Posted by: Khahan
- [373143013] Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 16:01
The case for obama thread had a pretty good discussion of DADT going on (though it did degenerate into name calling and accusations of bigotry rather than allowing an open discussion of individuals beliefs).
I thought this article was rather relevant to that discussion though and felt a new thread was warranted rather than another hijacking of the obama thread.
While many were arguing either for keeping or repealing DADT my argument was this - take the decision out of the civilian courts and lawmakers hands. Put it in the hands of the military leadership. And live with what they decide.
This article gives an interesting perspective just from those military leaders. After reading it I get the impression that downthe road they'd have no problem with repealing DADT. But out of the 5 branches, 2 are against doing it in wartime, 2 seem to think the impact would be minimal during wartime (army, navy, airforce, marines). I would think the National Guard should have an opinion on this as well.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
154
Boldwin
ID: 4011522918 Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 21:09
This meme that the military likes the change is one of the most dishonest memes ever posted on this forum. The military was involved in creating DADT as a way to stall against the day when the village people forces storming their fort. The Obama administration carefully orchestrated survey contained overwhelming problems against accurate reliable results. It was a partisan self-swerving restricted sampling. Over 50% of the respondents were Coast Guard, not fighting units. Fighting units were not only excluded from participation representative of their size and importance to the outcome, but were against it even in this survey. Which doesn't stop you from misrepresenting them. Questions were not asked evenhandedly. Each subgroup got a different set of questions. Easily shepherded focus groups were improperly treated as survey results. There are more predictable problems with this survey than there are in Obama's garbage in/garbage out CBO tricks you rely so heavily on in other areas.
While you are at it get a Soros funded group to rubber-stamp it and pronounce the question indisputably resolved like you usually do. Don't risk cognitive dissonance by even once asking yourself if what you are saying makes any common sense. Do you really think even Soros sock-puppet John McCain is concerned about this policy change because he doesn't like gays? You think he has no idea how the military really feels?
155
Boldwin
ID: 4011522918 Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 21:11
Not to mention that you claim all the neutrals as votes for your side of the argument.
156
sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 21:51
The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military. - Pat Buchanan
Which in it's full form should read:
The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military. Instead of laving those gays out and allowing me to impose MY will upon that same institution. - Pat Buchanan
Seems Mr Buchanan declined to say that part out loud.
re 152: That is a strawman. There are, and always have been, gays and lesbians in the military. That FACT, has not caused our volunteer force to fail.
157
Boldwin
ID: 4011522918 Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 22:18
If it's an edit-fest you want...
The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent...voting under cover of holiday, with the screen door hitting them in the butt, having just been kicked out of office...is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military. - Pat Buchanan
158
Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 22:58
155 - There were no neutral votes. There were just those who said negative, those who said positive and thos who said no significant impact. Try as you might to distort the findings with repeated references to fictional "neutral" responses, if the question is whether it will negatively impact the military, the overwhelming majority say it will not.
159
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 00:33
Still, he refuses to read the thing. If he did, he'd see that he's using the wrong question's answer to try to make it seem like some in the Army are on his "side."
Like a drowning man clinging to a twig.
The hyper-partisans should spend less time trying to find things that back up their own opinions.
160
Boldwin
ID: 4011522918 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 06:05
I've been reading the thing and it's not helping you.
I think one survey result speaks for the whole thing.
Someone responded 'I guess repealing wouldn't be harmful' as long as gays didn't insist on telling me about it.'
Which is operationally exactlty what DADT means to the average soldier anyway. So they agree with DADT but they were trying to be agreeable about it.
But to an Obama interpreter they said 'I guess repealing wouldn't be harmful.' So it was ambiguous or even positive towards the repeal.
Which to PD means the military are hoping and praying for the day when gays are out and proud and in your face about it, finally, praise god, free at last, free at last.
But that aint what they said at all.
165
Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 13:42
Which to PD means the military are hoping and praying for the day when gays are out and proud and in your face about it, finally, praise god, free at last, free at last.
all anyone wants is for equality. if heterosexuals can be open about their relationships and so forth, why can't homosexuals.
what are people scared of? hmmmm...
166
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 14:06
Heh. Living your life based on other people's sexual preference is just abnormal.
Anyway, it is clear what my point is: Most of the military doesn't care about fellow members' sexual biases. And that number goes up for those who say that they know someone who is gay.
By and large they don't think it will affect the military. And across the board an even larger percentage thinks that it would not affect their own readiness.
So the question being asked: Does ending DADT affect military readiness? By a large majority the public, the Joint chiefs, and President, SecDef, and the military itself says "no."
167
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 14:15
and the military itself says "no."
Here's the one that matters most. All the others on this issue are irrelevant. If the military believes its not an issue, then its not an issue. Lift the ban and move on.
168
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 15:42
what are people scared of? hmmmm...
I think some people fear there will be a handful of militant gays and lesbians who will join with the goal of stretching the limits of being "openly gay" so they can scream discrimination if held to normal military demands of discipline and professionalism.
169
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 15:53
I assumed they were afraid that our real soldiers might catch teh ghey from the new homosexuals (who, of course, were there before, but it's apparently not contagious that way), thus causing our special ops forces to drop their machine guns in the middle of Kabul and break into the Shipoopi song, thereby allowing the conquering of America by our Muslim overlords (who wouldn't even let our military keep the new drapes that had been ordered, thereby eliminating the only reason that they wanted the gays in the first place!)
170
Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 17:05
posts 168 and 169.
i'm more inclined to believe the latter over the former.
that being said, if there really are folks who believe in 168, i believe that unfortunately, that is one of the pitfalls of equality and freedom.
however, if such a situation were to occur, i have little doubt our courts would quickly put an end to such claims of discrimination, as i am sure there have been cases brough to court regarding things such as (non-religious) hair length in regards to military and police rules and regulations.
171
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 17:37
#169
I think the stereotype that gays make superior interior decorators, especially as it relates to draperies, is way overstated.
Of course, as one who designs, sells and installs draperies professionally, I'm likely somewhat biased.
It's like saying black athletes make better basketball players, running backs or wide receivers. I would have thought Joel Pryzbilla and Lance Moore shattered such stereotypes.
172
DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 17:49
Oh, I generally agree with you PV, but others don't seem to. (I would not, however, have chosen Joel Przybilla as one of your leading analogous examples.)
Anyway, as to your point, I don't see a major problem in the possible fact a few asshats will cause a minor disruption which will be swiftly dealt with by military or civilian court systems.
173
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 19:11
I would not, however, have chosen Joel Przybilla as one of your leading analogous examples
I should have used Greg Oostertag, which would have left no doubt the post was tongue in cheek.
174
J-Bar
ID: 581124222 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 21:59
re 165: I agree all separation based on sexual preference should be removed. Based on the arguments above there will be no ill affects to readiness or recruitment. No better place than the military to do a little social experimentation. Everyone is the same with no regard to race, gender, sexual preference, religion, clothing preference, or any other reason.
175
Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 22:50
No better place than the military to do a little social experimentation.
Well if this military thing works out then maybe we can see about letting them walk around outside unchaperoned without their veils on.
176
J-Bar
ID: 581124222 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 23:06
i thought you were all for driver's licenses with burkas on
177
Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 23:32
I thought you were all for making homosexuality a capital offense.
See what we can learn about each other when we communicate?
178
J-Bar
ID: 581124222 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 23:44
I don't mind if homosexuality happens in DC. Whatever gave you that idea?
179
Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 23:58
Trenton, not DC.
And I'm just sure it's in the same thread as my dissertation on the cultural advantages of mandatory burkhas in all drivers license photos.
180
Tree
ID: 2010312116 Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 23:59
I agree all separation based on sexual preference should be removed. Based on the arguments above there will be no ill affects to readiness or recruitment. No better place than the military to do a little social experimentation. Everyone is the same with no regard to race, gender, sexual preference, religion, clothing preference, or any other reason.
yes, we know. you already made this asinine comment about 170 posts ago.
181
J-Bar
ID: 581124222 Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 00:05
Why is it asinine? Please explain why the abolishment of all barriers is a bad thing.
182
J-Bar
ID: 581124222 Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 00:17
I believe it was once thought to be asinine; for blacks to drink from the same fountain as whites, allowing women to vote, being openly gay in the military, distributing condoms to primary school children, that a nativity scene would actually offend someone, that a man of color would be president, ect....
183
Tree
ID: 2010312116 Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 07:55
Please explain why the abolishment of all barriers is a bad thing.
you're right. it's not a bad thing.
184
Khahan
ID: 13126822 Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 08:47
Please explain why the abolishment of all barriers is a bad thing
I'm not going to say its a bad thing but I also wouldn't say its a good thing. Each barrier needs to be looked at and weighed on its own merit/demerits.
Just because a barrier fell 50 years ago does not make a case for a different barrier to fall today.
At the same time, just because a barrier has been in place for hundreds of years does not make a good case for it to stay in place.
Look at the ban on gays in the military by its own merits and drawbacks. If the drawbacks are bigger, the barrier falls. And it seems the military thinks the drawbacks were bigger.
185
Tree, not at home
ID: 21157318 Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 09:59
I'm not going to say its a bad thing but I also wouldn't say its a good thing. Each barrier needs to be looked at and weighed on its own merit/demerits.
thank you. i was way too annoyed at the entire thesis to be bothered. but that's the bottom line - it's not a black & white world, despite the fact some folks see it that way.
186
sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 21:37
re 174, 181 and 182...
Has hell frozen over??? J-Bar and I seem to be in agreement!
187
J-Bar
ID: 581124222 Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 15:04
Must have lol
188
Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 15:06
The former Alaska governor Monday relayed a comment from gay conservative pundit Tammy Bruce, who was expressing her criticism over continued Republican opposition to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell military policy that won congressional repeal late last month.
Now the political world is wondering just what Palin meant to express.
"But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed,” Bruce’s original tweet read that was subsequently relayed by Palin.
this is going to be interesting.
189
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 15:24
Honestly, this just reveals the fact that she doesn't do all of her own tweets. She has someone do many of them for her.
True story. And they started working for her just before the Burlington Coat Factory site dust up.
190
Boldwin
ID: 27049317 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 18:34
I seriously doubt she was conscious of the content of that retweet. Either she passed it along without full comprehension just trusting the source, or someone on her staff or family did it. I'd be amazed if she was more libertine than McCain on this.
191
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 18:53
Actually, Palin has been fairly quiet on the issue of gay rights. You can read into it what you want, but if she is the outspoken conservative many in her flock say she is, her virtual silence on the issue of gay rights (and DADT) speaks volumes about how she really feels (much like Dick Cheney, in that regard).
192
Tree
ID: 2010312116 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 20:43
I seriously doubt she was conscious of the content of that retweet. Either she passed it along without full comprehension just trusting the source...
i'd hope someone who was the presidential darling for many would be "conscious of the content" or at least have "full comprehension" of what they're saying, but then again, you've not held yourself to that standard, so i suppose you wouldn't hold your sacred Sarah to it either.
193
Boldwin
ID: 27049317 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 20:49
PD
It wouldn't be the first politician with a soft spot for libertines, now would it? Half her base will be grieviously let down if you are right.
194
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 22:26
Half her base would be let down when they learn to read.
Believing that gays shouldn't be discriminated against isn't having a "soft spot for libertines." It is being human. Being Christian, in fact.
195
Boldwin
ID: 4903754 Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 05:37
You really think a serious person accuses half her supporters of illiteracy?
Just for nostalgia I wonder if Sarge would regale us with the former standards for sexual conduct in the military.
And if he believes there will be any rules of sexual conduct at all now.
And was it just 'discrimination' against sexually active people that led to those rules or if they played a legitimate role in making the military more effective.
196
Tree
ID: 2010312116 Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 08:27
Just for nostalgia I wonder if Sarge would regale us with the former standards for sexual conduct in the military.
based on the people i know, there are very little standards on sexual contact in the military. one girl i know who was in the navy pretty much went through every man on her ships.
regardless, DADT has nothing to do with sexual conduct. perhaps that's why you're confused on this issue?
197
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 10:17
"You really think a serious person accuses half her supporters of illiteracy? "
I'm pretty sure a serious person wouldn't debate important policy matters on Twitter.
198
J-Bar
ID: 23054917 Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 19:30
re Tree 196: DADT theory is pretty much why the girl was able to flaunt her wares to whoever would have her. If anyone at anytime had gone to their 1st Sgt or CoC with a legitimate complaint and proof that a violation of the UCMJ had occurred then action would have had to be taken. Again I say that SEX is the only reason that men and women are separated. DADT was not meant to be discriminatory in my opinion (even though I can see that side of it) but served as a compromise to keep the discussion to a minimum of all the factors that come into play when we say that sexual preference is irrelevant to the set up of the military. No one here has wanted to rationally engage in debate over some of the issues that removing all discriminating policies in the military would create. If men and women were all treated the same; housing, assignments available, physical standards, ect... with absolutely no credence given to the gender, what impact would that have on the military?
199
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 21:35
Previous to DADT, a military person would have been dismissed based solely on conduct.
200
sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Sun, Jan 09, 2011, 23:30
sexual conduct in the military, is pretty much limited to discussions re fraternization. IOW, gawd help the Sqd Ldr who has sex with one or more of his/her squad members. Or Plt Sgts who has relations with one or more their Plt Members, etc etc etc on up the ladder.
The military (or at last the Army back in 1985 when I left active duty), did not interfere with my private sexual life PROVIDED, I conducted myself as befit an NCO, did not engage in fraternization AND did not engage in homosexual activity. Outside of fraternization and same-sex, I was pretty much free to 'jump' anyone who didnt say 'no', as far as the military was concerned.
SO the only thing that changes with the repeal of DADT, is that portion which follows 'fraternization' and is italicized above.
Ketterson sent a copy of the marriage license. That changed everything.
“I was respected,” he said. “From that moment on, I was next of kin. They were amazing.”
202
Boldwin
ID: 171501015 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 21:59
"But Boldwin, the military loves this change" - paraphrasing PD
Mmmm...not so much.
203
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 22:49
Even now you haven't read their report?
204
Boldwin
ID: 171501015 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 04:21
Yes, I've read that sham. I believe the new congress will hold the hearings Obama was afraid to. I guess their body language is lost on you.
205
Mith
ID: 371138719 Fri, Feb 11, 2011, 05:06
If the military's reaction to the policy is your standard for whether the policy should be, then you would have kept the military racially segregated in the 1940s.
I know you're not a racist, but I'm pretty sure you would have been a vicious one 65 years ago.
All reports from within the military ranks are that the 'focus is on the enemy,' it doesn't really matter. They are trained to treat each other with respect and integrity.
In other words, no negative effects are anticipated from the repeal of DADT.