View Full Version : What do you think about DADT?
Tree Potato
01-04-2011, 18:24
My answer is obvious to me...some folks need to lighten up. With a crew of close to 5000, I'm pretty sure just about any conversation on any topic on a carrier runs the risk of offending more than one person if they wear their sensitivity on their sleeve. If someone was that offended, they could have gone to the IG if they felt they were being ignored at the command level. The fact the skipper was selected to command a carrier years after these events tells me that if an investigation was initiated due to crew complaints, it lacked any real substance to proceed...until now and the recent changes in whose viewpoint is used to determine acceptability.
People need to lighten up...I'm in violent agreement with you there. Still, this guy knew people were complaining and rather than trying to bring the team together he gave them the finger, driving them apart (praise in public, critique in private). Bottom line is he knew what he was doing, knew the PC environment he was operating in, and rather than work within it for the benefit of his unit he chose the "look at me, I'm a stand up comedian XO" approach, and it backfired. He made himself a distraction to getting the mission accomplished and has been brushed aside. Do I like it? No. Am I surprised? Not in the least.
As far as this happening "years after" and being pushed by an outsider with an agenda, sure, that's possible. The reverse is possible too: it could simply have taken a few years to percolate high enough to get attention while those who were looking out for the XO tried to keep it covered up.
Circling back, there is a DADT lesson in this for leaders. There will be troops grandstanding about the DADT repeal. A bit of venting should be expected and tolerated in either direction; but if it starts breaking the team down or distracting from the mission it should be dealt with pronto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PGul3_PWI
White, heterosexual Christian Conservative fun-loving males are just about SOL, the way things are going.
Current Navy situation aside, it's not just the military - academia, corporate America and government civilians are often victims of political correctness gone awry.
The PC police have made sure that someone is offended by something in most any communication/situation - for years.
This is pure bullshit. I am sorry if someone is offended. In fact, I'm offended if you are offended...now where's the ACLU when I need them? According to UMBRO...getting ready to play a little footie (that's soccer) I suspect.;)
1stindoor
01-05-2011, 08:15
It was pointed out to me today that I will never make O-6 because...
That's okay...neither will I.
I agree with Robin Williams on this issue, "Joke 'em if they can't take a fu&k."
must see,...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-HvU2sKheg
does this iron make my ass look fat?
People need to lighten up...I'm in violent agreement with you there. Still, this guy knew people were complaining and rather than trying to bring the team together he gave them the finger, driving them apart (praise in public, critique in private). Bottom line is he knew what he was doing, knew the PC environment he was operating in, and rather than work within it for the benefit of his unit he chose the "look at me, I'm a stand up comedian XO" approach, and it backfired.
I have regular challenges trying to get the few other people I live with day in and day out to all agree on a single issue, let alone get 5000 people to agree on something as personal as humor. Maybe he wasn't trying to spotlight himself; maybe he was trying to add levity to what someone else here aptly described as a pretty mundane but deadly existence (note - I never served a day in the Navy, but the guy that sits 5 feet from me agrees with this statement, after his 20 years in surface warfare that includes CVN service).
I would posit that someone that strives to work within the PC environment and endeavors to stay as bland as oatmeal in an effort to avoid offending anyone is more detrimental to unit morale than Owen's videos could ever be.
'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/#ixzz1ARsq5BEE
"............Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.
“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology
that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said. ...................."
Yeah, right ".......not an act of political correctness".
EX-Gold Falcon
01-28-2011, 23:17
Time offline was well spent..
Would you offer this same argument to the DREAM ACT, where citizenship is not required?
Yes. Any Man or Woman who willing places themselves in harms way to defend an ideal, our very Constitution, has earned a right of respect.
Since you have served 4 years in the Army, you must remember that soldiers waive many rights that are constitutionally protected for civilians.Yes.
"Anyone" is not needed nor required to serve in the military, but rather those that are best suited to accomplish the mission required.
"Anyone" is not, BUT Someone IS.
When did this become about individual rights? DADT preserved a delicate balance that will now be undone and a new balance will need to be found. At this time NO ONE can forecast how that new balance will appear.
Was not the same argument made prior to then Pres Truman"s signing both the Women's Armed Services Integration Act and Executive Order 9981. No one then was capable of predicting the outcome, yet I am sure you'll agree our nation is stronger and the US military is better prepared.
I appreciate your 4 years service,
Thank you.
but I fail to see how that prepares you to speak on this subject when this in reality impacts the CMD level the hardest.
It is my Constitutionally protected and God Given Right as an American Citizen to voice my opinion. Furthermore, my opinions (whether you agree with them or not) have been and continue to be based upon both professional and self-education and personal observations aquired while carrying a military ID and as a civilian.
Soldiers do as they are told, and they do their tasks as best they can. DADT was not an issue for those who wanted to serve, only to those who wanted to be GAY first and serve second. Sorry if the military inconvenienced your personal life choices, welcome to the club Nancy.
Have you ever attempted to sit down and just to talk with someone who is gay or lesbian simply to gain a different perspective? I've done so because living in the civilian world they are impossible to ignore. Quite frankly I was shocked to learn how many preconceptions were entirely false.
The logistical and UCMJ adjustments that this can of worms now opens is HUGE, for if we now have to consider a soldiers personal sexual preference as a CMD issue, then what other personal preference issues will have to be accommodated? This new direction placed by civilian leadership will now have to be directed, supported, and executed by the military leadership who just now is beginning to investigate the issues involved.DADT was originally implemented 17 years ago. Is the Pentagon so filled with freakin ostriches that they never imagined this might be repealed?!?
"Two ongoing wars, NK and China, plus Chavez. The continuing threat from AQ, but hey wait guys, let me deep dive into this DADT issue that "could" represent an issue." Really? Did you really think this would just "happen" at the snap of the fingers?Hmm, maybe there is that many ostriches in the Pentagon...
This will most likely remain what it is now, a political hot potato that a new group of politicians will leverage when it is needed to secure more votes. And I agree with my mentors. For those who strongly disagree with this decision, retirement is always a legitimate and honorable COA.
It's democracy in action. Either we accept it or elect those who will change it.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31581&page=2
Hmm,
Two questions. 1. Are you still serving?
Sir, no I am not.
2. Whats a "Greenie-Beanie" that you refer to in your profile?
Sir, if by chance you are offended by this moniker, I apologize. It was never my intention to do so.
"About EX-Gold Falcon:
Biography
Enough Self Confidence To Say I Was Just A Paratrooper & NOT A Greenie-Beanie! "
If you want your posts to be considered with any due respect you should probably present yourself in a respectable manner.
Thank you for indicating a personal remiss. This has been rectified.
Nevertheless, I feel no need to apologize for not responding to your posts in a more timely manner.
I presented a convenient target for your ire because I also posted my opinion rather then only voting. Obviously others share a similar opinion, but have decided not to post. Not surprising considering what happens to those who do not fully agree with PS.com's "culturally accepted" norm. Sir, please take a real good look at the poll results again. Appears there is dissent in the ranks and I'll bet money that this is a generational issue.....
lol Talk aboutcher dirty underwear...
Underwear and thongs are for chicks, real men don't give a sh!t ;)
T.
blue02hd
01-29-2011, 00:48
Ex-GoldFalcon,
1. It is readily apparent that you do not agree with my post. That does not surprise me in the least, nor am I offended.
2. It is also quite clear that you value your opinions formed from four years in the Army much higher than those of us with 20 plus. I would think this is natural.
3. Last but not least you indicate that there must be dissent among our ranks as demonstrated by the poll.
These are the three main points I understood from your most recent post. If you can spare the time, I would like to respond:
1. As mentioned before by others wiser than I, it is not your acceptance that I seek, it is your consideration. Seems to me you are posting on PS.com only to transmit and are failing to receive. That is your choice as long as the ADMIN's and Moderators continue to find value in your contributions. Contributions I repeat, but unlike other sites, you do not have "Constitutionally protected" and "God given rights" to opine in this forum. You are a guest. Insulting this audience by referring to us as "Greenie Beanies" and then being offended when we do not respect your opinions is laughable, and very short sighted. It also hints of insecurity, among other issues.
2. You stated that your opinions were based on four years of carrying a DOD ID Card, as well as your civilian and professional development. Well of course they are! I would have it no other way. Woe be to those who saunter into our house and lecture us on right and wrong based on experiences and an education that is not theirs. Your ability to forecast social issues within the military culture is very intuitive and impressive with what,, only 4 years of hands on experience collected almost two decades ago? Who am I to think that my 20 plus years service at the platoon or ODA level would be able to offer any type of relevance when faced with such an impressive set of credentials such as yours. You also hint that in my 20 plus years of strict military service I have not had the opportunity to discuss social, cultural, or philosophical issues with anyone from the civilian sector, in particular those who have a different set of values and norms than mine, after all, when and where would a Green Beanie ever be required to do that? You doubt that I have ever had to form relationships with individuals who choose to accept homosexuality as a norm (middle east?), unlike your extensive civilian experiences of course. It's true, you may even assume I couldn't find civilization on a map with a lensatic. (That's Garmin for you civilians). I guess it must have been the fuzz from my Green Beanie that confused me. I am speechless, well not yet.
3. You assess that there is dissent amongst our ranks, as proven by the poll that both you and I took part in. Outside of the poll itself, what "Ranks" are you referring to? Many of the men on this site, QP and non alike have done a helluva lot more than simply carry an ID card for four years. You might be wise to respect that. So again I ask you, in what Rank will you and I ever find ourselves standing shoulder to shoulder if I COULD for a moment actually follow my lensatic (Garmin) and locate your civilized world where homosexuals act in a manner that make them "impossible to ignore"? (That doesn't sound civil at all,,?)
Now, back on topic: You claim that DADT has been around for 17 years. Very observant. My question to you, and I am interested to see if YOU can respond without re-posting someone else's article, how will "Openly Serving" in the military be defined? How did DADT limit a homosexuals ability to serve? How will the changes from DADT to this new policy increase our ability to defend YOU civilians and MY family? What VALUE does openly serving as a homosexual represent? You do remember the Army Values right? If you were a Commanding Officer, how would you propose to educate YOUR soldiers in a topic that undermines their "Constitutionally protected and God Given Right" to religious practice?
Help me understand your point of view by educating me, and I'll admit when I am wrong. We also need to agree that we are not lock step in the same "Rank" as that implies that you and I share the same hardships and successes. That could not be further from the truth. An open poll here does not join us at the hip. I for one avoid dirty laundry. Lets not refer to opinions here in PS.COM as "culturally accepted". We post honestly and above all ACCURATELY in this house. I have read many a great debate here and I have learned a great deal. If there is a certain view that is repeated by several QP's here then perhaps you should stop and ask yourself why. If you do not agree with them that's your choice, but you had better respect them. Anything else would be "uncivilized" from such a culturally sensitive person as you promote yourself to be.
Little Blurb in the back section of the FayOb this morning.
Training for the Repeal of DADT begins in Feb.
OK - just what type of training is required?
You active duty folks let me know when the "Gay"block shows up on the Admin forms so they came be counted - and then be promoted because they're gay - and not the better soldier.
I presented a convenient target for your ire because I also posted my opinion rather then only voting. Obviously others share a similar opinion, but have decided not to post.
You're not the only one. Reread the thread and you'll see.
How did DADT limit a homosexuals ability to serve? How will the changes from DADT to this new policy increase our ability to defend YOU civilians and MY family?
As I've said before, I can't speak for SF, but most of the ones I've met don't want there to be a chance that someone sees them doing things offduty and can use that the power to get them discharged for 'showing the propensity to commit homosexual acts.'
A small number probably want to be able to bring their 'partners' to military balls so they don't get lonely when they see everyone else with a date. It's human nature (in that conext :D.)
Happier people are generally more constructive people.
I stand by my original statement. The majority of the people signing on the dotted line will not be joining 'to make a flaming statement.'
The Reaper
01-29-2011, 09:36
The majority of the people signing on the dotted line will not be joining 'to make a flaming statement.'
What about the minority who do?
Commanders are charged with maintaining good order and discipline within the unit. This will represent a serious challenge, and IMHO, based on more than 25 years of service, will cause more problems than it solves.
TR
EX-Gold Falcon
01-29-2011, 19:26
Ex-GoldFalcon,
1. It is readily apparent that you do not agree with my post. That does not surprise me in the least, nor am I offended.
2. It is also quite clear that you value your opinions formed from four years in the Army much higher than those of us with 20 plus. I would think this is natural.
3. Last but not least you indicate that there must be dissent among our ranks as demonstrated by the poll.
These are the three main points I understood from your most recent post. If you can spare the time, I would like to respond:
1. As mentioned before by others wiser than I, it is not your acceptance that I seek, it is your consideration. Seems to me you are posting on PS.com only to transmit and are failing to receive. That is your choice as long as the ADMIN's and Moderators continue to find value in your contributions. Contributions I repeat, but unlike other sites, you do not have "Constitutionally protected" and "God given rights" to opine in this forum. You are a guest. Insulting this audience by referring to us as "Greenie Beanies" and then being offended when we do not respect your opinions is laughable, and very short sighted. It also hints of insecurity, among other issues.
2. You stated that your opinions were based on four years of carrying a DOD ID Card, as well as your civilian and professional development. Well of course they are! I would have it no other way. Woe be to those who saunter into our house and lecture us on right and wrong based on experiences and an education that is not theirs. Your ability to forecast social issues within the military culture is very intuitive and impressive with what,, only 4 years of hands on experience collected almost two decades ago? Who am I to think that my 20 plus years service at the platoon or ODA level would be able to offer any type of relevance when faced with such an impressive set of credentials such as yours. You also hint that in my 20 plus years of strict military service I have not had the opportunity to discuss social, cultural, or philosophical issues with anyone from the civilian sector, in particular those who have a different set of values and norms than mine, after all, when and where would a Green Beanie ever be required to do that? You doubt that I have ever had to form relationships with individuals who choose to accept homosexuality as a norm (middle east?), unlike your extensive civilian experiences of course. It's true, you may even assume I couldn't find civilization on a map with a lensatic. (That's Garmin for you civilians). I guess it must have been the fuzz from my Green Beanie that confused me. I am speechless, well not yet.
3. You assess that there is dissent amongst our ranks, as proven by the poll that both you and I took part in. Outside of the poll itself, what "Ranks" are you referring to? Many of the men on this site, QP and non alike have done a helluva lot more than simply carry an ID card for four years. You might be wise to respect that. So again I ask you, in what Rank will you and I ever find ourselves standing shoulder to shoulder if I COULD for a moment actually follow my lensatic (Garmin) and locate your civilized world where homosexuals act in a manner that make them "impossible to ignore"? (That doesn't sound civil at all,,?)
Now, back on topic: You claim that DADT has been around for 17 years. Very observant. My question to you, and I am interested to see if YOU can respond without re-posting someone else's article, how will "Openly Serving" in the military be defined? How did DADT limit a homosexuals ability to serve? How will the changes from DADT to this new policy increase our ability to defend YOU civilians and MY family? What VALUE does openly serving as a homosexual represent? You do remember the Army Values right? If you were a Commanding Officer, how would you propose to educate YOUR soldiers in a topic that undermines their "Constitutionally protected and God Given Right" to religious practice?
Help me understand your point of view by educating me, and I'll admit when I am wrong. We also need to agree that we are not lock step in the same "Rank" as that implies that you and I share the same hardships and successes. That could not be further from the truth. An open poll here does not join us at the hip. I for one avoid dirty laundry. Lets not refer to opinions here in PS.COM as "culturally accepted". We post honestly and above all ACCURATELY in this house. I have read many a great debate here and I have learned a great deal. If there is a certain view that is repeated by several QP's here then perhaps you should stop and ask yourself why. If you do not agree with them that's your choice, but you had better respect them. Anything else would be "uncivilized" from such a culturally sensitive person as you promote yourself to be.
My attempt to respond in a respectful & articulate manner has been unsuccessful.
Obviously this is an issue you feel very strongly about; judging by your 800 plus word personal-attack response.
Very well.
Sir, you are right and I was wrong.
I apologize.
T.
only[/b] voting. Obviously others share a similar opinion, but have decided not to post. Not surprising considering what happens to those who do not fully agree with PS.com's "culturally accepted" norm. Sir, please take a real good look at the poll results again. Appears there is dissent in the ranks and I'll bet money that this is a generational issue.....
EGF--
Maybe it isn't what you're saying but how you're saying it. Maybe others are not voicing their views on this topic in this thread because they already have in other threads. And maybe folks would be more willing to voice their views if you were less intent on being the cynosure.
As for your comment about "what happens to those who do not fully agree with PS.com's "culturally accepted" norm," I can only shake my head. If you were to pay attention, you would notice that there are many of us who do not agree with "the culturally accepted norm."
You might also notice that we speak our minds. Sometimes our views get traction, sometimes they don't. Sometimes, others are receptive to our dissenting views, sometimes not so much. In the case of the latter, we pick ourselves up, commiserate via PM, maybe play a little Farmville, watch some episodes of The Good Wife, drink some joe, gnosh on peanut M&Ms, do some self-righteous venting via PM, email, phone calls, and Facebook, regroup, clear the air with those we admire and respect, and get back into the swing of things.
Why? Because addressing the issues of the day successfully requires intellectual excellence. And that excellence requires heated, even contentious, debate.
My $0.02.
EX-Gold Falcon
01-29-2011, 20:33
EGF--
Maybe it isn't what you're saying but how you're saying it. Maybe others are not voicing their views on this topic in this thread because they already have in other threads. And maybe folks would be more willing to voice their views if you were less intent on being the cynosure.
As for your comment about "what happens to those who do not fully agree with PS.com's "culturally accepted" norm," I can only shake my head. If you were to pay attention, you would notice that there are many of us who do not agree with "the culturally accepted norm."
You might also notice that we speak our minds. Sometimes our views get traction, sometimes they don't. Sometimes, others are receptive to our dissenting views, sometimes not so much. In the case of the latter, we pick ourselves up, commiserate via PM, maybe play a little Farmville, watch some episodes of The Good Wife, drink some joe, gnosh on peanut M&Ms, do some self-righteous venting via PM, email, phone calls, and Facebook, regroup, clear the air with those we admire and respect, and get back into the swing of things.
Why? Because addressing the issues of the day successfully requires intellectual excellence. And that excellence requires heated, even contentious, debate.
My $0.02.
I've seen too often that it becomes a free-for-all "dog-pile" if someone disagrees.
I attempted to speak my mind/share my opinion and look at the personal attack I received.
Good points though, thank you.
T.
The Reaper
01-29-2011, 22:15
No one gets booted from here for disagreeing. You are free to disagree, and to state your opinion. You might even argue your case strongly, if you do so respectfully and logically.
Some may be banned for being disrespectful in their arguments. You are a guest here and this is blue02's house. Maintain your decorum and check the attitude.
As far as your comments, I think the point was made that with age, and promotions, come duties and responsibilities (and associated positions) that junior soldiers with only a single tour or two may not recognize, especially if they are already out and do not have to live with the consequences of the policy change.
This is not a dog pile. OTOH, you do seem to be expressing an opinion that is not widely shared here. If I wanted to stop you from expressing your opinion or to ban you, I would have already done so, and not spent time trying to explain the situation.
TR
EX-Gold Falcon
01-29-2011, 22:31
No one gets booted from here for disagreeing. You are free to disagree, and to state your opinion. You might even argue your case strongly, if you do so respectfully and logically.
Some may be banned for being disrespectful in their arguments. You are a guest here and this is blue02's house. Maintain your decorum and check the attitude.
As far as your comments, I think the point was made that with age, and promotions, come duties and responsibilities (and associated positions) that junior soldiers with only a single tour or two may not recognize, especially if they are already out and do not have to live with the consequences of the policy change.
This is not a dog pile. OTOH, you do seem to be expressing an opinion that is not widely shared here. If I wanted to stop you from expressing your opinion or to ban you, I would have already done so, and not spent time trying to explain the situation.
TR
It is not within my nature to simply roll over and show my belly.
And I have (perhaps not perfectly) attempted to articulate my posts/opinions in a respectful manner.
Regardless, message understood & thank you.
T.
T.
EGF--
Maybe it isn't what you're saying but how you're saying it. Maybe others are not voicing their views on this topic in this thread because they already have in other threads. And maybe folks would be more willing to voice their views if you were less intent on being the cynosure.
As for your comment about "what happens to those who do not fully agree with PS.com's "culturally accepted" norm," I can only shake my head. If you were to pay attention, you would notice that there are many of us who do not agree with "the culturally accepted norm."
You might also notice that we speak our minds. Sometimes our views get traction, sometimes they don't. Sometimes, others are receptive to our dissenting views, sometimes not so much. In the case of the latter, we pick ourselves up, commiserate via PM, maybe play a little Farmville, watch some episodes of The Good Wife, drink some joe, gnosh on peanut M&Ms, do some self-righteous venting via PM, email, phone calls, and Facebook, regroup, clear the air with those we admire and respect, and get back into the swing of things.
Why? Because addressing the issues of the day successfully requires intellectual excellence. And that excellence requires heated, even contentious, debate.
My $0.02.
and for someone who agrees and dis-agrees with many here, PS.com allows me to be me, but not in a DADT sort of way, that would be weird.
EGF - tell us more, comments are welcomed.
Nice post blue02h...
I assumed QP's unique fundamental asset is their ability to assimilate, work, live, train, get along with, and fight with persons from every background, field condition, and culture on earth, effectively. Aside from the clumsy definition, did I miss something?
Can't imagine how someone openly flaunting a behavior that is against every fiber of most cultures around the world would benefit anyone. Sounds more dangerous to this civi than a tat on the forehead, and about as smart...
IMHO
bailaviborita
01-30-2011, 20:32
I think our allies' experiences and differences might be valuable to note:
1) all of the Brit and Aussie soldiers I've talked to say that most of their gays- especially in combat arms- continue to serve in the closet due to the continued stigma in their society of being gay and the challenge that serving openly presents to bonding at the small unit level and combat arms units.
2) the biggest problem they uniformly admit to having is with predatory lesbians. Lesbians who hold the rank of E-4 mainly- but also just the rank-and-file- will gang up or put enormous pressure on newly-assigned "fresh meat" privates. Their biggest success against this problem is to bring in female officers and female senior NCOs to address the issue because they are protected by the PC crowd- unlike heterosexual males- who are immediately suspected of being anti-gay.
3) they do not live on huge bases with many/most soldiers living in on-base housing and worshiping in on-base churches.
4) they do not have huge political fights in their nations on gay issues to include gay marriage (their populations have pretty much agreed to treating gays in a certain legal manner).
5) they do not have a litigious society like ours and an EO/Diversity climate that requires training/time/sensitivity to the lowest common denominator on what is offensive.
6) they do not have a large number- if not a majority- of their soldiers identifying themselves as evangelical christians or conservative christians. For the most part many of our allies have agnostic or athiest-leaning majorities or sufficient numbers of non-religious folk for whom sexual practices in general are not a big issue (thus you'll still see many of our allies' still glorify the sexual "hunt" and sexual innuendo as opposed to our overly-offended culture and paladin-type existence while deployed (no alcohol, porn, or sex).
7) the German soldiers I've talked to say that serving with transexuals is... interesting. But, again, they don't have to associate with them- or with gays- after hours unless they want to. Military life for most of our allies is very different than ours.
So, taking all of this into account I'd conclude a few things:
1- most of our gays will stay in the closet or at least won't be flamers, and thus for the majority of our units things will be fine
2- a few units will have major headaches and there will be horror stories for good officers and NCOs who get caught up in a Twilight Zone incident wherein nothing they could have done would have kept them from not getting screwed over by the PC system
3- we will have to get proactive and set-up informal systems with female leaders to address "predatory lesbian" incidents
4- this WILL- contrary to popular opinion and our own military leaders' statements- have a detrimental effect that will take time away from training. The best we can do is to attempt to minimize the damage it does to our units by being proactive and taking initiative.
5- we need to get ready for on-base housing and counseling of chaplains to let homosexuals into their on-base churches. I personally think DoD should just go ahead and house everyone off-base like our allies do for the most part. I don't know how we'll handle the barracks situation, though.
6- I have no idea how to be proactive on the transexual thing- but I think that is coming too. Maybe have a policy that you can only dress and act based on what organs you have- and if you have a problem with that then you're out...?? Luckily our health care system still classifies it as a mental disorder- but I have heard that VA will give them hormone pills and counseling currently...
7- we need to go back to being warriors somehow and not sexually-frustrated, tee-totalling, hyper-sensitive wimps. My only idea on this is to cut our tooth to tail ratio so that there is more tooth- but we are so full of "tail" right now that it might be politically unfeasible.
8- we need to figure out a way to get away from having on-base worship and/or chaplains altogether. Would like opinions on this from others- but it seems to me that this is going to run into a legal fight soon- especially if baptist chaplains and the like refuse to serve openly gay soldiers in their churches on-base. Do we really want chaplains to play the role they do today in the future? I don't know. But the days of having a corps or army chaplain pray for good weather before a battle are gone IMO (a culture of the majority being strong believers).
It will be interesting if, 5 years from now, there are very few openly gay soldiers serving and Congress decides that it is the military's fault and demands the military change that (or a lawsuit forces it). Again, our allies don't seem to have the political pressure of FORCING equality- they just try to establish equal opportunity. We, on the other hand, have a penchant for trying to make equality happen- and if there isn't equality we blame the system and try to change it with affirmative action and other "feel-good" programs that usually have unintended negative consequences.
EX-Gold Falcon
01-30-2011, 22:17
Well said, Sigaba!
Speaking as both a non-QP (obviously) and a non-military person I have been shot down many many times on this board, sometimes not so nicely. Your ability to remember this isn't facebook ,and you have to play within a set of rules actually, in my opinion, raises your overall "discussion" skills.
There is a difference between being "shot down" and personal attacks.
I do not have a facebook page.
And I will review your advice concerning discussion skills...
T.
blue02hd
01-30-2011, 22:38
PM Sent
There is a difference between being "shot down" and personal attacks.
T.
Your profile used to say "Enough Self-Confidence to Admit That I Was Just a Paratrooper and Not a Green-Beanie (paraphrased)".
That connotes an antagonistic stance, and I look at all your posts from a wary perspective because of it; in my opinion you could easily be just a simple troll with an agenda as opposed to a true intellectual jouster in the vein of sigaba or normal550girl.
Changing your profile is ineffective, IMO, like farting in the truck and pointing at the dog.
greenberetTFS
01-31-2011, 06:29
Your profile used to say "Enough Self-Confidence to Admit That I Was Just a Paratrooper and Not a Green-Beanie (paraphrased)".
That connotes an antagonistic stance, and I look at all your posts from a wary perspective because of it; in my opinion you could easily be just a simple troll with an agenda as opposed to a true intellectual jouster in the vein of sigaba or normal550girl.
Changing your profile is ineffective, IMO, like farting in the truck and pointing at the dog.
I agree with Dusty 110%!........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Changing your profile is ineffective, IMO, like farting in the truck and pointing at the dog.
LOL Dusty! You sure you don't live around here?
I'm Guilty, though my dog usually gives me away...
17782
:D
EX-Gold Falcon
01-31-2011, 23:24
Your profile used to say "Enough Self-Confidence to Admit That I Was Just a Paratrooper and Not a Green-Beanie (paraphrased)".
That connotes an antagonistic stance, and I look at all your posts from a wary perspective because of it; in my opinion you could easily be just a simple troll with an agenda as opposed to a true intellectual jouster in the vein of sigaba or normal550girl.
Changing your profile is ineffective, IMO, like farting in the truck and pointing at the dog.
7 years ago before I fully realized ps.com is the read deal.
172 posts in 7 years. I don't post for the sake of it and I certainly do not post without thought. Okay, well maybe in the beginning. (apologies Mr. R)
I unabashedly admit to having a centrist political opinion. He!!, I'm a registered Independent.
From my perspective (civilian so perhaps flawed) PS.com has gone further and further to the right every year. At times in the past year, it felt like a Glenn Beck Lovefest, with Sarah P. conducting the Tea service...
Twice in the past year I've defended an opinion that was counter to the majority. If my arguments were incoherent or disrepectful, then please tell me.
Antagonistic? Never my intention. No bs.
T.
EX-Gold Falcon
01-31-2011, 23:34
Geez, this isn't rocket science. You came in, and apparently attempted a joke. No one knows you. No one knows your sense of humor. You didn't know enough to use pink for jokes and sarcasm. So you apologize, say you meant it as a joke and move the f%*k on.
You are in the QPs house. No one needs to make sure your feelings aren't hurt.
The best part of being on this forum is that you can totally screw up, say you're sorry and it's no harm, no foul.
sheesh, Ex-Falcon suck it up. I do and I'm a girl!
Least I wasn't the one who needed backup to convince my mommy & daddy to not take a trip, Counselor...
Antagonistic? Never my intention. No bs.
Least I wasn't the one who needed backup to convince my mommy & daddy to not take a trip, Counselor...IMO, you're trying to have it both ways.
IMO, you're trying to have it both ways.Now THAT ties into the DADT thread very well...
Least I wasn't the one who needed backup to convince my mommy & daddy to not take a trip, Counselor...
I think either of you bashing the other in the QP's house is not a good idea.
Now THAT ties into the DADT thread very well...The crack writing team has been working overtime getting ready for February sweeps.
Eagle5US
02-01-2011, 00:38
suck it up. I do and I'm a girl!
I really, REALLY like this quote...especially being single:cool:
Eagle:D
7 years ago before I fully realized ps.com is the read deal.
172 posts in 7 years. I don't post for the sake of it and I certainly do not post without thought. Okay, well maybe in the beginning. (apologies Mr. R)
A. From my perspective (civilian so perhaps flawed) PS.com has gone further and further to the right every year.
B. If my arguments were incoherent or disrepectful, then please tell me.
T.
A. The failure of the policies of the left are becoming clearer to rational thinkers everywhere as time passes; it's not isolated to this BB.
B. Your arguments are like the irritant that causes a pearl to form.
Hey man, it's a gene pool thing...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
:D
Hey man, it's a gene pool thing...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
:D
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=369535
From my perspective (civilian so perhaps flawed) PS.com has gone further and further to the right every year. At times in the past year, it felt like a Glenn Beck Lovefest, with Sarah P. conducting the Tea service...
You're free to leave the lovefest whenever you (or we) want, unlike the soldiers that completely disagree at a moral level with the homosexual lifestyle and yet will have to literally live with it.
Gay Numbers Won't Be Tracked
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,226620,00.html
There are a number of interesting statement in this article.
First - ".......Sexual orientation is to be "a personal and private matter" under new DoD policy guidelines set to prepare for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.
Even attempting to collect such data will be banned............"
And - "......All members are to be tutored on how the law allows homosexuals to serve openly and on how all ranks are to accept this without discrimination or harassment..........."
Then - ".......The policy memo Stanley signed Jan. 28 notes that sexual orientation "will not be considered along with race, color, religion, sex and national origin as a class under the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) program and therefore will not be dealt with through the MEO complaint process."............"
Then again - "......Sexual orientation, they said, shouldn't be a factor in recruiting, promotion or any personnel decision-making. Advancement or selection boards won't be told to meet gay quotas, for example. Complaints "of discrimination, harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation can be dealt with through existing mechanisms," primarily the chain of command."............"
And on rooming - "......Commands that exercise that wild-card authority on billeting, "without a good basis for it," Fidell said, will "take some heat. Somebody will make a phone call and, before you know it, someone would look into it."....."
A policy changes when the next Policy Letter is written.
We'll see how long the new policies as noted about stay "Policy".
bailaviborita
02-13-2011, 21:14
Gay Numbers Won't Be Tracked
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,226620,00.html
There are a number of interesting statement in this article.
First - ".......Sexual orientation is to be "a personal and private matter" under new DoD policy guidelines set to prepare for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.
Even attempting to collect such data will be banned............"
And - "......All members are to be tutored on how the law allows homosexuals to serve openly and on how all ranks are to accept this without discrimination or harassment..........."
Then - ".......The policy memo Stanley signed Jan. 28 notes that sexual orientation "will not be considered along with race, color, religion, sex and national origin as a class under the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) program and therefore will not be dealt with through the MEO complaint process."............"
Then again - "......Sexual orientation, they said, shouldn't be a factor in recruiting, promotion or any personnel decision-making. Advancement or selection boards won't be told to meet gay quotas, for example. Complaints "of discrimination, harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation can be dealt with through existing mechanisms," primarily the chain of command."............"
And on rooming - "......Commands that exercise that wild-card authority on billeting, "without a good basis for it," Fidell said, will "take some heat. Somebody will make a phone call and, before you know it, someone would look into it."....."
A policy changes when the next Policy Letter is written.
We'll see how long the new policies as noted about stay "Policy".
Yeah- gay numbers won't be tracked until a few Congressmen hide a requirement to report to them on the progress of gays in the military in a spending bill...
1stindoor
02-14-2011, 09:41
You missed this key quote as well...
The policy papers confirm that many benefit questions surrounding gay service members, such as whether partners will qualify for military health care or whether married gay members will get the higher "with dependents" housing allowance are settled by the Defense of Marriage Act. That law prohibits extension of many federal benefits to same-sex couples including housing allowances, health care and travel reimbursements
Of course that "law" is only in effect until someone makes a federal case out of their "disenfranchised spouse"."
You missed this key quote as well...
The policy papers confirm that many benefit questions surrounding gay service members, such as whether partners will qualify for military health care or whether married gay members will get the higher "with dependents" housing allowance are settled by the Defense of Marriage Act. That law prohibits extension of many federal benefits to same-sex couples including housing allowances, health care and travel reimbursements
Of course that "law" is only in effect until someone makes a federal case out of their "disenfranchised spouse"."
Clearly that law does not transfer to other Federal Agencies. DOS recognizes "domestic partners".
Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/combat-troops-to-get-gay-sensitivity-training/
"American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday.
The Pentagon is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units......"
Gotta' focus on whats important.......
And for anyone who thought LTG Kennedy's COO training was a pain in the @$$...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Raine_n_Roses
02-25-2011, 10:10
geez and people thought having us females in the military was going to be rough.
1stindoor
02-25-2011, 12:40
geez and people thought having us females in the military was going to be rough.
OMG!...You're a female?
I personally feel that things are going to get worse as the "training" works it's way through the units.
This experiment is just an extension of multi-culturalism, and will fail.
Raine_n_Roses
02-25-2011, 13:19
OMG!...You're a female?
I personally feel that things are going to get worse as the "training" works it's way through the units.
Yes it will. And agree with Dusty.
This experiment is just an extension of multi-culturalism, and will fail.
Depends on who's view of failed or not is used.
Depends on who's view of failed or not is used.
In keeping in line with the OP, mine.
Depends on who's view of failed or not is used.I think the political calculation being made by the current administration is that while allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly may give many in the armed forces reason to reconsider their careers, there will be enough Americans as capable and as dedicated to take their places.
Will the risk prove worth the reward?
Blitzzz (RIP)
02-26-2011, 20:55
I think the political calculation being made by the current administration is that while allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly may give many in the armed forces reason to reconsider their careers, there will be enough Americans as capable and as dedicated to take their places.
Will the risk prove worth the reward?
What reward?
"there will be enough Americans as capable and as dedicated to take their places."
Sounds like a wishful assumption..,doubtful in our line of work.
Peregrino
02-26-2011, 22:09
Moot point now. The three part DADT chain teaching plan starts next week. Implementing instructions to follow.
Sailor says Navy punishing him for sleepover with male sailor
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/05/sailor.sleepover/index.html?hpt=T2
"(CNN) -- A sailor is accusing the Navy of baselessly trying to discharge him for "unprofessional conduct" in an effort to get around the recent "don't ask, don't tell" repeal, after being found asleep in the same bed with another male sailor......... '
Sleepovers in the barracks, Oh my.
You have to read the whole story slowly before you comment.
But the bottom line is the other sailor took the Captain's Mast and drove on. The focus of the story refused the Captain's Mast and is trying to tie the actions to DADT repeal.
"And so it begins" begins to pick up speed.
What reward?As the current president does not, IMO, give a damn about this issue one way or another, I think the reward the administration has in mind is re-election.Sounds like a wishful assumption..,doubtful in our line of work.Ready or not, I think we as a country are going to find out if the assumption is valid.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
03-06-2011, 17:02
Not much. ... :rolleyes:
C'mon people-we're evolving...
http://www.diversitylane.com/images/samples/diversitylane_summer.jpg
Magazine launch for gay military members announced
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/03/28/gay.military.magazine/index.html#
"..............."We are not about highlighting our differences." Smith said the goal of the publication is to demonstrate "how LGBT troops are proud soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coasties, and Marines just like everyone else."
The magazine will contain features about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal implementation and OutServe chapters, as well as other information of interest to currently-serving LGBT military members, the statement said......"
Coming soon to a BX/PX near you.
Coming soon to a BX/PX near you.
Yeah...AMC and AAFES are already on it. :D
Left to right: Signal Corps, Unassigned, Artillery, Infantry.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
03-28-2011, 11:00
Magazine launch for gay military members announced
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/03/28/gay.military.magazine/index.html#
"..............."We are not about highlighting our differences." Smith said the goal of the publication is to demonstrate "how LGBT troops are proud soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coasties, and Marines just like everyone else."
The magazine will contain features about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repeal implementation and OutServe chapters, as well as other information of interest to currently-serving LGBT military members, the statement said......"
Coming soon to a BX/PX near you.
Great, will probably have a circulation of, well, much less than they would like.
Of course, the failure of the magazine will probably be attributed to homophobes.
TR
Great, will probably have a circulation of, well, much less than they would like. Of course, the failure of the magazine will probably be attributed to homophobes.
Maybe it'll just be a lousy magazine...but that hasn't stopped the likes of Mother Jones or People from making $$. ;)
Richard :munchin
Blitzzz (RIP)
03-28-2011, 12:02
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzzz View Post
What reward?
"As the current president does not, IMO, give a damn about this issue one way or another, I think the reward the administration has in mind is re-election."
True, most likely his only myopic view of his existence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzzz View Post
Sounds like a wishful assumption..,doubtful in our line of work.
Ready or not, I think we as a country are going to find out if the assumption is valid.
__________________
It is a sad irony that we have more media coverage than ever, but less understanding or real debate.
Sig, I admit I may not be as Verbose as you may require. Your reference to My comment didn't quit make the point.. Noted in green. Long time no talkee! Dave.
1stindoor
03-28-2011, 12:03
Yeah...AMC and AAFES are already on it. :D
Richard :munchin
I nearly choked on my coffee...OH DEAR GAWD....where did you find that pic?
Yeah...AMC and AAFES are already on it. :D
Left to right: Signal Corps, Unassigned, Artillery, Infantry.
Richard :munchin
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
You on a roll. Damn sho is.:D
greenberetTFS
03-28-2011, 13:46
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
You on a roll. Damn sho is.:D
"Haha, you funny Petersan!".............;)
Big Teddy :munchin