"Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Passes Senate Procedural Vote."

[Koolblue13]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXC9hMlRqU&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXC9hMlRqU&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Drew_Fl]

one thing i'd be interested in is when i was in the AF, NCO's had this detail we referred to as "Meat Gazing" where you had to supervise drug piss tests. There was really no way out of it and you just had to do it and look at wangs all day. Fortunately i never had to do it, but with the change in policy i wonder if there will be some more eager beavers for this detail.

[visionary]

Fortunately i never had to do it, but with the change in policy i wonder if there will be some more eager beavers for this detail.

I think the eager beavers would be over with the women....

[Larry]

So, does anybody know what the rules are going to be, after this thing is repealed?

For example, when it's repealed, then will all gays then be required to "come out"?

Just speculating as to what I would like the rule to be: I'd like to keep the "Don't ask, don't tell", part, and just get rid of the "If we find out, then it's a court martial" part.

Just like I imagine, if I were, say a seargent, I think I'd be advising my troops that "Look folks, politicians change. This thing might get changed back. If that happens, then all the ones who 'came out', are gonna be kicked out. But the ones who stayed 'covert', will still be clear."

But I can see drawbacks with a policy of encouraging military personnel to hide things about themselves, too.

Anybody know? Or want to speculate in ignorance, like me?

[LeesburgSkinFan]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXC9hMlRqU&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXC9hMlRqU&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Sometimes cancer gets it right.

[Koolblue13]

Sometimes cancer gets it right.

Holy **** is that a shockingly awful thing to say. The guy hated war, so you think he should die of cancer. Classy.

[Larry]

Holy **** is that a shockingly awful thing to say. The guy hated war, so you think he should die of cancer. Classy.

I was hoping that I was mis-interpreting that statement.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Holy **** is that a shockingly awful thing to say. The guy hated war, so you think he should die of cancer. Classy.

Sounds more to me like he thinks those that serve are nothing but idiots.

[twa]

Obviously I can't speak for a majority. Just for myself and with those I've talked to.

They did do a poll though that I think backs it up:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/11/30/2010-11-30_dont_ask_dont_tell_pentagon_study_gays_in_military_would_do_no_harm.html

Just a note, that poll showed combat units to have a problem with it.

Not surprisingly those are the ones with less privacy and more close quarters right?

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Sounds more to me like he thinks those that serve are nothing but idiots.

And that means that he deserves to die of cancer?

[Madison Redskin]

Just a note, that poll showed combat units to have a problem with it.

Not surprisingly those are the ones with less privacy and more close quarters right?

I understand that the military wanted to poll the troops to see how comfortable they would feel about the possibility of serving with openly gay troops. However, if a solider, airman, sailor, or Marine thinks he or she might not be able to perform his or her duties if the military allows openly gay men and women into their units, my thought is ... don't let the door hit ya' on the way out. Seriously, if they might have a problem following their orders, doing their jobs, etc. on that basis, I question whether they have the discipline to do their jobs well in the first place.

[renaissance]

one thing i'd be interested in is when i was in the AF, NCO's had this detail we referred to as "Meat Gazing" where you had to supervise drug piss tests. There was really no way out of it and you just had to do it and look at wangs all day. Fortunately i never had to do it, but with the change in policy i wonder if there will be some more eager beavers for this detail.

If you get your jollies from watching someone pee then you're not gay you're just ****ing weird.

[twa]

Ah the old sensitive to your concerns,now shut up and do your job line?

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 09:22 PM ----------

If you get your jollies from watching someone pee then you're not gay you're just ****ing weird.

Not that there's anything wrong with that

[Jrew1223]

I understand that the military wanted to poll the troops to see how comfortable they would feel about the possibility of serving with openly gay troops. However, if a solider, airman, sailor, or Marine thinks he or she might not be able to perform his or her duties if the military allows openly gay men and women into their units, my thought is ... don't let the door hit ya' on the way out. Seriously, if they might have a problem following their orders, doing their jobs, etc. on that basis, I question whether they have the discipline to do their jobs well in the first place.

I agree completely. I remember back when we first invaded Iraq in 2003, there was a report out about 50 or so Arabic translators who were discharged from the military for being gay. What garbage... What makes this even worse is the fact that when we installed the CPA with Paul Bremer leading the way we had a total of ZERO Arabic translators within that body. We know all Bremer did was !@#$ up everything royally.

[Baculus]

I agree completely. I remember back when we first invaded Iraq in 2003, there was a report out about 50 or so Arabic translators who were discharged from the military for being gay. What garbage... What makes this even worse is the fact that when we installed the CPA with Paul Bremer leading the way we had a total of ZERO Arabic translators within that body. We know all Bremer did was !@#$ up everything royally.

We're still looking for the billions lost under Bremer's "leadership."

[LeesburgSkinFan]

And that means that he deserves to die of cancer?

He was a hateful prick. I lose no sleep over someone like that not being around anymore. Chickens coming home to roost and all that.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

He was a hateful prick. I lose no sleep over someone like that not being around anymore. Chickens coming home to roost and all that.

Says the guy cheering cancer.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Says the guy cheering cancer.

And Bill Hicks is still wormfood.

[ZoEd]

Just a note, that poll showed combat units to have a problem with it.

Not surprisingly those are the ones with less privacy and more close quarters right?

I would also like to add that the ones most ok with it were AF and Navy Medical personnel? Wonder why?

Also, what parts of the military were the most readily available to take the survey? People sitting behind a desk stateside or the boots on the ground guys in Afghanistan and Iraq? I don't know, accordng to Air Force Times absolutely nothing is supposed to change with berthing, showers or latrines.

[Springfield]

So in a general sense, what does this mean?

[ZoEd]

The excuses have run out. There is one answer left - bigotry. It is hard for some people to ever let go of it.

Please explain to me how a person who doesn't agree with a persons sexual PREFERENCE is a bigot? Is there a nice little tag we can lable peole who bash and hate on Christians wo don't agree with homosexuality?

[Madison Redskin]

And Bill Hicks is still wormfood.

Jesus that's pretty ****ed up.

[ZoEd]

I understand that the military wanted to poll the troops to see how comfortable they would feel about the possibility of serving with openly gay troops. However, if a solider, airman, sailor, or Marine thinks he or she might not be able to perform his or her duties if the military allows openly gay men and women into their units, my thought is ... don't let the door hit ya' on the way out. Seriously, if they might have a problem following their orders, doing their jobs, etc. on that basis, I question whether they have the discipline to do their jobs well in the first place.

But we applaud the homosexuals currently serving who chose to disobey orders? The poor victims! I have no sympathy for any that have been discharged, not because they were gay, but the ones who knowingly disobeyed the UCMJ. That is not serving honorably. You can't pick and chose which orders you follow. Until it's legal, don't do it.

[Madison Redskin]

Ah the old sensitive to your concerns,now shut up and do your job line?

No. My point was that members of the military who might not be able to perform their jobs because they might be near a gay should probably be weeded out because they probably lack discipline. I have no problem with someone who dislikes homosexuals, thinks homosexuality is wrong, etc. serving in the military, provided they don't let their personal beliefs affect their professional obligations.

Repealing DADT might be a good thing in that, it not only allows homosexuals to serve, it will help weed out the troops with substandard discipline.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 10:55 PM ----------

But we applaud the homosexuals currently serving who chose to disobey orders? The poor victims! I have no sympathy for any that have been discharged, not because they were gay, but the ones who knowingly disobeyed the UCMJ. That is not serving honorably. You can't pick and chose which orders you follow. Until it's legal, don't do it.

I actually agree. I would think you would agree with my statement as well.

[ZoEd]

No. My point was that members of the military who might not be able to perform their jobs because they might be near a gay should probably be weeded out because they probably lack discipline. I have no problem with someone who dislikes homosexuals, thinks homosexuality is wrong, etc. serving in the military, provided they don't let their personal beliefs affect their professional obligations.

Repealing DADT might be a good thing in that, it not only allows homosexuals to serve, it will help weed out the troops with substandard discipline.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 10:55 PM ----------

I actually agree. I would think you would agree with my statement as well.

It depends on the situation actually. A person might be cool with the homosexual working in the cubicle next them but may not be so cool bunking with them in the dorm. I've said this a billion times already, what if your daughter joined the military and was told she had to live in the dorm, sometimes three or four to a room, with a bunch of dudes. Would you be cool with that? Now what about the guy who is put into the same situation with homosexual roommates? He should just STFU and color? He doesn't have a right to feel uncomfortable? What you fail to understand is military life isn't like civilian life, we don't have a CHOICE who we live with, where we live, who we work with. We can't just change jobs or pack our **** and move down the hall.

As for "don't let the door hit them in the ass", so servicemen and women who are currently serving honorably are suddenly POS's because they don't feel comfortable with the repeal? Wow, nice little perfect world that you live in.