More BS from Washington

Bush's handlers were really good at getting troops to back drop events.

There have been no troops in uniform at political events, Not without paying the price for it. You know that as well as i do. And it is not policy that I disagree with, it is the exception to policy.... And they even admitted that it was due to National pressure.

It's more special handling for the newest minority in the military, and it is still wrong. I do hope that good combat Marine sues and gets his discharge changed, Plus some cash for his frustration.......

Ollie,
He may be referring to the times when a president appears on board base. Of course, they round up as many personnel as possible, bus them to a central location, hand them flags, and march them into the gym. When the CinC appears on stage, he's often flanked by the local brass. In essence, those appearances are supposed to be supportive of the troops, not a political rally. But I can see where those of weaker minds and lesser comprehension might confuse the two.
As far as your OP, you are correct. There has been an unequal application of the UCMJ wherein a "straight" individual has been punished and "gay" personnel are granted an exception for the same type of political activity. It's a sad day when the UCMJ is applied according to political principle.

I see it every time the current Chickenshit-in Chief flies through Alaska. A favorite refueling stop. You should see the "enthusiasm" of the troops...NOT!
As a matter-of-fact, he's even given up on hustling the troops up here. The last few times he's flown through, they just gas and go.
 
Last edited:
Sad Sack accuses me of doing what he tried to do to me again, and got a size 10 combat boot sideways kicked up his butt, metaphorically, of course.

However, she was 'great' because she was a super trooper, dedicated. Her lesbianism had nothing to do with it, of course. Any more than female heterosexuality had anything to do with the whiskies who did so well or did so poorly, and we had to send the home.

The point is this: sexuality has nothing to do with soldiering, at least in these days.

Sad Sack, because of what you wrote is why? I was responsible for several hundred female troops among several thousand males over several years, Sad Sack. I am telling you what this one female soldier did, and she did it regularly, so I know you are a liar, because you had women who could do the same.

You remind me of a sergeant I knew by the name of Copeland (he made it all the way to CSM), but he deeply resented females for whatever reason, and just like you, he made it hard for them.

I am so glad our armed forces are being less and less saddled with your types.


Just how did you get that I did not stand up for my troops out of what I wrote? If you were, as you claim, airborne infantry, you had damned little to do with female troops. So tell me again, how many women worked for you, how many were lesbians, and just how the lesbians were so much better than straight women? How long did you serve in the infantry, and exactly what rank did you retire at? Really, now inquiring minds are interested.

I am so glad that you think you know so much about me that you can make that kind of assumption. Was you lesbian so great because she was a lesbian? Of because she was a dedicated soldier? If the former, maybe we should make a point of enlisting lesbians instead of limp-wristed, girly-man faggots? Or maybe just dress the "boys" as "girls" and count them as lesbians, too?
 
Sad Sack accuses me of doing what he tried to do to me again, and got a size 10 combat boot sideways kicked up his butt, metaphorically, of course.

However, she was 'great' because she was a super trooper, dedicated. Her lesbianism had nothing to do with it, of course. Any more than female heterosexuality had anything to do with the whiskies who did so well or did so poorly, and we had to send the home.

The point is this: sexuality has nothing to do with soldiering, at least in these days.

Sad Sack, because of what you wrote is why? I was responsible for several hundred female troops among several thousand males over several years, Sad Sack. I am telling you what this one female soldier did, and she did it regularly, so I know you are a liar, because you had women who could do the same.

You remind me of a sergeant I knew by the name of Copeland (he made it all the way to CSM), but he deeply resented females for whatever reason, and just like you, he made it hard for them.


I am so glad our armed forces are being less and less saddled with your types.

I am so glad that you think you know so much about me that you can make that kind of assumption. Was you lesbian so great because she was a lesbian? Of because she was a dedicated soldier? If the former, maybe we should make a point of enlisting lesbians instead of limp-wristed, girly-man faggots? Or maybe just dress the "boys" as "girls" and count them as lesbians, too?

If her lesbianism had nothing to do with her stellar performance, then why bring it up at all? The implication is that non-lesbians are not as good as she was.
As far as sexuality is concerned, you're right, it has little to do with performance in many venues. Gender, however, is an entirely different issue. An example: I had a 98 lb gal assigned to my unit. She did everything the other gals and the guys did. The included packing no less than 80 lbs on her back, in full combat gear, over various distances. Somehow, she always came in at the end of the pack...gee, go figure!...but she always finished. Some of the guys were being total dicks about it. So, I figured out weight ratios, 98:80 vs. 230:188. Guess which guys couldn't even lift that weight, let alone carry it five miles. That didn't even take lean body mass index into account. Like it, or not, there are some very distinct differences between male and female aptitudes and abilities. And when you come out with the "my best woman was a lesbian" shit, I'd venture you'd be just as likely to tell us how some of your best friends were blacks, too. Hypocritical, racist, and misogynistic. The only thing you can say for sure about me is, I don't like narrow minded liberals/progressives or marxists.
 
Because you and others (some whom I admire far more than you) are acting as if homosexuality has anything to do with soldiering.

Sad Sack, your superior authorities disagree with your. Get over it. Won't change.

Move out, troop.


Sad Sack accuses me of doing what he tried to do to me again, and got a size 10 combat boot sideways kicked up his butt, metaphorically, of course.

However, she was 'great' because she was a super trooper, dedicated. Her lesbianism had nothing to do with it, of course. Any more than female heterosexuality had anything to do with the whiskies who did so well or did so poorly, and we had to send the home.

The point is this: sexuality has nothing to do with soldiering, at least in these days.

I am so glad that you think you know so much about me that you can make that kind of assumption. Was you lesbian so great because she was a lesbian? Of because she was a dedicated soldier? If the former, maybe we should make a point of enlisting lesbians instead of limp-wristed, girly-man faggots? Or maybe just dress the "boys" as "girls" and count them as lesbians, too?

If her lesbianism had nothing to do with her stellar performance, then why bring it up at all? The implication is that non-lesbians are not as good as she was.
As far as sexuality is concerned, you're right, it has little to do with performance in many venues. Gender, however, is an entirely different issue. An example: I had a 98 lb gal assigned to my unit. She did everything the other gals and the guys did. The included packing no less than 80 lbs on her back, in full combat gear, over various distances. Somehow, she always came in at the end of the pack...gee, go figure!...but she always finished. Some of the guys were being total dicks about it. So, I figured out weight ratios, 98:80 vs. 230:188. Guess which guys couldn't even lift that weight, let alone carry it five miles. That didn't even take lean body mass index into account. Like it, or not, there are some very distinct differences between male and female aptitudes and abilities. And when you come out with the "my best woman was a lesbian" shit, I'd venture you'd be just as likely to tell us how some of your best friends were blacks, too. Hypocritical, racist, and misogynistic. The only thing you can say for sure about me is, I don't like narrow minded liberals/progressives or marxists.
 
Because you and others (some whom I admire far more than you) are acting as if homosexuality has anything to do with soldiering.

Sad Sack, your superior authorities disagree with your. Get over it. Won't change.

Move out, troop.


Sad Sack accuses me of doing what he tried to do to me again, and got a size 10 combat boot sideways kicked up his butt, metaphorically, of course.

However, she was 'great' because she was a super trooper, dedicated. Her lesbianism had nothing to do with it, of course. Any more than female heterosexuality had anything to do with the whiskies who did so well or did so poorly, and we had to send the home.

The point is this: sexuality has nothing to do with soldiering, at least in these days.

If her lesbianism had nothing to do with her stellar performance, then why bring it up at all? The implication is that non-lesbians are not as good as she was.
As far as sexuality is concerned, you're right, it has little to do with performance in many venues. Gender, however, is an entirely different issue. An example: I had a 98 lb gal assigned to my unit. She did everything the other gals and the guys did. The included packing no less than 80 lbs on her back, in full combat gear, over various distances. Somehow, she always came in at the end of the pack...gee, go figure!...but she always finished. Some of the guys were being total dicks about it. So, I figured out weight ratios, 98:80 vs. 230:188. Guess which guys couldn't even lift that weight, let alone carry it five miles. That didn't even take lean body mass index into account. Like it, or not, there are some very distinct differences between male and female aptitudes and abilities. And when you come out with the "my best woman was a lesbian" shit, I'd venture you'd be just as likely to tell us how some of your best friends were blacks, too. Hypocritical, racist, and misogynistic. The only thing you can say for sure about me is, I don't like narrow minded liberals/progressives or marxists.

The issue really has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Ollie disagrees with the decision to allow people to wear uniforms in something he sees as a political event. Frankly, I see his point and tend to agree with him. I just don't think it was that big a deal.
 
Because you and others (some whom I admire far more than you) are acting as if homosexuality has anything to do with soldiering.

Sad Sack, your superior authorities disagree with your. Get over it. Won't change.

Move out, troop.


If her lesbianism had nothing to do with her stellar performance, then why bring it up at all? The implication is that non-lesbians are not as good as she was.
As far as sexuality is concerned, you're right, it has little to do with performance in many venues. Gender, however, is an entirely different issue. An example: I had a 98 lb gal assigned to my unit. She did everything the other gals and the guys did. The included packing no less than 80 lbs on her back, in full combat gear, over various distances. Somehow, she always came in at the end of the pack...gee, go figure!...but she always finished. Some of the guys were being total dicks about it. So, I figured out weight ratios, 98:80 vs. 230:188. Guess which guys couldn't even lift that weight, let alone carry it five miles. That didn't even take lean body mass index into account. Like it, or not, there are some very distinct differences between male and female aptitudes and abilities. And when you come out with the "my best woman was a lesbian" shit, I'd venture you'd be just as likely to tell us how some of your best friends were blacks, too. Hypocritical, racist, and misogynistic. The only thing you can say for sure about me is, I don't like narrow minded liberals/progressives or marxists.

The issue really has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Ollie disagrees with the decision to allow people to wear uniforms in something he sees as a political event. Frankly, I see his point and tend to agree with him. I just don't think it was that big a deal.

I agree with that assessment, also. I also agree with Ollie. Uniforms have no place at political events. Gay "pride" parades are political events, made so by the people sponsoring them, if not by all those who participate. Ollie's other point, more importantly, is that while one specific group of service people are given permission to represent (speak for) the military at a political event, another individual who voiced a political opinion was punished. That constitutes an unequal application of the UCMJ and reveals the political leanings of the so-called leadership.
 
Last edited:
The brass decided what is equity, not Ollie, or warrior, or me.

Frankly, I am not bothered by it, I support you two to voice your disagreement.
 
Because you and others (some whom I admire far more than you) are acting as if homosexuality has anything to do with soldiering.

Sad Sack, your superior authorities disagree with your. Get over it. Won't change.

Move out, troop.

The issue really has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Ollie disagrees with the decision to allow people to wear uniforms in something he sees as a political event. Frankly, I see his point and tend to agree with him. I just don't think it was that big a deal.

I agree with that assessment, also. I also agree with Ollie. Uniforms have no place at political events. Gay "pride" parades are political events, made so by the people sponsoring them, if not by all those who participate. Ollie's other point, more importantly, is that while one specific group of service people are given permission to represent (speak for) the military at a political event, another individual who voiced a political opinion was punished. That constitutes an unequal application of the UCMJ and reveals the political leanings of the so-called leadership.

The primary concern of the military hierarchy is the good of the service. They don't bow to whoever is president, other than to carry out specific orders. We are talking about career military officers who have spent a lifetime in defense of their country. I seriously doubt the president was involved in this decision. I doubt the joint chiefs were involved. This was probably a decision made at a captain or rear admiral level. It just was not that big of a deal. The UCMJ was never a factor. There was no violation of regulations. Permission was requested, permission was given. Good decision or bad decision, that is the extent of it.
 
The issue really has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Ollie disagrees with the decision to allow people to wear uniforms in something he sees as a political event. Frankly, I see his point and tend to agree with him. I just don't think it was that big a deal.

I agree with that assessment, also. I also agree with Ollie. Uniforms have no place at political events. Gay "pride" parades are political events, made so by the people sponsoring them, if not by all those who participate. Ollie's other point, more importantly, is that while one specific group of service people are given permission to represent (speak for) the military at a political event, another individual who voiced a political opinion was punished. That constitutes an unequal application of the UCMJ and reveals the political leanings of the so-called leadership.

The primary concern of the military hierarchy is the good of the service. They don't bow to whoever is president, other than to carry out specific orders. We are talking about career military officers who have spent a lifetime in defense of their country. I seriously doubt the president was involved in this decision. I doubt the joint chiefs were involved. This was probably a decision made at a captain or rear admiral level. It just was not that big of a deal. The UCMJ was never a factor. There was no violation of regulations. Permission was requested, permission was given. Good decision or bad decision, that is the extent of it.

The decision sets a precedent. A bad precedent because now just about any request should be considered on equal footing. How are you gonna feel about it if some troops request permission to attend a KKK rally in uniform and are granted permission?
 
I agree with that assessment, also. I also agree with Ollie. Uniforms have no place at political events. Gay "pride" parades are political events, made so by the people sponsoring them, if not by all those who participate. Ollie's other point, more importantly, is that while one specific group of service people are given permission to represent (speak for) the military at a political event, another individual who voiced a political opinion was punished. That constitutes an unequal application of the UCMJ and reveals the political leanings of the so-called leadership.

The primary concern of the military hierarchy is the good of the service. They don't bow to whoever is president, other than to carry out specific orders. We are talking about career military officers who have spent a lifetime in defense of their country. I seriously doubt the president was involved in this decision. I doubt the joint chiefs were involved. This was probably a decision made at a captain or rear admiral level. It just was not that big of a deal. The UCMJ was never a factor. There was no violation of regulations. Permission was requested, permission was given. Good decision or bad decision, that is the extent of it.

The decision sets a precedent. A bad precedent because now just about any request should be considered on equal footing. How are you gonna feel about it if some troops request permission to attend a KKK rally in uniform and are granted permission?

Then I guess we will all run around in circles and shriek hysterically.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top