PDA

View Full Version : "the Real Poll: 91% Of Military Reject Homosexual Leaders, 25% Would Quit."



megimoo
11-30-2010, 11:57 PM
THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT

Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt just read the full Pentagon report on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and here's his analysis:

"Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:

Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance.

Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.

Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence].

Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)

Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)

Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact...9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.

Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.

Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18210&posts=1#M46527

djones520
11-30-2010, 11:59 PM
I don't remember that question.

Jfor
12-01-2010, 12:01 PM
Maybe this is the libs way of reducing the size of the military?

noonwitch
12-01-2010, 12:52 PM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.

Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?

I respect D. Jones' opinion on this matter: that allowing gays to serve openly is going to happen, that the important thing is how that policy is implemented-the best way to do it without drama and disruption. As he's actually currently an active service member, he's the one who's got to live with whatever policy comes out of all this.

lacarnut
12-01-2010, 01:51 PM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.



The Chaplain did not conduct the poll. All he is doing is interpreting it. With the exception of the military, showering with others does not happen within 99% of workplaces in the private and governmental sector that I am aware of.

Jfor
12-01-2010, 02:18 PM
The Chaplain did not conduct the poll. All he is doing is interpreting it. With the exception of the military, showering with others does not happen within 99% of workplaces in the private and governmental sector that I am aware of.

And you don't have to live with them either.

Odysseus
12-01-2010, 03:03 PM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.

The chaplain did not conduct a poll, he is analyzing the poll that the DOD conducted, and which the media is distorting.


Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?

As I have repeatedly said before, the military is not like any other workplace. No other job requires personnel to deploy for months or years, live in common housing and even shower together. The comparison falls apart when you take these factors into account. Even those militaries which claim to have successfully integrated gays do not do the kinds of long deployments that we do.


I respect D. Jones' opinion on this matter: that allowing gays to serve openly is going to happen, that the important thing is how that policy is implemented-the best way to do it without drama and disruption. As he's actually currently an active service member, he's the one who's got to live with whatever policy comes out of all this.

D. Jones and I are both on active duty. Is my opinion. that it will have serious negative consequences and should not be repealed, any less worthy of respect?

AmPat
12-01-2010, 04:33 PM
Why don't we all quit? Afterall, the libs and gays believe they are essential and indispensible to the armed services. That should allow more openings for the millions of gays who so badly desire to serve their country in the military. I for one will sleep peaceably at night knowing that we are being guarded by our most sensitive population.

Odysseus
12-01-2010, 05:32 PM
Why don't we all quit? Afterall, the libs and gays believe they are essential and indispensible to the armed services. That should allow more openings for the millions of gays who so badly desire to serve their country in the military. I for one will sleep peaceably at night knowing that we are being guarded by our most sensitive population.

Because if we do that, then Obama gets the armed forces that he wants, one purged of people who don't share the progressive mindset. Right now, the leftists know that they cannot take certain actions, no matter how powerful they get in Washington, because we are committed to our oaths and will not tolerate outright tyranny. The military would not be willing to embark on gun confiscation, for example, and not only would such an order not be obeyed, but those who gave it would soon find themselves without any armed support in the event of civilian opposition. But, eliminate the core of the military, the members who believe in the values of Constitutional law, civic order and traditional family, and what's left but a force that can be gradually manipulated into becoming just another group of government employees? That's what Obama and the rest of the left want, to purge those who stand in the way of their agenda.

AmPat
12-01-2010, 06:00 PM
Sorry for the confusion, I left out the :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
12-01-2010, 06:12 PM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.

Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?

I respect D. Jones' opinion on this matter: that allowing gays to serve openly is going to happen, that the important thing is how that policy is implemented-the best way to do it without drama and disruption. As he's actually currently an active service member, he's the one who's got to live with whatever policy comes out of all this.

Actually it is not a different poll, it is the exact SAME poll the media used. The difference is that the "mixed" feelings get lumped with the Pro-DADT side in one interpretation and with the ANTI-DADT side in the other.

Mixed feelings to me shows that they feel it is less than the optimal policy to do away with it. I don't believe that our military should be governed by ANYTHING other than what is the absolute optimal policy to take. It is not a good place for social experimentation.

lacarnut
12-01-2010, 07:21 PM
As I have repeatedly said before, the military is not like any other workplace. No other job requires personnel to deploy for months or years, live in common housing and even shower together. The comparison falls apart when you take these factors into account. Even those militaries which claim to have successfully integrated gays do not do the kinds of long deployments that we do.



D. Jones and I are both on active duty. Is my opinion. that it will have serious negative consequences and should not be repealed, any less worthy of respect?

I would use stronger language than negative. It would be catastrophic. It has been many years since I was in the Army but anyone making advances toward me showering or living in a bunk two feet away would have suffered serious consequences. Noonwitch has probably never heard of a blanket party. Catch the fag sleeping, throw a blanket over his head and several soldiers pound the piss out of him. No witness and a trip to the infirmary. That will be the order of the day if the present policy is ditched.

Madisonian
12-01-2010, 07:37 PM
Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?


Actually if you read Federal employment discrimination statutes, sexual preference (or sexual orientation or gender identity or whatever the current PC phrase is) is not covered except in limited federal employment situations. Michigan also does not recognize same as a protected class.

So if I am Jewish and own a business, I could not refuse to hire a Muslim touting "Death To Israel" and "The Holocaust Never Happened" badges, but I could refuse to hire Rosie O'Donnell because she is GLBTABCDEFG.

BadCat
12-01-2010, 07:48 PM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.

Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?

I respect D. Jones' opinion on this matter: that allowing gays to serve openly is going to happen, that the important thing is how that policy is implemented-the best way to do it without drama and disruption. As he's actually currently an active service member, he's the one who's got to live with whatever policy comes out of all this.

Because they are sick, deviant little fucks who should not even be allowed out in public, much less in the role of defending our country.

djones520
12-01-2010, 09:34 PM
I do like how the ex-Chaplain inferred there would be violence when there wasn't anything of the sort talked about that in the survey.

Now I feel that 30% saying there would be problems is still a big enough margin for us to say hold on, lets reevaluate this, but sensationalism like this shouldn't be necessary.

And for the record, people like the above poster are exactly why I feel it shouldn't be repealled yet. We need to get bigots like them out first.

CueSi
12-01-2010, 09:40 PM
I do like how the ex-Chaplain inferred there would be violence when there wasn't anything of the sort talked about that in the survey.

Now I feel that 30% saying there would be problems is still a big enough margin for us to say hold on, lets reevaluate this, but sensationalism like this shouldn't be necessary.

And for the record, people like the above poster are exactly why I feel it shouldn't be repealled yet. We need to get bigots like them out first.

Good Answer, Good Answer....

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080714/game-shows/Family-Feud_l.jpg

~QC

Kay
12-01-2010, 09:57 PM
Because they are sick, deviant little fucks who should not even be allowed out in public, much less in the role of defending our country.

I'd say that just about sums it up.

CueSi
12-01-2010, 11:06 PM
I'd say that just about sums it up.

really...okay.

~QC

noonwitch
12-02-2010, 08:55 AM
Because they are sick, deviant little fucks who should not even be allowed out in public, much less in the role of defending our country.



Maybe you can put them in camps.

megimoo
12-02-2010, 09:19 AM
Maybe you can put them in camps.Ship them all to Warren
and you can play house with them .

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 10:08 AM
I would use stronger language than negative. It would be catastrophic. It has been many years since I was in the Army but anyone making advances toward me showering or living in a bunk two feet away would have suffered serious consequences. Noonwitch has probably never heard of a blanket party. Catch the fag sleeping, throw a blanket over his head and several soldiers pound the piss out of him. No witness and a trip to the infirmary. That will be the order of the day if the present policy is ditched.
The first time that happens, there will be a massive outcry from the activists, and we will end up with quarterly gay-tolerance briefing requirements. I just put in my packet for the BN Command board, and I can't wait to stand in front of a roomful of troopies and publish my GLBT-tolerance policy. Who knows, maybe after the gay-pride lecture, the POSH classes, the Prevention of Sexual Assault skits and the Master Resiliency Training, we might just have a few minutes left at the end of the training day to think about our wartime mission, as long as that doesn't upset anyone. :rolleyes:

Actually if you read Federal employment discrimination statutes, sexual preference (or sexual orientation or gender identity or whatever the current PC phrase is) is not covered except in limited federal employment situations. Michigan also does not recognize same as a protected class.

So if I am Jewish and own a business, I could not refuse to hire a Muslim touting "Death To Israel" and "The Holocaust Never Happened" badges, but I could refuse to hire Rosie O'Donnell because she is GLBTABCDEFG.
You put in G twice.

Once DADT is lifted, gays will have to be a protected class within the military in order to prevent the kind of incidents described above.

I do like how the ex-Chaplain inferred there would be violence when there wasn't anything of the sort talked about that in the survey.

Now I feel that 30% saying there would be problems is still a big enough margin for us to say hold on, lets reevaluate this, but sensationalism like this shouldn't be necessary.

And for the record, people like the above poster are exactly why I feel it shouldn't be repealled yet. We need to get bigots like them out first.
The problem is that anyone who feels the least bit of discomfort around gays in close quarters will be denounced as a bigot and purged. Don't like showering with an openly gay Soldier? Get it together, troop! No place for that attitude in today's army. Sign this counseling statement and report for additional EO training. :rolleyes:

Teddy Kennedy
12-02-2010, 10:19 AM
Ship them all to Warren
and you can play house with them .

Snort. Works for me, that or camps.

I'm damn tired of faggots demanding we accept their deviance as normal.

AmPat
12-02-2010, 01:28 PM
The problem is that anyone who feels the least bit of discomfort around gays in close quarters will be denounced as a bigot and purged. Don't like showering with an openly gay Soldier? Get it together, troop! No place for that attitude in today's army. Sign this counseling statement and report for additional EO training. :rolleyes:

But Sarge, he had an ERECTION!:eek:

namvet
12-02-2010, 05:06 PM
so much easier in my war. we just threw the fuckers over the side. shark bait

Madisonian
12-02-2010, 05:13 PM
You put in G twice.


Have you seen Rosie? She is at least 2 G's worth of L.:D

BadCat
12-02-2010, 05:40 PM
I do like how the ex-Chaplain inferred there would be violence when there wasn't anything of the sort talked about that in the survey.

Now I feel that 30% saying there would be problems is still a big enough margin for us to say hold on, lets reevaluate this, but sensationalism like this shouldn't be necessary.

And for the record, people like the above poster are exactly why I feel it shouldn't be repealled yet. We need to get bigots like them out first.

I always knew you were a faggot.

Get fucked queer boy.

Odysseus
12-02-2010, 06:08 PM
But Sarge, he had an ERECTION!:eek:
Troop, you need to be more tolerant. Now get back in that shower and help him find his soap. :D

Have you seen Rosie? She is at least 2 G's worth of L.:D
I was thinking more along the lines of Blazing Saddles:
Hedley Lamarr: You said "rape" twice.
Thug: I like rape.
Hedley Lamarr: Sign here.

I always knew you were a faggot.

Get fucked queer boy.
Totally uncalled for, Cat.

Bailey
12-02-2010, 06:11 PM
Wish I had that popcorn eating emocticon :)

AmPat
12-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Cat is only half a word. He's pretty passionate. Can I say "passionate" in a thread like this? Oops, I said pretty in the same sentence. Wow, teh gayness is infectious!

Rockntractor
12-02-2010, 06:25 PM
Troop, you need to be more tolerant. Now get back in that shower and help him find his soap. :D

I was thinking more along the lines of Blazing Saddles:
Hedley Lamarr: You said "rape" twice.
Thug: I like rape.
Hedley Lamarr: Sign here.

Totally uncalled for, Cat.

Having racist, bigot, intolerant, thrown around all the time gets tiresome at best.

Odysseus
12-03-2010, 10:26 AM
Cat is only half a word. He's pretty passionate. Can I say "passionate" in a thread like this? Oops, I said pretty in the same sentence. Wow, teh gayness is infectious!


Having racist, bigot, intolerant, thrown around all the time gets tiresome at best.

Tell me about it. But that's one of the reasons that we have to be careful about the language that we use. If we use bigoted terms, we will be seen as bigots. Besides, this isn't about hatred of gays, at least not for me. I don't care what consenting individuals do to each other, but I object to having functioning institutions rendered dysfunctional in order to satisfy the vanity of pressure groups.

BadCat
12-03-2010, 06:21 PM
Troop, you need to be more tolerant. Now get back in that shower and help him find his soap. :D

I was thinking more along the lines of Blazing Saddles:
Hedley Lamarr: You said "rape" twice.
Thug: I like rape.
Hedley Lamarr: Sign here.

Totally uncalled for, Cat.

It was called for Ody.

Air Force Sgt Pissant called me a bigot, and I'm tired of his sanctimonious drivel. Jonesy thinks he's "oh so special" because he's "tolerant". I think he's a pussy. A wishy-washy little faggot pussy.

djones520
12-03-2010, 06:28 PM
It was called for Ody.

Air Force Sgt Pissant called me a bigot, and I'm tired of his sanctimonious drivel. Jonesy thinks he's "oh so special" because he's "tolerant". I think he's a pussy. A wishy-washy little faggot pussy.

When you can show me how you do not fit into this, then we'll discuss it.


a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

You hate gays. You obstinately hold to your opinion and prejudices towards them. You are a bigot.

You can call me all the names in the world, it's not going to change that.

And your not going to hurt my feelings either.

djones520
12-03-2010, 06:40 PM
The problem is that anyone who feels the least bit of discomfort around gays in close quarters will be denounced as a bigot and purged. Don't like showering with an openly gay Soldier? Get it together, troop! No place for that attitude in today's army. Sign this counseling statement and report for additional EO training. :rolleyes:

Which is another problem that I have concerns about as well. I am scared to death that normal people who are as uncomfortable showering with homosexuals, as a normal woman would be uncomfortable showering with a bunch of men, will be treated like EO violators.

That is just not right at all.

I am not onboard with this whole thing, I've made that plenty clear. This isn't like when we desegregated. There are a lot more issues involved here then just "serving" together.

Adm. Mullens comment the other day made me think that it is going to happen though, and soon. I just hope that we get this right.

ElevenBravo87
12-03-2010, 06:53 PM
How can one be bigotted toward queers, when its not a racial or ethnic group? I mean a man cannot help that he is born black, or say Asian, but no one is born a queer.

djones520
12-03-2010, 07:06 PM
How can one be bigotted toward queers, when its not a racial or ethnic group? I mean a man cannot help that he is born black, or say Asian, but no one is born a queer.

If you really want to debate the definition of bigotry, then it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It is a hatred towards any group.

And as I said in the other thread, there is no proof that being gay isn't a genetic thing. I know of people who have been driven to it through psychological trauma, some who do it just because they prefer the same sex over the other, and some who have just always been like that.

But there is no inequivicable proof that it is just a "choice". Saying that is no differant then saying we choose to be straight instead of gay. I know for me it's not a choice. Homosexuality isn't even an option to be considered to me. The idea of the practice revolts me. Well... I find it quite acceptable with some women. :D

BadCat
12-03-2010, 09:29 PM
When you can show me how you do not fit into this, then we'll discuss it.



You hate gays. You obstinately hold to your opinion and prejudices towards them. You are a bigot.

You can call me all the names in the world, it's not going to change that.

And your not going to hurt my feelings either.

Do you have any memory at all? Or are you as stupid as you look? I've stated my opinion on homosexuals many times, hate has nothing to do with it...they are defects...social or genetic, I don't know or care.

I don't want DEFECTS in the military. I don't want the country kowtowing to a defective 2% of the population.

Understand, Einstein?

RobJohnson
12-03-2010, 09:46 PM
How can one be bigotted toward queers, when its not a racial or ethnic group? I mean a man cannot help that he is born black, or say Asian, but no one is born a queer.

I agree. It's because dysfunctional homosexuals are being accepted as a race, rather then what they are...

AmPat
12-04-2010, 12:51 AM
Adm. Mullens comment the other day made me think that it is going to happen though, and soon. I just hope that we get this right.

We've got it right now. If we mess with it, it will be disastrous.

ElevenBravo87
12-04-2010, 02:41 AM
I agree. It's because dysfunctional homosexuals are being accepted as a race, rather then what they are...

Yep, homosexuality is a sickness, just like child molestation.

CueSi
12-04-2010, 03:08 AM
http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/durtymo/28wkl15.gif

Well. . .

Normally this is the kind of ish I let go and get over. But I do hold my conservative ideals somewhat important, and part of that is judging people as individuals, so I don't know who ya'll are; cause ya'll can't be conservative, judging an entire group as one thing or another like you're California Peggy or Mopaul.

So I'm gonna keep this in mind. Any of you decide to say that you're better than liberals for one thing or another, I'll dig this shit right back up -- because you're just as anti-freedom, totalitarian, collectivistic as anyone else as DU.

I swear... ya'll always get ONE person wrong as a mod, first it was gator. Now this rancid pussy.

~QC

Bailey
12-04-2010, 07:38 AM
[QUOTE=CueSi;341084]http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/durtymo/28wkl15.gif

Well. . .

Normally this is the kind of ish I let go and get over. But I do hold my conservative ideals somewhat important, and part of that is judging people as individuals, so I don't know who ya'll are; cause ya'll can't be conservative, judging an entire group as one thing or another like you're California Peggy or Mopaul.

So I'm gonna keep this in mind. Any of you decide to say that you're better than liberals for one thing or another, I'll dig this shit right back up -- because you're just as anti-freedom, totalitarian, collectivistic as anyone else as DU.

I swear... ya'll always get ONE person wrong as a mod, first it was gator. Now this rancid pussy.

~QC[/QUOT
is that a gif of you csi?

CueSi
12-04-2010, 12:23 PM
[QUOTE=CueSi;341084]http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/durtymo/28wkl15.gif

Well. . .

Normally this is the kind of ish I let go and get over. But I do hold my conservative ideals somewhat important, and part of that is judging people as individuals, so I don't know who ya'll are; cause ya'll can't be conservative, judging an entire group as one thing or another like you're California Peggy or Mopaul.

So I'm gonna keep this in mind. Any of you decide to say that you're better than liberals for one thing or another, I'll dig this shit right back up -- because you're just as anti-freedom, totalitarian, collectivistic as anyone else as DU.

I swear... ya'll always get ONE person wrong as a mod, first it was gator. Now this rancid pussy.

~QC[/QUOT
is that a gif of you csi?

Nope, darlin. This is me. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=617500&l=a48b247686&id=100000094964069)

~QC

lacarnut
12-04-2010, 12:32 PM
[QUOTE=Bailey;341093]

Nope, darlin. This is me. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=617500&l=a48b247686&id=100000094964069)

~QC

You look like an old Yankee friend of mine that moved to Baton Rouge but hated the social life here and moved back to Boston. That has been over 30 years ago.

AmPat
12-04-2010, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=Bailey;341093]

Nope, darlin. This is me. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=617500&l=a48b247686&id=100000094964069)

~QC

Heather Ann?:confused: I do like those mustangs.:D

Bailey
12-04-2010, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE=Bailey;341093]

Nope, darlin. This is me. (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=617500&l=a48b247686&id=100000094964069)

~QC

You scared me there for a sec :)

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 01:15 PM
It was called for Ody.

Air Force Sgt Pissant called me a bigot, and I'm tired of his sanctimonious drivel. Jonesy thinks he's "oh so special" because he's "tolerant". I think he's a pussy. A wishy-washy little faggot pussy.
Again, uncalled for. As was this:

Because they are sick, deviant little fucks who should not even be allowed out in public, much less in the role of defending our country.
That's a bigoted comment, BadCat. It's hard to look at that and say otherwise, and if you want to call me names for saying it, well, then I guess we'll be a lot less friendly in the future.

Which is another problem that I have concerns about as well. I am scared to death that normal people who are as uncomfortable showering with homosexuals, as a normal woman would be uncomfortable showering with a bunch of men, will be treated like EO violators.

That is just not right at all.

I am not onboard with this whole thing, I've made that plenty clear. This isn't like when we desegregated. There are a lot more issues involved here then just "serving" together.

Adm. Mullens comment the other day made me think that it is going to happen though, and soon. I just hope that we get this right.
We won't. It's being put forward for all of the wrong reasons. If somebody came forward and said, there are numerous gay linguists who we need in order to fight al Qaeda, and we need to grant them a waiver, I'd be able to weigh the obvious good, which is filling highly specialized and critical low-density MOS, with the bad, which are the issues raised above. Given that, it might make sense to try the waiver and use that as a means to evaluate future changes to policy. It would also provide an opportunity to identify issues that would arise and prepare mitigating actions for those changes, or to decide not to make those changes. In other words, an experiment, with a small, controlled population that can be observed and evaluated across the board. But, such an approach would recognize that the military had specific needs that must be addressed, and that those needs take precedence over the desires of a small pressure group.

How can one be bigotted toward queers, when its not a racial or ethnic group? I mean a man cannot help that he is born black, or say Asian, but no one is born a queer.
One can be bigoted towards any group that has an identifying characteristic. Go over to DU and see the bigotry directed at business owners, conservatives, anyone with a positive bank balance or anyone who just doesn't think exactly the way that they do. They are bigots, but their bigotry isn't limited to race or religion.

http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/durtymo/28wkl15.gif

Well. . .

Normally this is the kind of ish I let go and get over. But I do hold my conservative ideals somewhat important, and part of that is judging people as individuals, so I don't know who ya'll are; cause ya'll can't be conservative, judging an entire group as one thing or another like you're California Peggy or Mopaul.

So I'm gonna keep this in mind. Any of you decide to say that you're better than liberals for one thing or another, I'll dig this shit right back up -- because you're just as anti-freedom, totalitarian, collectivistic as anyone else as DU.

I swear... ya'll always get ONE person wrong as a mod, first it was gator. Now this rancid pussy.

~QC
We are better than liberals. They won't allow this discussion, they'd just ban anyone who presents an opposing argument. It may not be much, but it's something.

Oh, and that is one scary pic. Seriously.:eek:

djones520
12-04-2010, 01:20 PM
We won't. It's being put forward for all of the wrong reasons. If somebody came forward and said, there are numerous gay linguists who we need in order to fight al Qaeda, and we need to grant them a waiver, I'd be able to weigh the obvious good, which is filling highly specialized and critical low-density MOS, with the bad, which are the issues raised above. Given that, it might make sense to try the waiver and use that as a means to evaluate future changes to policy. It would also provide an opportunity to identify issues that would arise and prepare mitigating actions for those changes, or to decide not to make those changes. In other words, an experiment, with a small, controlled population that can be observed and evaluated across the board. But, such an approach would recognize that the military had specific needs that must be addressed, and that those needs take precedence over the desires of a small pressure group.


I know you've been in long enough now to know that bitching about it isn't going to solve anything. When the order comes down we are going to have to comply whatever the hell our opinion is. The comment that Adm. Mullen made was 100% correct on that at least.

My question for you, as an officer, is how are you going to handle it? How are you attempting to handle it right now with your subordinates?

BadCat
12-04-2010, 01:21 PM
I'll own up to being a lot of things, Ody, a bigot is not one of them.

I have very strong opinions about homos, based on science, and I don't think they should be having the influence they are having in the society.

Their "acceptance" is just another thing in the downfall of this country.

m00
12-04-2010, 01:25 PM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.

Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?

Er, yes but in the corporate world you can refuse to hire someone that's openly gay, but give a nebulous reason like "They don't seem like they'd be a good team fit." Military is just more under the microscope.

m00
12-04-2010, 01:33 PM
We won't. It's being put forward for all of the wrong reasons. If somebody came forward and said, there are numerous gay linguists who we need in order to fight al Qaeda, and we need to grant them a waiver, I'd be able to weigh the obvious good, which is filling highly specialized and critical low-density MOS, with the bad, which are the issues raised above.

I wonder why nobody has seriously put this forward?

Wait, let me answer this. Because this isn't coming from the "how can we make our military more effective" angle, it's coming from the politically correct "do the right PC thing" angle.

AmPat
12-04-2010, 01:55 PM
We won't. It's being put forward for all of the wrong reasons. If somebody came forward and said, there are numerous gay linguists who we need in order to fight al Qaeda, and we need to grant them a waiver, I'd be able to weigh the obvious good, which is filling highly specialized and critical low-density MOS,Is this why DLA was at the Presidio, proximity to Man Francisco? That would explain a lot. A large gay population density near a military facility.:eek:

megimoo
12-04-2010, 02:03 PM
Yep, homosexuality is a sickness, just like child molestation.

In order to 'shut up ' normal men they resort to the old "bigot' crap ,Anything to shut you up .
Tell me that a queer who enjoys sex with a man won't jump at the chance of diddling a little boy ?

These P.C.'Fag Hags' critters are all over me when I suggest that the NAMBLA swine are homosexuals who will also go after little boys.
They will swear to the death that all other queers are different from the NAMBLA and the Beastility crowd and wouldn't grab a little boy if they could.To my mind if they would diddle a man or an animal why not a little kid ?

I can understand the lifers like the Major and Sargent Jone's reluctance to emote their feelings on Homosexuality as it is a military career ending move to speak against the Queer PC tide sweeping today's military.
From the Major's tone in his posts he is a normal man and no fan of Homosexuality but he knows better than to speak of his real feelings on the matter if he wants to go to O-5 .

But If one night liberal leaning young Mr Jones woke up with a Queer critter in his bunk with him perhaps he would change his tune,but at least he wouldn't be as cold !

Normal Military men despise posturing Queer's near them and if the Muslims get a hold of them they will be singing soprano.A queer in a forward outpost in Afghanistan will need special protection just to stay alive.Between the Arabs and Normal American troopers they won't last long.

Gates,Mullen and the other chiefs of staff have to play by the Obama political rules just to survive until they retire.These Queer freaks all dumped a ton of money into Obama's campaign and now they demand payback.Obama doesn't have many friends left so he will 'go to the mat' for these critters as long as the Queer money keeps coming in

The incidence of Homosexual rape in the military is on the increase and repealing DADT will open the flood gates for more .Why do they demand to enter the Military beyond proving their political power ?

Perhaps it's the life time free health care for service connected diseases if they could only convince the VA that they were raped by an HIV disease ridden mountain goat .

lacarnut
12-04-2010, 02:10 PM
In order to 'shut up ' normal men they resort to the old "bigot' crap ,Anything to shut you up .
Tell me that a queer who enjoys sex with a man won't jump at the chance of diddling a little boy ?

These P.C.'Fag Hags' critters are all over me when I suggest that the NAMBLA swine are homosexuals who will also go after little boys.
They will swear to the death that all other queers are different from the NAMBLA and the Beastility crowd and wouldn't grab a little boy if they could.To my mind if they would diddle a man or an animal why not a little kid ?

I can understand the lifers like the Major and Sargent Jone's reluctance to emote their feelings on Homosexuality as it is a military career ending move to speak against the Queer PC tide sweeping today's military.
From the Major's tone in his posts he is a normal man and no fan of Homosexuality but he knows better than to speak of his real feelings on the matter if he wants to go to O-5 .

But If one night liberal leaning young Mr Jones woke up with a Queer critter in his bunk with him perhaps he would change his tune,but at least he wouldn't be as cold !

Normal Military men despise posturing Queer's near them and if the Muslims get a hold of them they will be singing soprano.A queer in a forward outpost in Afghanistan will need special protection just to stay alive.Between the Arabs and Normal American troopers they won't last long.

Gates,Mullen and the other chiefs of staff have to play by the Obama political rules just to survive until they retire.These Queer freaks all dumped a ton of money into Obama's campaign and now they demand payback.Obama doesn't have many friends left so he will 'go to the mat' for these critters as long as the Queer money keeps coming in

The incidence of Homosexual rape in the military is on the increase and repealing DADT will open the flood gates for more .Why do they demand to enter the Military beyond proving their political power ?

Perhaps it's the life time free health care for service connected diseases if they could only convince the VA that they were raped by an HIV disease ridden mountain goat .

Hear, hear

djones520
12-04-2010, 02:15 PM
Ya'll are funny.

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 02:37 PM
I know you've been in long enough now to know that bitching about it isn't going to solve anything. When the order comes down we are going to have to comply whatever the hell our opinion is. The comment that Adm. Mullen made was 100% correct on that at least.

My question for you, as an officer, is how are you going to handle it? How are you attempting to handle it right now with your subordinates?
I'm going to do exactly what I'm told to do, by the book. No more, no less. That way, nobody will accuse me of showing favoritism or bias. And, if the book is wrong, well, I did what I was ordered to do, didn't I?

I wonder why nobody has seriously put this forward?

Wait, let me answer this. Because this isn't coming from the "how can we make our military more effective" angle, it's coming from the politically correct "do the right PC thing" angle.
Exactly. Patsy Schroeder drove the incorporation of women into combat units, but it was the only time that she ever showed any interest in the military. She voted against every defense increase, every new weapon system, everything that made the force more effective, but on women in combat, she was focused like a laser. It's the same today. The people driving this train have several things in common, and one of them is uncompromising hostility to the military and our values, and the senior officers who are toeing the line are doing so because they following the orders of the civilian chain.


Is this why DLA was at the Presidio, proximity to Man Francisco? That would explain a lot. A large gay population density near a military facility.:eek:
I think that it just has a lot to do with creative use of tongues. :eek:

CueSi
12-04-2010, 02:42 PM
We are better than liberals. They won't allow this discussion, they'd just ban anyone who presents an opposing argument. It may not be much, but it's something.

Oh, and that is one scary pic. Seriously.:eek:

Yay? I guess there's that. But . . .nah. And he's gonna deny being a bigot, and the next breath, make sweeping generalizations about gay people? where they do THAT at?

And sorry about using "Pank cup boy" . . .but I needed something to show the ugliness of these posts. The more of it i see, the more you're gonna be seeing him.




You look like an old Yankee friend of mine that moved to Baton Rouge but hated the social life here and moved back to Boston. That has been over 30 years ago.

I love the concept of Boston, really... but I tend not to like many of the liberals that come from there. And this is the city that gave us the guy who accused a black man of killing his wife when HE did it. Yep. They did it before Susan Smith did. And the BPD tore the fuck up of Black Boston and didn't apologize. So ... yeah.


I wonder why nobody has seriously put this forward?

Wait, let me answer this. Because this isn't coming from the "how can we make our military more effective" angle, it's coming from the politically correct "do the right PC thing" angle.

Hmmmm...that's a discussion we should be having. :)


~QC

megimoo
12-04-2010, 03:04 PM
Ya'll are funny.Not as funny as a fag in your bunk !

djones520
12-04-2010, 03:06 PM
Not as funny as a fag in your bunk !

Don't forget to check your closet tonight Megi. A gay man may be hiding in there ready to jump out at you while you sleep.

megimoo
12-04-2010, 03:12 PM
Don't forget to check your closet tonight Megi. A gay man may be hiding in there ready to jump out at you while you sleep.WE don't have that problem here Sargent Jones but from what I am reading you soon will .In tomorrows Air Force you critters will need chastity belts and learn to always sleep with one eye open .What a way to serve your country .:eek:

Rockntractor
12-04-2010, 03:12 PM
Don't forget to check your closet tonight Megi. A gay man may be hiding in there ready to jump out at you while you sleep.

You sleep on your back and your safe!:D

CueSi
12-04-2010, 03:13 PM
Don't forget to check your closet tonight Megi. A gay man may be hiding in there ready to jump out at you while you sleep.

Or I could be hiding... booga-booga! :rolleyes:

~QC

megimoo
12-04-2010, 03:14 PM
Or I could be hiding... booga-booga! :rolleyes:

~QCYou're no danger.Maybe we could convert you ?:D

djones520
12-04-2010, 03:15 PM
You sleep on your back and your safe!:D

I guess I'm in trouble then. I sleep in the fetal position. Makes it easier to spoon! :eek:

CueSi
12-04-2010, 03:23 PM
You're no danger.Maybe we could convert you ?:D

Oh the little you know... <pat pat>

~QC

CueSi
12-04-2010, 03:24 PM
I guess I'm in trouble then. I sleep in the fetal position. Makes it easier to spoon! :eek:

I'll spoon, but I don't think Mrs. Jones would like it none. Or since she's closer to me... how about I spoon her instead?

~QC

djones520
12-04-2010, 03:25 PM
I'll spoon, but I don't think Mrs. Jones would like it none. Or since she's closer to me... how about I spoon her instead?

~QC

o_O

Odysseus
12-04-2010, 04:34 PM
Yay? I guess there's that. But . . .nah. And he's gonna deny being a bigot, and the next breath, make sweeping generalizations about gay people? where they do THAT at?

And sorry about using "Pank cup boy" . . .but I needed something to show the ugliness of these posts. The more of it i see, the more you're gonna be seeing him. ~QC
That's a male? :eek:

I'll spoon, but I don't think Mrs. Jones would like it none. Or since she's closer to me... how about I spoon her instead?

~QC


Dear Penthouse Forum,

I never believed the stories in your magazine until this happened to me. I was returning home from deployment and was met at the door by my wife and a female friend that I knew from online...

Fixed. :D

BadCat
12-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Yay? I guess there's that. But . . .nah. And he's gonna deny being a bigot, and the next breath, make sweeping generalizations about gay people? where they do THAT at?

And sorry about using "Pank cup boy" . . .but I needed something to show the ugliness of these posts. The more of it i see, the more you're gonna be seeing him.



I love the concept of Boston, really... but I tend not to like many of the liberals that come from there. And this is the city that gave us the guy who accused a black man of killing his wife when HE did it. Yep. They did it before Susan Smith did. And the BPD tore the fuck up of Black Boston and didn't apologize. So ... yeah.



Hmmmm...that's a discussion we should be having. :)


~QC

You're a deluded little freak.

Kay
12-04-2010, 08:10 PM
I fall on the side of BadCat, Megimoo and LAcars.
Few things are more horrid to even comprehend than two queers.

I won't go into the grody details, but twice in my life I've been exposed to
lesbians through business dealings and they were all batshit crazy. One got
entanged in a lawsuit for making passes at her woman subordinate and in
the other case one shot the other in the chest because she dared to have
slept with a man. And the gay men that I've known, about 3 or 4 mostly hair
dressers and one that I went to high school with, were just as mentally off.

In my mind, queers are deeply disturbed individuals.
I say it is a mental illness and I do not wish to be anywhere near them.

Rockntractor
12-04-2010, 08:14 PM
I fall on the side of BadCat, Megimoo and LAcars.
Few things are more horrid to even comprehend than two queers.

I won't go into the grody details, but twice in my life I've been exposed to
lesbians through business dealings and they were all batshit crazy. One got
entanged in a lawsuit for making passes at her woman subordinate and in
the other case one shot the other in the chest because she dared to have
slept with a man. And the gay men that I've known, about 3 or 4 mostly hair
dressers and one that I went to high school with, were just as mentally off.

In my mind, queers are deeply disturbed individuals.
I say it is a mental illness and I do not wish to be anywhere near them.

Hair dresser?
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/rabbit.jpg?t=1291511613

megimoo
12-04-2010, 08:26 PM
You sleep on your back and your safe!:DNot really.They love to snuggle up behind you !

megimoo
12-04-2010, 08:27 PM
Hair dresser?
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/rabbit.jpg?t=1291511613
The bunny is queer ??

Rockntractor
12-04-2010, 08:29 PM
The bunny is queer ??

That's what I got when I googled rabbit dresser!:confused:

CueSi
12-05-2010, 02:18 AM
You're a deluded little freak.

http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp158/durtymo/28wkl15.gif

I don't know humor could be translated into delusion.

But freak? Well, I can have odd and pointless turns of the mind, and occasionally am given to whimsy. As to what you probably meant, you'll never sleep with me, so you won't know. (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freak) :-*

And next time, wait your turn till I talk to you. I know you were probably raised by wolves, but relax. <_<

~QC

CueSi
12-05-2010, 02:19 AM
I fall on the side of BadCat, Megimoo and LAcars.
Few things are more horrid to even comprehend than two queers.

I won't go into the grody details, but twice in my life I've been exposed to
lesbians through business dealings and they were all batshit crazy. One got
entanged in a lawsuit for making passes at her woman subordinate and in
the other case one shot the other in the chest because she dared to have
slept with a man. And the gay men that I've known, about 3 or 4 mostly hair
dressers and one that I went to high school with, were just as mentally off.

In my mind, queers are deeply disturbed individuals.
I say it is a mental illness and I do not wish to be anywhere near them.

Hi, I'm queer. . . it seems you run into a lot more crazy than I do. Sure it's not you? :D

~QC

CueSi
12-05-2010, 02:20 AM
That's a male? :eek:

Fixed. :D

That's what I've been told. I don't wanna find out for sure.


ROFL! :p Someone DID ask for a Penthouse today...was that you?

~QC

txradioguy
12-05-2010, 05:26 AM
It's not a real poll. It's a chaplain who doesn't like gays, doing his own poll to justify his beliefs.

Discrimination against gays is not allowed in any other public workplace in the United States. Why should the military be any different?

I respect D. Jones' opinion on this matter: that allowing gays to serve openly is going to happen, that the important thing is how that policy is implemented-the best way to do it without drama and disruption. As he's actually currently an active service member, he's the one who's got to live with whatever policy comes out of all this.

And sadly for Libtards like you...actual poll or not that more accurately reflects how the majority of us feel about the possible repeal of DADT.

No one twists anyones arm to join. There' s no draft.

Gays know the rules before joining. Now they want to change the rules so THEY can feel better about lying?

Doesn't sound like a firm foothold in military values.

I hope beyond hope that common sense prevails and DADT is not revoked.

There is a law of unintended consequences to this whole thing that gay advocates are absolutely GIDDY about that no one else has thought about.

Gay Mariage.

If gays are openly allowed to continue to serve in the military or join (God forbid) after a repeal of DADT there's a high probability that a lot of them will come from the tiny handful of states that allow gay "marriage". They are going to want to bring their "spouse" along with them and let them get all the benefits that normal married couples get.

So what happens when they get stationed in a state that doesn't recognize gay "marriage"? Or for that matter to another country?

I think people with a brain bigger than a pencil eraser knows where this will go.

Once again we'll have the Imperial Federal Government and all it's Constitution bending feel good Libtards and RINO's forcing Federal to ignore the will of the people of the state and accept Federally Recognized Gay Marriage. .

So through the military and the Federal Government with the help of some activist judges...the tiny fraction of people in this country that are gay...and their advocates that want to shove THEIR unnatural lifestyle down the majority of the publics throat...will get what they want in a way that TOTALLY ignores the will of the people.

And before you dismiss this as homophobic panic...I seem to remember people dismissing the fears that the legal ruling of the Sodomy law in Texas as unconstitutional wasn't going to be a stepping stone to gay marriage either.

txradioguy
12-05-2010, 05:43 AM
I guess I'm in trouble then. I sleep in the fetal position. Makes it easier to spoon! :eek:

Nah that's just the Air Force way! :D

RobJohnson
12-05-2010, 06:55 AM
WE don't have that problem here Sargent Jones but from what I am reading you soon will .In tomorrows Air Force you critters will need chastity belts and learn to always sleep with one eye open .What a way to serve your country .:eek:

Looks like the draft will be used again. Fewer folks will be volunteers if they have to sleep and shower with gays...It would be like being a volunteer to take a shower in a penitentiary. :p

megimoo
12-05-2010, 08:31 AM
That's what I got when I googled rabbit dresser!:confused:

Hare ??

txradioguy
12-05-2010, 11:52 AM
Looks like the draft will be used again. Fewer folks will be volunteers if they have to sleep and shower with gays...It would be like being a volunteer to take a shower in a penitentiary. :p

IMHO the single straight soldiers should automatically demand co-ed dorm rooms if DADT is repealed.

djones520
12-05-2010, 11:58 AM
IMHO the single straight soldiers should automatically demand co-ed dorm rooms if DADT is repealed.

Hmmm... thats not a bad idea. Well... then again I am in the AF. Where even when I'm deployed I'm one to a room.

But seriuosly, when it it repealed, we have no way of knowing what they are going to do. I'd say we should stop running around like a chicken with it's head cut off until it is announced how it will happen. Until then, speculation of the worse case situation is gonna do nothing more then speed that ulcer growth.