to be beyond the viable scope of marketable profitability... the Bourgeois will readily find the incentive to produce such products or provide such services to be insufficient to proceed; thus, as noted in the body of my argument; such precludes the otherwise stated goal of the communist front group of a full employment in a growing economy.

And that friends brings us to the Lil' Commander's fallacious point...

Because the Bourgeois ownership finds no incentive to proceed where their exist no potential gain for THEMSELVES... where the Commodity of Labor is valued to the full measure of a products potential value; then the problem rests entirely with the existence of the Bourgeoise itself.

Thus the Lil Commander's obtuse position that where labor operates to NEGOTIATE for ANY VALUE BELOW THAT WHICH MEASURES THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT MINUS THE OTHER COMMODITIES INHERENT IN ITS CONSTRUCT... THEY CANNOT BE COMMUNISTS... decidedly rejecting that the very existence of collective bargaining; to increase the value of the labor commodity to the maximum of its potential.

So we find; as was stated at the outset; that the Lil "Commander's position is simply that "Communism doesn't exist anywhere in the world..." that all assertions to the contrary are false, based upon their pedantic interpretation of such... stretching to the edges of credulity...

Examine the Lil' Commander's argument below and you'll find that she is exercising precisely that which I've described...

"that attempts to secure the means to unilaterally determine the value of their labor; without regard to any other consideration; that where they demand GUARANTEED, UNLIMITED RIGHTS to determine the value of their labor; that cannot possibly be construed to reflect Marx' theories of the value of the labor commodity."

"collective bargaining" means - on its face - that the decision as to labor's wages are NOT made unilaterally. They are "bargained for". Again. The labor union movement in America is predicated on the concept of working WITHIN the capitalistic free market system to improve the lot of workers and to increase their share of the profits that their efforts help to produce. That is NOT synonymous with Marx's labor theory of value which completely discounts and disregards the value of investment and risk and capital - AND DEMAND - in determining the value of products. "Collective bargaining" inherently acknowledges the value of those inputs.

Recognize the rationalization?

Colelctive bargaining is 'bargaining'... they haven't adopted Marx' Labor Theory of Value; because if they had... Well they'd slaughter the Bourgeois and simply take over production.

It's an academics' pedentaitc view; which necessarily sets aside such nonessential elements of the equation such as: Reality... wherein Labor does NOT possess Guaranteed, unlimited rights to determine the value of their labor product to represent the exclusive correlating commodity to the other commodity resources which comprise the product or service.

Setting aside the incontrovertible fact; that the GOAL OF THE DFL is to establish such as the Guaranteed, unlimited right of the Proletariat.

And as such, it demonstrates the PROGRESSIVE nature of the DFL and their communist goal.

and finally, the DFL IS NOT a communist front group any more than the democratic party IS a front group for southern slave owners. The fact that communists and socialists were part of the mix at the inception of the DFL does not equate to that party TODAY being a "front group for communism" TODAY.

Can you understand that?

So you're saying that the Democrat party is NOT a group which seeks to strip; by force or the threat of same; the product of the labor of one individual, so as to subsidize the existence of those who profit from that illicit theft... and who represent the collective power of their political base?

Well that IS sNews, Commander... Communism, at least the last time I checked was in no way distinct from slavery and where such is practiced or where such is practiced in or upon those residing in the Southern US, or any other locale seems irrelevant...

And where one claims that an organization is NOT a front for Communism; has no ties to communism and in now way represents the aspirations common to Communism; and where one is exposed to indisputable evidence that such an organization is rooted in NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM; WHO'S GOALS ARE IN KEEPING WITH THOSE COMMON TO COMMUNISM... and whose aspirations are to establish the practice OF Communism... and where one rejects that evidence despite the incontrovertible nature of that evidence; one can come to no other conclusion than one is either insufficiently equipped to consider the otherwise simple equation... or that one is simply an obtuse AssHat who readily adheres to the specious reasoning at issue and is otherwise desperate to conceal the clear and present subversion inherent in the CONSPIRACY...

(Tip of the Hat to the Gunny... in response to the moving of the thread to back burner; so as to ease the Commander's ongoing personal humiliation... Good call... She really needed the break.)

 

[maineman]

Thus the Lil Commander's obtuse position that where labor operates to NEGOTIATE for ANY VALUE BELOW THAT WHICH MEASURES THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT MINUS THE OTHER COMMODITIES INHERENT IN ITS CONSTRUCT... THEY CANNOT BE COMMUNISTS... decidedly rejecting that the very existence of collective bargaining; to increase the value of the labor commodity to the maximum of its potential.

actually, Marx did not consider any other commodites to inherently add ANYTHING to the value of a product.

Karl Marx's labor theory of value asserts that the value of an object is solely a result of the labor expended to produce it. According to this theory, the more labor or labor time that goes into an object, the more it is worth. Marx defined value as "consumed labor time", and stated that "all goods, considered economically, are only the product of labor and cost nothing except labor".

The American labor movement is predicated on operating within the capitalist system whereby all those other costs do indeed add to the value of any product.

Colelctive bargaining is 'bargaining'... they haven't adopted Marx' Labor Theory of Value; because if they had... Well they'd slaughter the Bourgeois and simply take over production.

It's an academics' pedentaitc view; which necessarily sets aside such nonessential elements of the equation such as: Reality... wherein Labor does NOT possess Guaranteed, unlimited rights to determine the value of their labor product to represent the exclusive correlating commodity to the other commodity resources which comprise the product or service.

Setting aside the incontrovertible fact; that the GOAL OF THE DFL is to establish such as the Guaranteed, unlimited right of the Proletariat.

And as such, it demonstrates the PROGRESSIVE nature of the DFL and their communist goal.

You use the same tactic as many on the right: you villify the left by calling them communists. Communism seeks to establish a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. THe democratic party does not seek to overthrow our government... it does not seek to disallow private property, it does not seek to have the state own the means of production and distribution of every product. It's goals are not synonymous with the goals of communism. period.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Thus the Lil Commander's obtuse position that where labor operates to NEGOTIATE for ANY VALUE BELOW THAT WHICH MEASURES THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT MINUS THE OTHER COMMODITIES INHERENT IN ITS CONSTRUCT... THEY CANNOT BE COMMUNISTS... decidedly rejecting that the very existence of collective bargaining; to increase the value of the labor commodity to the maximum of its potential.

actually, Marx did not consider any other commodites to inherently add ANYTHING to the value of a product.

Karl Marx's labor theory of value asserts that the value of an object is solely a result of the labor expended to produce it. According to this theory, the more labor or labor time that goes into an object, the more it is worth. Marx defined value as "consumed labor time", and stated that "all goods, considered economically, are only the product of labor and cost nothing except labor".

The American labor movement is predicated on operating within the capitalist system whereby all those other costs do indeed add to the value of any product.

Yeah yeah yeah... But Marx did recognize that the labor to mine the ore; the labor to smelt that or into steel; the labor to forge the steel into whatever; and so on for all sub-components (inherent other commodities) summed into the value of the labor to build end-products...

The Union Brothers In Flint's GM plant recognize that their Comrades at AC Delco contribute to the value of the cars GM hires, trains and pays them to participate in their respective little efforts of building a car or truck.

Naturally, the Union Brothers in Flint are almost all unemployed; and this is because of what? Cars and trucks went out of style? People don't buy anymore cars and trucks? Or because the Union Brothers in Flint demanded GUARANTEED, UNLIMITED RIGHTS TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THEIR LABOR; and did so until they value of their labor exceeded the means of the Market to sustain it...

Which is what happened to the US Steel Business, the US Textile Business, the US Electronic Manufacturing Business; and it's what happening to the US Government worker scam.

{Collective} bargaining is 'bargaining'... they haven't adopted Marx' Labor Theory of Value; because if they had... Well they'd slaughter the Bourgeois and simply take over production.

It's an academics' pedentaitc view; which necessarily sets aside such nonessential elements of the equation such as: Reality... wherein Labor does NOT possess Guaranteed, unlimited rights to determine the value of their labor product to represent the exclusive correlating commodity to the other commodity resources which comprise the product or service.

Setting aside the incontrovertible fact; that the GOAL OF THE DFL is to establish such as the Guaranteed, unlimited right of the Proletariat.

And as such, it demonstrates the PROGRESSIVE nature of the DFL and their communist goal.

You use the same tactic as many on the right: you villify the left by calling them communists. Communism seeks to establish a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. THe democratic party does not seek to overthrow our government... it does not seek to disallow private property, it does not seek to have the state own the means of production and distribution of every product. It's goals are not synonymous with the goals of communism. period.

NO? Golly... Well suffice it to say that I disagree... The Democrat Party and the Leftists which are presently running that Party are by any objective observation, clearly trying to 'overthrow the US Government'...

As we speak, the Democrat Party is engaging in egregeous, illicit tactics which set aside ANY recognition of the restrictions placed on them by the US Constitution to impart false rights on their Comrade Base... which can only lead to the bankruptcy of the United States and cripple yet another American industry. By turning the product of the Healthcare industry into an entitlement; thus in essence converting the property inherent in that industry into that which is held by "The People"...

It's goals are precisely synonymous with the goals of communism...

Your argument Commander is essentially that where two people are seen holding their respective fire-arms while walking into the bank...

"We're not here to rob the bank; we just happen to be in need of large sums of money at the time; without any recognition or respect for the rights of others... while being heavily armed in comparision to the others in the bank... and we just happen to be asking nicely that the people on the other side of the counter give us the money they have... We don't want ALL the money in the whole Bank... so we're not 'robbing' the bank... we're just making a withdraw, with prejudice... Bank Robbers are people who wear masks, ride up on horses, blow a safe and are almost always seen in black and white with snappy little piano music playin' in the back-ground'... Do you HEAR any piano music? Do you SEE any horses? Are we not in LIVING COLOR? NO? Well See... we're clearly not bank robbers... MORON!"

The cool news here, Skipper; is that not everyone has been subjected to the indoctrination which has spent generations defining Communists in these pedantic little terms... Some of us understand that Left-think... without regard to the 'ism' at issue at any given moment, amounts to one unsustainable species of reasoning.

And that you've worked so hard to discredit the obvious is absolutely HYSTERICAL! In at least two contexts and on several levels...

You truly are one well indoctrinated little Comrade... And a credit to "The People."

And I for one am a believer in givin' credit where credit is due; and with that said; I'd like to Recognize the Lil' Commander here for her Yoemans work in trying to obscure the communist nature of organizations whose roots and history is a story of the cummunist effort to subvert the America Culture. Congratulations Sis... And don't worry... I doubt your own testimony signed under your professed account will ever be used against you as evidence of your sedition. Seems unlikely... but does it beother ya at all that such is possible?

I mean would you proudly stand up at a trial where you were defending yourself from charges of subversion, sedition or treason; and proudly declare that you've a RIGHT to misrepresent history so as to conceal the subversive nature of the the ideological Left EVEN IN THE WEEK where that ideology was OVERTLY WORKING ITS WAY TO SET ASIDE THE US CONSTITUTION SO AS TO DECLARE THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY WAS OWNED BY THE PEOPLE?

 

[maineman]

bottom line: the labor movement in America does NOT believe in Marx's labor theory of value. They participate in collective bargaining. They have no desire to see the dialectic played out to Marx's conclusion. They understand the value of all the other components of product pricing and they bargain within that framework.

The democratic party has never espoused communist principles... all you have is your opinion, and not only do I totally DISAGREE with it, I disdain it as well.

We can "agree to disagree" as you have suggested, and I think that is just about all I would care to do at this point.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

bottom line: the labor movement in America does NOT believe in Marx's labor theory of value. They participate in collective bargaining. They have no desire to see the dialectic played out to Marx's conclusion. They understand the value of all the other components of product pricing and they bargain within that framework.

The democratic party has never espoused communist principles... all you have is your opinion, and not only do I totally DISAGREE with it, I disdain it as well.

We can "agree to disagree" as you have suggested, and I think that is just about all I would care to do at this point.

ROFLMNAO! Isn't that Precious?

"Second VERSE... same as the FIRST."

And we see the wonderful utility of Left-think... resting the premise as the conclusion...

It's not valid reasoning, thus it can never be an element of any sound intellectual construct...

BUT!

It makes 'em REAL easy to remember...

 

[86DuDE]

I suppose our brave soldiers aren't too worried about dropping the soap because they're too busy perpetrating genocide against those evil goat herders!

 

[DiveCon]

I suppose our brave soldiers aren't too worried about dropping the soap because they're too busy perpetrating genocide against those evil goat herders!

WTF???

you really are a disgusting dipshit

 

[86DuDE]

I suppose our brave soldiers aren't too worried about dropping the soap because they're too busy perpetrating genocide against those evil goat herders!

WTF???

you really are a disgusting dipshit

Ah, did I hit a nerve? The ugly truth is never easy for the average American. But, brutal honesty is necessary to stir the minds of sheep.

 

[DiveCon]

I suppose our brave soldiers aren't too worried about dropping the soap because they're too busy perpetrating genocide against those evil goat herders!

WTF???

you really are a disgusting dipshit

Ah, did I hit a nerve? The ugly truth is never easy for the average American. But, brutal honesty is necessary to stir the minds of sheep.

no, you just show you are a piece of shit

 

[86DuDE]

WTF???

you really are a disgusting dipshit

Ah, did I hit a nerve? The ugly truth is never easy for the average American. But, brutal honesty is necessary to stir the minds of sheep.

no, you just show you are a piece of shit

I know it's tough for guys like you when your programmed, I mean brainwashed mind is subjected a alternate version of what you perceive to be the truth. Don't read many books do we? Even someone like yourself should be able to get a library card.

 

[DiveCon]

Ah, did I hit a nerve? The ugly truth is never easy for the average American. But, brutal honesty is necessary to stir the minds of sheep.

no, you just show you are a piece of shit

I know it's tough for guys like you when your programmed, I mean brainwashed mind is subjected a alternate version of what you perceive to be the truth. Don't read many books do we? Even someone like yourself should be able to get a library card.

ah, so your delusions are the ACTUAL truth?????

 

[kayn78]

You will never get this past the old, conservative family brass that runs the military.

The families that have for generations sent their Christian and monotheist (Judaic and Islam which both have anti-homosexuality religious laws).

I'm with the others. I don't care so long as you aren't a transgender.

I'm sure the majority of females wouldn't want someone born a male in their shower.

While not all homosexual males are rapists. There are a significant number that are prostitutes, child molestees, and therefore future rapists. They don't always become one.

Among females it is a significantly lower proportion.

And often the female molested by an older man. Further study shows the older man is often molested by another man when he was younger.

Gained a reputation as a homosexual male and is struggling with insecurity.

He's unable to prove his gender preference because of social pressure.

Sorry but it's just the truth.

Most child molestees are males molested by other males.

Lesbians won't admit this.

All of them suffer from a lack of bonding with a male because of past behavior.

Homosexuals are obviously sexist saying there sex is superior to the other.

I can see the benefits of not letting them in, especially transgender.

The only disadvantage of letting them in (several for having a transgender) is that sexual harassment charges will definitely result on both sides.

This is a direct threat to the others, it degrades team performance, and can therefore cripple a unit.

Just as legitimate female against male charges have crippled units in all the services.

If the males would simply behave and show the females some respect and leeway to their gender.

Understand they do not own those females. They aren't married to them.

That they are usually in the same Chain of Command.

The military is quite clear if you date someone they are about your rank and in a seperate chain of command.

Once again it won't happen because the old brass won't ever let them in!