The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[High_Gravity]

I hear ya. Since I was one of the few "single" women on the ship (of course I wasn't single, but in a long term relationship with my current spouse), I had a number of married men proposition me while deployed. ******* straights can't keep it in their pants can they?

I think men in general can't keep it in their pants SeaWytch.

That's the point, Amigo. Straight men would be JUST AS promiscuous as gay men are...if women let them. How come us lesbians always get left out of these conversations?

Well, there was that one guy that thought lesbians should be able to join the military so that guys could try to "convert" them. I think it was referred to as "corrective rape".

You are correct, I think men are just men, regardless of sexual orientation. As far as the last part of your post, that makes no sense. Women are way more appealing than men are, so I don't see too many lesbians being "converted", sexuality is not a religion.

 

[Seawytch]

I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.

Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my ******* office.

Well to be fair civilians go home after they work their shift, civilians don't have to live together in tents or on navy ships, where I work people just book the motel a few blocks away to get their freak on.

Baby, you need to work with some better people

People try to get away with shit while they are deployed, no doubt about it. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation and NONE of it has to do with gays being able to serve honestly, **** whatever consenting adult they want to **** and NOT get discharged for it.

 

[gekaap]

I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.

Just like an idiot infantryman. Don't know shit, but think you got it all figured out. That was almost amusing.

 

[Seawytch]

As far as the last part of your post, that makes no sense. Women are way more appealing than men are, so I don't see too many lesbians being "converted", sexuality is not a religion.

Here's the story: Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight | The Raw Story

 

[High_Gravity]

As far as the last part of your post, that makes no sense. Women are way more appealing than men are, so I don't see too many lesbians being "converted", sexuality is not a religion.

Here's the story: Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight | The Raw Story

Makes no damn sense, that policy is headed for failure.

 

[grunt11b]

I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.

Just like an idiot infantryman. Don't know shit, but think you got it all figured out. That was almost amusing.

Coming from someone who offers no legitimate rebuttal. And contrary to popular belief, there are more college degrees floating around Infantry battalions then there are anywhere else. Now you could argue that's because there are more infantryman and it's a numbers thing, I can give you that much. But I would also bet that you could not memorize and implement the FM 7-6 flawlessly, I would also bet that you could not call in an 8 digit grid coordinate under pressure to put down artillery to save your friends asses either.
If you're not infantry, you just support us.

 

[SFC Ollie]

That's a very good point. In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.

I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.

Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my ******* office.

So you have nothing to back up your statement. Thank you.

 

[gekaap]

They can vote to go to war, yes. But they cannot expect to write legislation and make it law within the military. Maybe I should have clarified that for you.

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

 

[gekaap]

I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.

Indeed, some of us spent a few years in the military, and witnessed with our own eyes the slutfest.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my ******* office.

Well to be fair civilians go home after they work their shift, civilians don't have to live together in tents or on navy ships, where I work people just book the motel a few blocks away to get their freak on.

Baby, you need to work with some better people

People try to get away with shit while they are deployed, no doubt about it. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation and NONE of it has to do with gays being able to serve honestly, **** whatever consenting adult they want to **** and NOT get discharged for it.

Well people are just people, this kind of thing happens no matter where you work, even in the church. When I was deployed to Kuwait back in 07 before I got out, they had strict rules absolutely no sexual contact for anyone in the Military on that base, regardless of orientation, even married couples were not allowed. The Army lets Military couples be together and they can have sex, but not the Air Force. There were so many situations where people were caught, one guy was caught off base getting a bj from a female airman, he drove a vehicle right outside the base and pulled off the side of the road, I think the Kuwaitis caught him, so you could imagine the outrage there. A Lt Col throwing out his trash in the evening stumbled across a female airman getting it doggystyle inside the dumpster. Bottom line is people have sexual needs and they are going to find ways to satisfy them, regardless of sexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

I hope you have something to back that up with? Because I smell BS. Some of us spent a few years in the military, I was on active duty for 22 years, sorry didn't see any more in the military than I see in civilian life.

Well I sure did. Saw a LTJG giving a SN a BJ on the pier in Key West...never saw anything like THAT in my civilian job. In my civilian job I never had married guys knocking on my door in the middle of the night after shore leave. In my civilian job, a married ET was not banging my single RM in my ******* office.

So you have nothing to back up your statement. Thank you.

I just gave you some examples of what I saw during my 20 years of active duty...and those instances were just in my last year before retirement. I won't even get into what I experienced as an OOD at a training center. The crap that people tried to get away with in the barracks...oh Lord! I can assure you that I've not seen ANYTHING comparable in my civilian life that I encountered while in the service.

 

[grunt11b]

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

 

[Seawytch]

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

Gosh, by that theory, DADT should have never been enacted in the first place.

 

[bodecea]

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

Um....may I ask....who created and has the authority to change the UCMJ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice




This is priceless, it is....

 

[grunt11b]

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

Gosh, by that theory, DADT should have never been enacted in the first place.

Like I said before, judicial activism, and weak leadership at the pentagon.

 

[bodecea]

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

Gosh, by that theory, DADT should have never been enacted in the first place.

Like I said before, judicial activism, and weak leadership at the pentagon.

Please. DO go on.....

 

[grunt11b]

If I am wrong, I will admit it, But I would like to know how I am wrong. Can someone post me a link with anything proving me to be wrong? I am not being a smartass, just asking honestly if someone will prove me wrong so that I know I am wrong, then I will admit it.
Until that happens, I dont see how I am wrong here.

 

[gekaap]

Coming from someone who offers no legitimate rebuttal.

You want me to rebut you? You're running around yelling "The Martians are coming" and you think that I have to rebut that shit? It's you who has to provide evidence of your position, and you can't do that because your position isn't worth yesterday's MRE. Hands across America everyone, it's time to pick up the trash.

And contrary to popular belief, there are more college degrees floating around Infantry battalions then there are anywhere else.

And as so many conservatives on this board will remind you, having a degree doesn't make you any less of an idiot.

But I would also bet that you could not memorize and implement the FM 7-6 flawlessly, I would also bet that you could not call in an 8 digit grid coordinate under pressure to put down artillery to save your friends asses either.
If you're not infantry, you just support us.

Tell that to the medic the next time they are bandaging your dumbass up for doing something stupid just to try to get your rocks off and prove how much of a man you think you are. Typical infantryman, inflating your own self, thinking that you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. That you alone are all that matters. You're so big, bad, and tough. But you can't handle two boys holding hands.

 

[gekaap]

If I am wrong, I will admit it, But I would like to know how I am wrong. Can someone post me a link with anything proving me to be wrong? I am not being a smartass, just asking honestly if someone will prove me wrong so that I know I am wrong, then I will admit it.
Until that happens, I dont see how I am wrong here.

It is not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It is you who has to provide evidence of your position. Of course, that will be impossible because the constitution explicitly proves you wrong, as I have already pointed out.

 

[Gadawg73]

Thanks for the grammatical lesson, I forgot how to spell it. None of them are relevant YET. The activist judges are now being put into place by Obama "His last two appointments" which are on the supreme court. All of them will come into play later on down the road. And yes, Mullins is as much at fault as the rest of them.
I bet the Germans where the same way as you are right now until Hitler had his military turn the guns inward. If you don't think it can happen, you obviously don't study history.
Alot of Americans right now are thinking "It could never happen here", believe me...yes it can, and the crazies in DC are relying on you to think that it can't.

I R Republican.

Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.

I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
Is that fake or not?