Booster4324 Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 You guys are idiots, if you can't see that that was a joke then I don't know what to tell ya. It's one thing for Conner not to get it, because, well, he's a moron, but Booster?? Sorry,
UConn James Posted December 21, 2010 Author Posted December 21, 2010 Military will write the rules on repeal of gay ban WASHINGTON – No public displays of affection. No separate bathrooms. No harassment and no special treatment. As the U.S. military begins to map out how it will implement the new edict allowing gays to serve openly, the first order of business is drafting the regulations. The rule changes under discussion won't dictate how troops feel about the change, but will strictly enforce how they act on it.... Recommendations to implement the repeal were outlined in a 67-page report last month, and now must be formed into concrete regulations. Defense officials said Monday that they still don't know how long it will take before the Pentagon completes its implementation plan and certifies the change will not damage combat readiness. Once certified, the implementation would begin 60 days later. ... Aaron Belkin, center director, said it took just 40 days to train the force when the don't ask, don't tell policy was implemented under President Bill Clinton in 1993-94. The Pentagon, Belkin said, can train the entire force rapidly, even those in combat zones.
OCinBuffalo Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 I am glad that they got this done now, rather than it hanging around continuing to cause trouble. This is what the majority of people want, so be it. Now, the job will be to minimize the impact. There is no "bang for the buck" argument here. This costs money and time, there is no upside in this regard. Hopefully this will go smooth. Hopefully it will be over quickly. I don't think it will, which is why I wanted a more gradual process, but that ship has sailed. We have to trust the politicians, the X. Benedicts, and the Lady Gaga's of the world, who say this will be no big deal. They better hope it isn't, or there will be a heavy political price to pay, never mind the price X will pay on this board And, 40 days is patently ridiculous. When will liberals ever learn: when you win, consolidate, don't overreach. It's a simple concept.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 And, 40 days is patently ridiculous. When will liberals ever learn: when you win, consolidate, don't overreach. It's a simple concept. I read that, and the first thing I said to myself is "What axe is Belkin grinding?" Given that the Palm Center is specifically dedicated to supporting "sexual minorities in the military", his is hardly an balanced view. He's also a bit of an idiot, it seems. Enough so that his "40 days" statement was apparently removed from the article.
pBills Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Got to love this moron: Virginia Delegate: No Gays in National Guard By Advocate.com Editors Rob Marshall The U.S. Senate voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” over the weekend, but a Virginia delegate wants the ban against gays and lesbians serving openly to stay in place for his state’s National Guard. According to the Free-Lance Star, Del. Rob Marshall of Prince William County, who may be interested in the seat of U.S. Senator Jim Webb, plans to introduce legislation in the 2011 General Assembly that would make the discriminatory policy the rule in the Virginia National Guard. ”In a written statement, Marshall, a conservative Republican who was the sponsor of the bill that banned gay marriage in Virginia, said allowing openly gay people to serve in the military ‘will weaken military recruitment and retention, and will increase pressure for a military draft. “‘After 232 years of prohibiting active, open homosexuals from enlisting in our military, President Obama and a majority in Congress are conducting a social experiment with our troops and our national security," he said.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Got to love this moron: Virginia Delegate: No Gays in National Guard By Advocate.com Editors Rob Marshall The U.S. Senate voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” over the weekend, but a Virginia delegate wants the ban against gays and lesbians serving openly to stay in place for his state’s National Guard. According to the Free-Lance Star, Del. Rob Marshall of Prince William County, who may be interested in the seat of U.S. Senator Jim Webb, plans to introduce legislation in the 2011 General Assembly that would make the discriminatory policy the rule in the Virginia National Guard. ”In a written statement, Marshall, a conservative Republican who was the sponsor of the bill that banned gay marriage in Virginia, said allowing openly gay people to serve in the military ‘will weaken military recruitment and retention, and will increase pressure for a military draft. “‘After 232 years of prohibiting active, open homosexuals from enlisting in our military, President Obama and a majority in Congress are conducting a social experiment with our troops and our national security," he said. Coincidentally, Webb had some very insightful and penetrating (no pun intended) observations on gays in the military on WTOP last week. One that stuck in my mind was "The issue isn't whether or not gays can serve in the military, they already are." So I'd like to wish Marshall the best of luck trying to prevent something that's already happening... ...oh, wait, my bad. He only wants to prevent openly gay people from serving. Closeted gays are okay (because the Republican mantra apparently isn't "don't be gay", it's "don't get caught"). He just wants to discriminate against The Village People and Ellen Degeneris. You're right...he's a moron.
GG Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 He just wants to discriminate against The Village People and Ellen Degeneris. You're right...he's a moron. Not all Village People were gay. They just played gay on TV.
KD in CA Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Allow gay marriage, and it will go away as an issue. Don't worry connor, some day you and your boyfriend will both be allowed to wear white on your special day.
UConn James Posted December 21, 2010 Author Posted December 21, 2010 I am glad that they got this done now, rather than it hanging around continuing to cause trouble. This is what the majority of people want, so be it. Now, the job will be to minimize the impact. There is no "bang for the buck" argument here. This costs money and time, there is no upside in this regard. Hopefully this will go smooth. Hopefully it will be over quickly. I don't think it will, which is why I wanted a more gradual process, but that ship has sailed. We have to trust the politicians, the X. Benedicts, and the Lady Gaga's of the world, who say this will be no big deal. They better hope it isn't, or there will be a heavy political price to pay, never mind the price X will pay on this board And, 40 days is patently ridiculous. When will liberals ever learn: when you win, consolidate, don't overreach. It's a simple concept. And persecuting prosecuting gays/lesbians doesn't cost money and time? Nevermind this getting rid of a sizable loophole that some people use to duck out of their service contracts. I know someone who got a meteorology degree on the AF dime, said he was gay, and now he's on TV making good coin. All that training costs money, too, and it's lost if/when someone does take this cop-out. No more excuses once that service agreement is signed. I rolled my eyes about the 40 days thing, too. But it doesn't have to take years to phase most of this in.
Adam Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 I am glad that they got this done now, rather than it hanging around continuing to cause trouble. This is what the majority of people want, so be it. Now, the job will be to minimize the impact. There is no "bang for the buck" argument here. This costs money and time, there is no upside in this regard. Hopefully this will go smooth. Hopefully it will be over quickly. I don't think it will, which is why I wanted a more gradual process, but that ship has sailed. We have to trust the politicians, the X. Benedicts, and the Lady Gaga's of the world, who say this will be no big deal. They better hope it isn't, or there will be a heavy political price to pay, never mind the price X will pay on this board And, 40 days is patently ridiculous. When will liberals ever learn: when you win, consolidate, don't overreach. It's a simple concept. It might be a big deal for awhile- which is why it might be a good idea to exempt to ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. It will cause logistical problems for housing, but those will be overcome in time. As far as the problems it will cause on the battlefield......anyone who has a problem with that, shouldn't even be on the battlefield, as they obviously lack the mental toughness. Our soldiers are among the most courageous people in the world and saying that sexual orientation would affect how you fight a war is ludicrous.
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 It might be a big deal for awhile- which is why it might be a good idea to exempt to ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. It will cause logistical problems for housing, but those will be overcome in time. You're presuming new policies will be implemented in one monolithic DoD-wide swath. They could as easily stage the policies in by command, unit, or theater. As far as the problems it will cause on the battlefield......anyone who has a problem with that, shouldn't even be on the battlefield, as they obviously lack the mental toughness. Our soldiers are among the most courageous people in the world and saying that sexual orientation would affect how you fight a war is ludicrous. Like Sen. Webb said: they're already there. The change in policies is significant (just because the military moves at the speed of bureaucracy). The change in attitudes, less so. But on the other hand..."our soldiers" aren't universally angels. Considering that you've got !@#$s like the Stryker Dozen that went sport-hunting Afghan civilians...I'm pretty sure there's enough ****heads in the military to affect how the military might approach a theater of war with openly gay soldiers involved.
PastaJoe Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 Don't worry connor, some day you and your boyfriend will both be allowed to wear white on your special day. What color did your boyfriend have to wear?
UConn James Posted October 16, 2011 Author Posted October 16, 2011 Active duty gays say coming out has been A nonevent Each of the 200 or so sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen attending the conference put on by the formerly clandestine group known as OutServe had, to varying degrees, only recently revealed their sexual orientations at work. None had gotten a reaction worse than a shrug. "Out of the 4,500 members we have, we haven't had any person come to us about one single problem, which is huge, because right before repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' we had tons of problems," like investigations and other issues relayed to the Pentagon, said Air Force 1st Lt. Josh Seefried, the group's co-founder. "But right now, after Sept. 20, there is nothing to relay because everything has been 100 percent positive."
Recommended Posts