Attn: El Homo's. El Presidente (aka CIC) says you're now SAT.

[Pepe]

I'm not sure I agree with that. To quote Otto:



I honestly think I'd be equally uncomfortable with this whether the others are straight or gay.

Besides, under DADT, these people might already be gay, right? The only thing that would change is that you'd know about it.

The point I'm trying to make is that since we can't put males and females together then we shouldn't be able to put gay and straight together either. We don't put men and women together because they have sex, degrade command climate, etc. Not to mention that putting men with women would also lead to an pretty substantial increase in sexual harassment and rape cases. How is putting a gay with other gays any different?

 

[m26]

I would imagine it's different in that 97% of male-female bunkmates are a risk for fraternization on the basis of sexual orientation, whereas only an infinitesimal fraction of male bunkmates pose that risk. Or at least that's what I imagine the numbers would look like.

I do see your point, though. I just don't get DADT. I could understand a complete ban, but I just don't see the difference between bunking with closeted homosexuals and open ones.

 

[greatbridge]

Being from KY, I'm surprised you noticed the shortage of periods.

Remember, grammar police is an OCD. In case I miss any others, here ya go............................................................................................................................................

 

[eddie]

Remember, grammar police is an OCD.

Love it or hate it, it is standard policy around here.

 

[Brett327]

Brett,

You've got to relax.

Let's say I'm the crew cheif for your aircraft. You've done the equivalent of going ballistic because your canopy is dirty while a massive hydraulic leak is putting fluid all over the flight deck.

Okay, we'll focus on the clean canopy while we have a fire hazard growing, putting everyone else at risk. But bygod, your canopy will be clean!

Do you get it yet? I'm not judging the President on what I "think" he is doing, I'm am making a judgement on what he "is" doing.

Maybe he was working on our economic problems on his way to Copenhagen?

Thanks for the 3rd grade analogy - it's telling, but I'll play along. Here's what I do get: you have no idea what the President is doing or not doing - none of us do. In your analogy, I may have 5 things wrong with my aircraft, but I also have 8 highly qualified and motivated troopers on the launch crew who I can direct to solve all the problems at once and still have some man-power left over. You assume that this is not the case for the President. I'm asserting that you have no way of knowing - how could you? You want to believe that the President (or congress) can just waive their magic wands and make solve all of our problems if they just get off their ass and act (and stop wasting time with the gays). I'm asserting that our government is constantly working on a variety of issues, most of which take time to solve, so waiting for problem A, B and C to be completely fixed before moving on to problems D, E and F isn't a particularly good management strategy or efficient use of time.

In the end, you're making a lot of assumptions about the guy in office because you didn't vote for him and that's an intellectually dishonest position to take.

Brett

 

[Clux4]

For all of the Campaign talk regarding how screwed up the Bush Administration was, and how Obama assured us all that he had a better plan, why is it now to much to ask for him to let us in on what his plan is? It's not like the Goldwater-Nichols Act requires him to publish his National Security Strategy or anything (oops, it does). If the Bush strategy was so fucked up, how about the guy who has been in office for nearly a year now publish his own strategy?

Afghanistan is somehow a part of this and as you already know, he is using his NSC apparatus (as Goldwater-Nichols Act prescribes) to achieve a sustainable strategy. This is not just a deliberation of Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and a few of the boys around a breakfast table. You know, the way the previous administration did business before it blew in the their face. They had a declarative policy but practiced something totally different.
He has been in office for 9 months. He is crafting a unified strategy and not another door stop. Unless there is a time mandate within the GWN Act, he is doing fine.

I am surprised you gave some kudos to the clunker program. Did you get a deal from it

 

[Flash]

The point I'm trying to make is that since we can't put males and females together then we shouldn't be able to put gay and straight together either. We don't put men and women together because they have sex, degrade command climate, etc. Not to mention that putting men with women would also lead to an pretty substantial increase in sexual harassment and rape cases. How is putting a gay with other gays any different?

If DADT is repealed and gays are allowed to serve openly then that I would be pretty certain that is exactly what will happen. If Australia, Britain and Israel can do it, why the hell can't we?

 

[Mos]

I'm looking forward to serving with openly gay men and women. I'm just not looking forward to all the inevitable drama that'll ensue at some commands.

 

[villanelle]

Remember, grammar police is an OCD. .

I believe that should be, "grammar policing is an OCD".

 

[greatbridge]

Thanks for the 3rd grade analogy - it's telling, but I'll play along. Here's what I do get: you have no idea what the President is doing or not doing - none of us do. In your analogy, I may have 5 things wrong with my aircraft, but I also have 8 highly qualified and motivated troopers on the launch crew who I can direct to solve all the problems at once and still have some man-power left over. You assume that this is not the case for the President. I'm asserting that you have no way of knowing - how could you? You want to believe that the President (or congress) can just waive their magic wands and make solve all of our problems if they just get off their ass and act (and stop wasting time with the gays). I'm asserting that our government is constantly working on a variety of issues, most of which take time to solve, so waiting for problem A, B and C to be completely fixed before moving on to problems D, E and F isn't a particularly good management strategy or efficient use of time.

In the end, you're making a lot of assumptions about the guy in office because you didn't vote for him and that's an intellectually dishonest position to take.

Brett

Sorry Brett - I think my "Graduate Level" response is spot on. I would direct you to your "STFU" post for and example of a 3rd grade response.

It's not about your crew, it's about you and the priorities and "tone" you set as a leader.

Of course, like health care, President Obama is waiting for Congress to take action on this issue. Unfortunately for him, his interest group is impatient.

 

[greatbridge]

I believe that should be, "grammar policing is an OCD".

Exactly!! :icon_mi_1

 

[Clux4]

Of course, like health care, President Obama is waiting for Congress to take action on this issue. Unfortunately for him, his interest group is impatient.

You need to STFU and understand politics. Can President Obama enact a health care reform bill and vote for it in the house and senate? Even if he created a bill, neither the house nor senate will pass it. After all it is their job. The president is driving the process while both sides of the aisle strive to come to a bipartisan consensus. That was the same thing Clinton did and he failed. He came up with a solution and expected it to pass through Congress.

 

[Brett327]

Sorry Brett - I think my "Graduate Level" response is spot on. I would direct you to your "STFU" post for and example of a 3rd grade response.

It's not about your crew, it's about you and the priorities and "tone" you set as a leader.

Of course, like health care, President Obama is waiting for Congress to take action on this issue. Unfortunately for him, his interest group is impatient.

Nice reasoned response to the logic I laid out for you to follow. If you disagree with the President's policies, then argue against them on their merits, but don't present some half-baked notion that his priorities (which you are, by some miracle, privy to) are out a whack or that his "tone" is all wrong. You're never going to be perceived as having a legitimate argument with fluff like that.

So...to that end, what's your real beef with repealing DADT?

Brett

 

[greatbridge]

You need to STFU and understand politics. Can President Obama enact a health care reform bill and vote for it in the house and senate? Even if he created a bill, neither the house nor senate will pass it. After all it is their job. The president is driving the process while both sides of the aisle strive to come to a bipartisan consensus. That was the same thing Clinton did and he failed. He came up with a solution and expected it to pass through Congress.

STFU must be a reflex response when one doesn't like a post?

Thanks for the suggestion but I have a pretty good understanding of politics. Of course, that's why DADT is currently an issue. President Obama is struggling to please anyone. He's getting heat from just about everyone.

A "tell 'em what they want to hear" speech to a friendly audience was a safe play and may buy him some time with the gay community.

 

[Beans]

STFU must be a reflex response when one doesn't like a post?

Thanks for the suggestion but I have a pretty good understanding of politics.

So, new guy, when are you going to show it? And yes I can read, in case you want to mouth off to me, too.