Will eliminating "don't ask-don't tell" improve the military?

[rightwinger]

Idiot.

Look....The Rabbi is obviously in his "I'm going to piss off the left wingers" mode

Usually ignoring him is the best course of action

 

[The Rabbi]

Idiot.

Certainly the kind of thoughtful response I've come to expect from the lefties when proven wrong.
btw, how would repealing DADT benefit the military?

 

[G.T.]

Idiot.

Certainly the kind of thoughtful response I've come to expect from the lefties when proven wrong.
btw, how would repealing DADT benefit the military?

I already answered that in response to lonestar's post like 2-4 posts of mine ago. (post #132)

You weren't proving anyone wrong, all you're doing is proving you're a board gnat, with nothing really to say except for doing a dance or two around saying anything real....at all...ever.

 

[The Rabbi]

Idiot.

Certainly the kind of thoughtful response I've come to expect from the lefties when proven wrong.
btw, how would repealing DADT benefit the military?

I already answered that in response to lonestar's post like 2-4 posts of mine ago.

You weren't proving anyone wrong, all you're doing is proving you're a board gnat, with nothing really to say except for doing a dance or two around saying anything real....at all...ever.

The infamous double-dodge.
You'ev never answered the question posed by the OP.

 

[G.T.]

a non-answer, in a moron's brain:

GT: Of course it will. It will weed out all of the hyper-sensitive pussies who are askurred of a lil' Gay guy, when they SHOULD BE fearless warriors prepared for Battle.

It will also serve to be more inclusive of strong Gay men and Women who may have been put off from enlisting previously.




It's probably not the best hobby to peruse message-boards when you can't even interpret what the hell you read, tulip.

 

[The Rabbi]

a non-answer, in a moron's brain:

GT: Of course it will. It will weed out all of the hyper-sensitive pussies who are askurred of a lil' Gay guy, when they SHOULD BE fearless warriors prepared for Battle.

It will also serve to be more inclusive of strong Gay men and Women who may have been put off from enlisting previously.




It's probably not the best hobby to peruse message-boards when you can't even interpret what the hell you read, tulip.

No, I meant a serious answer to the question. That was a throwaway line.

 

[masquerade]

What happens when two guys or two gals want to marry? What happens when a guy wants to dress like a woman? Maybe take some female hormones and get some breast implants. He has every right to do it in civilian life, why can't he do it in the military?

 

[G.T.]

a non-answer, in a moron's brain:

GT: Of course it will. It will weed out all of the hyper-sensitive pussies who are askurred of a lil' Gay guy, when they SHOULD BE fearless warriors prepared for Battle.

It will also serve to be more inclusive of strong Gay men and Women who may have been put off from enlisting previously.




It's probably not the best hobby to peruse message-boards when you can't even interpret what the hell you read, tulip.

No, I meant a serious answer to the question. That was a throwaway line.

You're boring, and quite the puss.

 

[G.T.]

What happens when two guys or two gals want to marry? What happens when a guy wants to dress like a woman? Maybe take some female hormones and get some breast implants. He has every right to do it in civilian life, why can't he do it in the military?

As long as he/she or heshe remains physically and mentally fit to fight in accordance with what their superiors expect of everyone else, I don't think anyone secure in their own sexuality should give three shits. Apparently people aren't that secure with themselves.

 

[bodecea]

They are not discharged for being homosexual. They are discharged for talking about being homosexual.

Nope...they are even discharged if someone else talks about them being homosexual.

Yup. Even they are not actually homosexual.
Thanks for backing me up on this.

Actually, you have just backed me up on this. Think about it for a second. You did.

 

[bodecea]

What happens when two guys or two gals want to marry? What happens when a guy wants to dress like a woman? Maybe take some female hormones and get some breast implants. He has every right to do it in civilian life, why can't he do it in the military?

Most elective medical surgery isn't part of the military....regardless of your sexual orientation. So, your point is moot.

 

[Father Time]

Yet another false comparison to civil rights. Newsflash: Homos come in all shapes sizes and colors and arent easily detectible just by looking at them.

So? Are you saying that civil rights are ONLY for those who LOOK different?

Discrimination only applies to people who look different. This is the legal standard. Comparisons between homos and blacks are spurious.

No. There's religious discrimination as well. And nationality (and some others I can't remember right now).

 

[Father Time]

We had this same argument over integrating blacks into the military.

Are there race quotas for the army now? Well are there?

Yes there is moron

Show them to me.

 

[woodjack]

What happens when two guys or two gals want to marry? What happens when a guy wants to dress like a woman? Maybe take some female hormones and get some breast implants. He has every right to do it in civilian life, why can't he do it in the military?

Most elective medical surgery isn't part of the military....regardless of your sexual orientation. So, your point is moot.

Really? Women can get breast augmentations lipo and all sorts of elective surgery, last I heard about it was in 2004, but I think they have expanded it to family members as well. So your point is moot. But it is so the Doctors get experience so they are learning but again it is tax payer funded and free.

 

[rightwinger]

We had this same argument over integrating blacks into the military.

Are there race quotas for the army now? Well are there?

Yes there is moron

Show them to me.

Do you mean the military is turning people away during wartime because they are not the correct race?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Department of the Army
Pamphlet 600–26

Do your own reading.

 

[G.T.]

Department of the Army
Pamphlet 600–26

Do your own reading.

Not seeing any racial quotas in there.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Never said there was. But when you have to have a directive on Affirmative action, there is obviously a problem.

How about this statement?

"(a) U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) will actively
encourage application by qualified under–represented categories to
increase representation in the applicant pool considered in the board
selection process."

You see the Government will not come out ans give a number or percentage. But Under-represented category? That sounds like a goal to me. But then I'm sure that's can't be what it means.

 

[rightwinger]

Never said there was. But when you have to have a directive on Affirmative action, there is obviously a problem.

How about this statement?

"(a) U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) will actively
encourage application by qualified under–represented categories to
increase representation in the applicant pool considered in the board
selection process."

You see the Government will not come out ans give a number or percentage. But Under-represented category? That sounds like a goal to me. But then I'm sure that's can't be what it means.

Ollie...That DA Pam is 20 years old....Pams are not regulations, they provide guidance and goals. As a matter of fact, the Army has done very well with Affirmative Action in the last 20 years

 

[SFC Ollie]

Never said there was. But when you have to have a directive on Affirmative action, there is obviously a problem.

How about this statement?

"(a) U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) will actively
encourage application by qualified under–represented categories to
increase representation in the applicant pool considered in the board
selection process."

You see the Government will not come out ans give a number or percentage. But Under-represented category? That sounds like a goal to me. But then I'm sure that's can't be what it means.

Ollie...That DA Pam is 20 years old....Pams are not regulations, they provide guidance and goals. As a matter of fact, the Army has done very well with Affirmative Action in the last 20 years

Yes they have actually, but it's more like the past 40 years. The military does better at Equal Opportunity than most civilian companies. But they still have Affirmative Action programs. And I have seen reverse discrimination in the military. However, I have been retired 17 years this coming fall.