The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[bodecea]

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

A chief is an E-7, dipshit.

No...there's Chief...and then there's an E-7. E-7's don't go thru initiation and are not worthy of the title of Chief. slukasiewski was trying to insult WW.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually I've said I'm in favor of don't ask don't tell, not prohibiting gays.

Actually DADT is a policy, many misapply it to thinking it is the law. The law, 10 USC § 654 bars homosexuals from serving.

OK, so there is an unenforced law on the books, I'm cool with removing it.


Hmmm...re-read this. You didn't make any point relevant to our discussion.




Outside the military, no. They have a choice. Live a free, ass ******* life and tell everyone you want, or live a free ass ******* life join the military and keep it to yourself. There are a lot of jobs that are inappropriate to do things that are OK in others. If you're a pot head on TV, it's inconsistent with being a kindergarten teacher. If we had a draft, like Israel, I could at least see the argument. But that they have to join the military and they then have to tell people where their prick goes in the evening? Sorry, choose.

And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military. I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

OK, that's your opinion. And it's based on your political need to allow them to tell. You don't care about the practical implications of it as long as your political objective is met. And you have the right to think that. It's a free country. Thanks to our military.

You assume the majority want open service because of a "political need" yet offer ZERO EVIDENCE to back up any of your argument.
What political need to I have? I want open service for eveyone so what is my political need?
Specifics please as you offer nothing to date.
What politics is my need and who do I vote for?
Please include the winning lotto ticket #s for Ga., powerball #, the winners of the baseball games tonight and the 2011 World Series winner.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Last I check sexual contact between any sailors was against standing orders. As a result if I caught a male Seaman Apprentice heterosexuals butt ******* a female Seaman Apprentice, then I'd take them to Captain's Mast, just like I would to male SA's.

And Yes, I'm a retired Chief fuckwad.


>>>>

Last you checked? Hell - dipshit - it's a standing order.

What the ****'s a "standing order," BTW. I lived under the UCMJ.

Different set of rules for faggots?

What the **** were you - a dumb assed SH or SK?

Stick to your day job Elvis.

Thanks for the comedic interlude.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

You are so full of it. But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up. To bad for you it's an enumerated document.

You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>

You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:

1) The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government. Gay soldiers are government. They have the choice to join government or not. If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else. Joining the government was their choice.

2) And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is. The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed. In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it. So most rights protected under it aren't listed. There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.

1. Under this argument blacks can be denied. Stupid argument.
2. See #1.

 

[Mr Natural]

A chief is an E-7, dipshit.

No...there's Chief...and then there's an E-7. E-7's don't go thru initiation and are not worthy of the title of Chief. slukasiewski was trying to insult WW.

Oh, the initiation.

Hope it's nothing like the Turtle Club. How ******* sick was that?

 

[slukasiewski]

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

A chief is an E-7, dipshit.

No - a "CHIEF" isn't am E7, ya ******* retard.
Creed anyone?
Had you ever achieved the rank and been initiated - you'd know that.
Idiot...

 

[Gadawg73]

You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>

You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:

1) The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government. Gay soldiers are government. They have the choice to join government or not. If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else. Joining the government was their choice.

2) And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is. The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed. In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it. So most rights protected under it aren't listed. There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.

1. Under this argument blacks can be denied. Stupid argument.
2. See #1.

The US Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT. The Constitution is not to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO. The Constitution is to tell the GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are so full of it. But just to be sure I did a word search on gay in the Constitution and it didn't turn up. To bad for you it's an enumerated document.

You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>

You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:

1) The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government. Gay soldiers are government. They have the choice to join government or not. If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else. Joining the government was their choice.

You are right, the government does not have rights. However I disagree, service members have a different legal system from most civilians, however that does not preclude that they have rights. For example, read the Manual of the Courts Martial and you will find many references to the rights of the accused.

2) And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is. The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed. In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it. So most rights protected under it aren't listed. There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.

So let me get this straight, you claim the Constitution is an enumerated document, I challenge you - prepared to point out BTW that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution, and I'm asking an "ignorant" question?




>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

How do you treat two SA's getting caught butt ******* in the Bosn's Locker?

You a Chief or an E7, dipshit?

A chief is an E-7, dipshit.

While technically true, a Chief is in the paygrade E-7, typically calling a "Chief" an "E-7" is considered a pejorative usage of rank. Kind of like calling the Captain of a ship an O-6.


Well, at least by us Chiefs.





>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And that someone gay who would potentially be attracted to you is showering and sleeping with you is to me a credible determent to the goal of the military. I don't support don't ask don't tell as a compromise, I think it's the actual best solution.

In my opinion the best solution is to treat military members as the professionals they are and to deal with individual cases as they arise.


>>>>

OK, that's your opinion. And it's based on your political need to allow them to tell. You don't care about the practical implications of it as long as your political objective is met. And you have the right to think that. It's a free country. Thanks to our military.

Sorry, I don't have a "political need" for them to tell me anything. As a life long Republican, I do have a political need that our government not to conduct itself in a discriminatory manner for no compelling interest.

Some, Social Authoritarians are butt hurt (pun intended) right now because homosexuals might be treated like other service members. They'll hem-n-haw for awhile, but in a few years everyone will wonder what the big hoop-a-loo was about.


>>>>

 

[slukasiewski]

A chief is an E-7, dipshit.

While technically true, a Chief is in the paygrade E-7, typically calling a "Chief" an "E-7" is considered a pejorative usage of rank. Kind of like calling the Captain of a ship an O-6.


Well, at least by us Chiefs.





>>>>

Correct
Good on ya Chief

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, Gh0ster...don't like the new page set up over there?

That's GhOster?

Didn't know.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correct
Good on ya Chief

Thank you.


>>>>

 

[slukasiewski]

Correct
Good on ya Chief

Thank you.


>>>>

No need for thanks. Buy you a beer in the CPO Club anytime.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correct
Good on ya Chief

Thank you.


>>>>

No need for thanks. Buy you a beer in the CPO Club anytime.

OK, second round is on me.


>>>>

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Dang! I took a couple of hours off to go fishing, and the same gays are logged in blowing the same smoke. None of you commenting on this issue in support of gays have a frame of reference with which to form an opinion. You haven't served in the military, or even talked to a soldier. You folks hold soldiers in contempt, and you don't like them.

So let me tell you what you've accomplished. Nothing. No matter how much demented smoke you blow things will remain the same. You folks are still gay, and sexual deviants still shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Sorry gang that is just the way things are.

Yeah, we wouldn't want any French *** nasty's to get on the boys now would we.

 

[kaz]

You assume the majority want open service because of a "political need" yet offer ZERO EVIDENCE to back up any of your argument.
What political need to I have?

I want the military for the most part to set their own rules on gays in the military. I don't think they should ban gays because of blackmail of gay soldiers. It may not have happened every day, but apparently it has through the years lead to some pretty serious espionage. They commit espionage or give up their careers, now that is not fair and it's an actual military reason I hold that view.

You on the other hand keep talking about their need to tell and that you want them to tell. That has zero to do with the military. It is a political objective because it's a political argument. This is government, it is not freedom of the people from government. The latter is the subject of the Constitution. You want to make the political statement about gays, go for it. But on the street, not in the military.

 

[kaz]

You describe the Constitution as an "enumerated document", does that mean you are of the opinion that a right doesn't exist unless it is enumerated?


>>>>

You fail to grasp two fundamental things about our Constitution:

1) The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of government. Gay soldiers are government. They have the choice to join government or not. If they do not, they are protected by the same rights as anyone else. Joining the government was their choice.

2) And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is. The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed. In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it. So most rights protected under it aren't listed. There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.

1. Under this argument blacks can be denied. Stupid argument.
2. See #1.

Blacks can be denied what?

 

[kaz]

2) And as for your smug and yet ignorant question on all rights not being listed, you don't even understand what it is. The Constitution was designed to cede specific rights from the people to government, not give people rights, so most aren't listed. In fact the bill of rights is a diversion of the document, not the point of it. So most rights protected under it aren't listed. There is nowhere that says "gay" is a special status for anyone, muchless for those who chose to be part of our government.

So let me get this straight, you claim the Constitution is an enumerated document, I challenge you - prepared to point out BTW that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution, and I'm asking an "ignorant" question?




>>>>

Let me know when you're done jerking off and we can get back to the argument

 

[kaz]

Sorry, I don't have a "political need" for them to tell me anything. As a life long Republican, I do have a political need that our government not to conduct itself in a discriminatory manner for no compelling interest.

Every argument you've made has been primarily based on your wanting them to tell and to a lesser degree that they want to tell. You have made no argument that there is any reason they need to.

Some, Social Authoritarians are butt hurt (pun intended) right now because homosexuals might be treated like other service members. They'll hem-n-haw for awhile, but in a few years everyone will wonder what the big hoop-a-loo was about

I think we're headed there anyway and probably in my lifetime the military will end the rule on it's own. Given the mission they have and that gays can serve as long as they don't feel the need to bring their politics into the workplace, we just don't need to make their job any harder then it already is for no benefit but a political one.