Originally Posted by spence (Post 820785)

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. -spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 820789)

Then why answer the question?


-spence

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 820791)

god I cant even keep up with all this!
Seriously, all this is leading to undue stress, lets give it a holiday rest. lets be happy we have men, woman who will give their lives for our freedom. lets enjoy that freedom by celebrating with the people we love, drinking, laughing and celebrating. Next year will be sure to throw some major life changing situtuations at us. Lets give it a rest. You'll be happier for teh short term

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 820792)

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".

Originally Posted by spence (Post 820800)

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 820800)

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 820859)

Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site :deadhorse::rotflmao::scratch:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 820868)

you really checked? :) I wouldn't be able to figure out how...:uhuh:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 820801)

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 820891)

I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer :rotf2:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 820898)

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 820913)

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that...:uhuh:...sign em' up!

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 820984)

Maybe the Issue is White Heterosexual Males......

Woman in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's want to bang'em....

Gays in Combat doesn't work because the WHM's are afraid they might get banged.

The Woman and The Gays together in combat..hmmmmm no issues...except for some coffee talk and fashion tips....there's the answer.






***This was just a joke....Don't read too much into it***

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 820904)

You ever consider using something like this:
Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) - vBulletin.org Forum

Originally Posted by mosholu (Post 820937)

Israel has had gays serving openly since 1993 and they have not had a problem with it. I give that a lot of weight because they are in a situation where fighting is a real possibility and you serve in the military/reserves for a number of years. Maybe our country is has a more homophobic bias and as a result there will be some changes the military will have to do regarding training etc. to root out any stigma relating to the gays that are serving.

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 821022)

Come on, if it weren't for the US, any Isreali military (gay or straight) would not be able to fight in our current world. Bad example in my opinion

Originally Posted by mosholu (Post 821115)

Piscator: I do not see the relevance between the fact that the US supports/gives aid to Israel and whether gays in their military has been a problem for them.

Originally Posted by Piscator (Post 821136)

I agree they have no margin for error I guess what I was trying to say is would they really be that good of a Military if they didn't have US aid and that is why I didn't think it was a good comparison.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 820507)

well, Barry signed it...good riddance to another horrible George W. Bush policy...heh...heh

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 820184)

I'm not sure if Obama has told Spence what to think on this issue yet, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

I have no huge problem with homosexuality. My guess is it's not a choice, but something you're born with (not many people would voluntarily choose a path thatr's so challenging and difficult). When I look at my wife, an involuntary biochemical reaction takes place. I can't help it, and I didn't choose it. It just is.

i want homosexuals to enjoy every happiness and opportunity they can.

I've also been in combat. And as an officer, I've had to order my guys to do some very dangerous things. When an officer is deciding who goes first through a door to clear a house, his men better not have reason to believe that the officer's decisions about who does what, are influenced by feelings of affection. If that happens, even if the men think it's happening, the unit cannot operrate in combat. It just can't. If my wife was under my command (let's say we were secretly married), there is simply no way I could be expected to order her into harm's way.

I was never a fan of DADT, I thought that was too tolerant. In my opinion, military combat units are not good places for politically correct social engineering. You can't do anything that disrupts the chain of command, you just can't. If an officer orders a private to take a hill, that private has the right to know that his selection was not even remotely based upon sexual affection, regardless of whether the affection is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 821285)

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 821285)

Spartan soldiers were mainly homosexual, Amazon's were lesbians

Who cares!!

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie (Post 821278)

How was it a George W Bush policy ?
He wasn't president in 1993, Clinton was.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 820916)

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device