Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'd like to think the military isn't driven by the PC Pissants.......I'd like to think a quick "Put that friggin thing away before I slug you" would suffice.

If it wasn't for liberal politically correct bullsh*t, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society.


In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest.

All things considered the number of gay service men and women is still pretty small. I'd think the leadership capabilities of a professional military should be able to handle this pretty easily. It doesn't seem to be an issue in other countries, the vast majority of which allow gays to serve openly.


Social engineering has nothing to do with it. Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are. To be honest, the idea I had to trust someone who I thought might hiding something big might do a lot to erode unity of the team as well.

Social engineering is a talking point used by the religious right to push the idea of a gay lifestyle by choice.


Granted, I don't have your real world experience, but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time. People know who the favorites are...

The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare, and this coming to a head in a combat situation must be even more rare. A professional has the responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, and you don't set such a discriminatory policy based on something that's so unlikely to happen.

I certainly can see people uncomfortable with the shower situation...but they'll get over it. Remember, they're already showering with them now. It's quite insulting to say someone else needs to change because they offend you.

Repealing DADT was the right thing to do, and I applaud those like Scott Brown who didn't let the party politics influence their decision.

-spence

Spence -

"Unfortunately, a lot of the opposition to gays serving in the military is just the opposite, religious and political leadership who assert that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice that's detrimental so society."

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

"In the business world you have similar situations and a professional (and often corporate regulations) knows there's an obligation to change the situation to avoid a conflict of interest."

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

"Social engineering has nothing to do with it."

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

"Gay people are already serving, and I'd wager for the most part their team know who they are."

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

"but I would think that a lot of this would be taken care of by time."

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

"The situation of a gay service person with leadership responsibility over a lover is bound to be rare,"

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

Can you do somehting for me? As pointed out by Scott W (brilliantly, I might add), can you explain an apparent flaw in liberal ideology?

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

I'm tired, I have a cold, and my one year old has been puking on me all day. Sorry, I'm tired and cranky.

[Fly Rod]

Marine Corp has ordered all Marines to be issued aluminum pie plates as standard combat gear to be used to protect backside when in close proximity to another Marine. And mandatory compliance to start using soap on a rope.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) on the issue of birth control, the liberal ideology suggests that abstinence programs are a waste of time. Their theory is that you can't stop people from having sex, so learning safe sex is better than preaching abstinence. That argument only makes sense if you concede that people cannot withhold from having sex.

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.

(2) on the issue of gays in the military, all of a sudden liberals change their tune, and suggest that gays won't be a problem, because they can put their sexual impulses on hold. In the military, you might be deployed for over a year, where the only folks you see are the guys you work with, 24 nhours a day.

So where does the ability to control one's sexual impulses come from? Do liberals feel that only homosexuals have the ability to control their sexual impulses? Or can it be that liberal ideology has no logic at its core?

In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard.



In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?

Likwid -

"Prove abstinence programs work then. Shouldn't be hard."

Like all liberals, you completely dodged my question, which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. You dodged like the intellectual coward you are, and asked me a different question. But that's OK, because I can handle that one.

When it comes to preventing STD's and unplanned pregnancies, abstinence is the only method that is guaranteed to be 100% effective. Many recent studies show that abstinence education probrams reduce casual sexual activity.

Let's look at the liberal approach to this problem, which is to tell folks it's OK to have casual sex, as long as you're careful. That argument surfaced in the 1960's during the sexual revolution. Liberals argued that if birth control was readily available to everyone, that would lead to a reduction in unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and STD's.

Well, the liberals got what they wanted. Birth control is readily available. And what happened was a huge INCREASE in unplanned pregnancies, kids born out of wedlock, abortions, STD's, adultery, and divorce.

Well done, liberals...kudos to you all...

"In the military you have a job to do. You do that job. Or you get in trouble. Most likely get the crap kicked out of you by your unit for effing up. If its an issue, they kick you out. What is so hard to understand about that?"

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

Yes, you have a job to do. The majority of people who have some experience in combat, feel that openly homosexual people have a harder time doing that job effectively. Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

I responded directly to your points. Maybe you can try to show me the same courtesy, and answer the question that I was asking.

P.S. Dont worry, we all know why you didn't answer, because you can't. There is no explanation for why liberals claim abstinence doesn't work (based upon the belief that you can't stop people from having sex), yet those same liberals claim that homosexuals can put their sexuality aside while serving in combat. There is simply no earthly way to reconcile those two positions. So you dodged and asked me what you thought was a "gotcha" question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Every single military argument against repealing dadat that I have ever heard, is based on the concern that morale would be harmed. For you to suggest otherwise shows you aren't really grounded in the facts. You just label everyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe. Your rants are unbelievably consistent, unoriginal, predictable, and boring.

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.

Irrelevent. In the business world, gays go home at the end of the day to their partners. In the military, you live 24/7 for MONTHS AT A TIME with the guys you work with. Again, you ignore the facfs that matter because those don't serve your agenda, and insert irrelevent meaningless facts that support your argument. That tactic would get any freshman debate student a richly deserved "F".

It's called drawing a parallel.

No?? Then please tell me why we're having this debate. Enlighten me.

Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.

I'd love to know, LOVE TO KNOW, what you base that on. Again, you invent supporting arguments. It must be so convenient to support an agenda when you permit yourself to invent fictitious supporting arguments as you go along.

I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.

And possibly at the cost of who-knows-how-many lives. That may be a price you're willing to pay for political correctness. Not me.

I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”

Ask the National Organization for Women if problems with women in the military have been "rare".

This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?

Just one time Spence, try getting the facts FIRST and then making your decision, not the other way around...

The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

[scottw]

we all know about Spence's "facts"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The facts indicate that 70% of Americans support the repeal.

The facts are that the military's own assessment of repealing DADT is that it's low risk.

The facts are that the Pentagon's own study of the issue found that it wouldn't harm troop moral.



It's called drawing a parallel.



Because it's a politically charged wedge issue.


I believe I said "I'd wager" as in I'd be willing to take that bet. This is my opinion based on my conversations with past/present service members and what I've gathered in interviews with service personnel.


I'll defer to someone with military experience on this...

Admiral Mullen: “My personal opinion is now my professional view, that this is a policy change that we can make in a relatively low-risk fashion ... given time and strong leadership.”


This is making the assumption that homosexual harassment has the same rates as heterosexual harassment. And even that being said, are you proposing we should ban women from serving? If not then what's the point?



The facts here seem to overwhelming support lifting the ban, which is a natural progression of shifting attitudes in the public at large. If you read my old posts on the subject you'll see that I've consistently called for a repeal of DADT, with the assumption that the military leadership is given the opportunity to mitigate any disruption they believe to be a potential risk to ongoing activities. It looks as though this is exactly what is being advocated by the Pentagon, the Sec Def and what's going to happen.

Your issue Chris is that you can't seem to have a conversation with people as they really are, rather, you need to project your liberal stereotypes upon them to make your talking points fit.

-spence

Spence, the Sec Defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs want to repeal DADT. And like you said, most Americans want it repealed.

You left out one tiny fact. Every poll taken of servicemen who are serving in combat shows that a vast majority don't want to overturn DADT.

So you say you'll let the military decide? It sounds like you only listen to the military folk who agree with you, and you're ignoring the guys who will be most impacted.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why do you suppose that 65% of servicemen who serve in combat units are opposed to repealing DADT? Are we all homophobic bigots, every single one of us?

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Mhy take on DADT is this, by the way...if a huge majority of combat troops are OK with it, and only a few homophobes are opposed, then I say repeal DADT and letthe military deal with the few bigots.

But that's not the case. Every poll I've seen shows that if you ask guys who are serving in combat commands, 65% want to leave DADT in place. Those are the guys putting their necks on the line, so I would choose to defer to them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure where you pulled that number from. I believe the Pentagon study indicated that 40% of combat troops were against the repeal across all branches, and 58% in the Marines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership.

Flip the numbers and 60% of combat troops either support the repeal or don't care...a strong majority.

The opinion of combat troops seems to have been heard and noted by the military leadership advocating a repeal. Their position being that even so, it shouldn't block moving forward as long as the transition was handled properly.

I'm not sure who you think has called you a homophobe. It's certainly reasonable to oppose something seen as a non-critical change when focused on a combat mission. This is why organizational change in business or the military can be so difficult. It's never easy to balance strategic direction without disrupting day to day tactical operations.

-spence

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda. There is no limit to how inane a spin you will put on facts that you don't like.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

leave me out...you'll just get me in trouble...check's in the mail for the "brilliant" comment though...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

leave me out...you'll just get me in trouble...check's in the mail for the "brilliant" comment though...

Scott, one of my favorite hobbies is blowing holes in the logic (or lack thereof) that liberal ideology is based upon. Your observation was a perfect example, and one that I would never have thought of. I have repeated that several times in the last few days, and I look forward to nailing my communist sister-in-law with it, when I see her at Christmas!

You know how effective it was, based on the fact that the liberals here refuse to respond to it!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Dad, you're all over the place, and coming across as someone who won't admit he might be wrong..

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" .

Trust Me...I've been married 20 years....I've mastered the art of admitting that I'm wrong....

I see "thoughts" as being opinions, and as far as I knew sombody's opinion is never wrong....facts are wrong...but not opinions. I gave my opinion...and I stand by it, I have no issue w/ gays serving in the military...period. My Opinion...don't care if you don't like it....I'm not changing it.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, you said no more would enlist. Now, you're saying who cares if more enlist, because they're already there..

I thought I was pretty consistent on my stand, where did I contradict myself in this thread...I'm not seeing it. I never said no more would enlist, I did say I don't have a problem if more want to serve their country...not denying that. And again it is pretty consistent w/ my stand on the issue.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you don't see those 2 things as different (having to hide your gayness and being openly gay) we have nothing more to discuss. .

I guess we don't....and I'm OK w/ that

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You keep dodging my points, and I keep re-stating them, and you keep dodging. It gets tiresome.

I don't think I dodged anything...I answered what I thought was correct to me.....I don't know what more you want me to say...Repealing DADT doesn't bother me...

A Lot of things in this forum get "Tiresome".....but its like a train wreck I guess because I keep coming back to poke around...shame on me

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim:
"which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. "

There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. Contraception is not a liberal ideology, although it is against Catholic ideology. I'm sure lots of conservative's have sex before marriage. Maybe not devout Catholics, but give me a break. I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married.


I asked if you were married while deployed because you were able to control your sexual impulses. No affairs, no hookers.

Your response was "No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?"

So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? I suspect you would have done your job and stayed faithful. Yet you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight.

I have one other thoughts/question and then I have to get back to work to get finished up so I can take tomorrow off.
1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job.



Nebe and I had coffee with a friend of ours (and Spence's) last night. He posts, but not in the Political forum. Vietnam Vet, paratrooper, shot in combat and a lot of time in that jungle. Still crazy as hell in his early 60's. I asked his thoughts and he reiterated a story of his time in Nam where one of the toughest, 'killing machine's in his unit was gay and they all knew it. No one person had a problem with it, ever. During combat, where as he said, your so scared and focused on staying alive that everything else doesn't matter". I can't offer anything as I don't share that perspective or experience with you guys.


Happy holidays to you and yours (Sincere!)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" .

Trust Me...I've been married 20 years....I've mastered the art of admitting that I'm wrong....

I see "thoughts" as being opinions, and as far as I knew sombody's opinion is never wrong....facts are wrong...but not opinions. I gave my opinion...and I stand by it, I have no issue w/ gays serving in the military...period. My Opinion...don't care if you don't like it....I'm not changing it.



I thought I was pretty consistent on my stand, where did I contradict myself in this thread...I'm not seeing it. I never said no more would enlist, I did say I don't have a problem if more want to serve their country...not denying that. And again it is pretty consistent w/ my stand on the issue.



I guess we don't....and I'm OK w/ that



I don't think I dodged anything...I answered what I thought was correct to me.....I don't know what more you want me to say...Repealing DADT doesn't bother me...

A Lot of things in this forum get "Tiresome".....but its like a train wreck I guess because I keep coming back to poke around...shame on me

Dad -

First, I was exgausted and cranky last night, sorry I came across ruder than I should have...

"I never said no more would enlist"

Here is what you said, which I interpreted, incorrcetly, as meaning more would enlist...

"Just because they repealed DADT doesn't mean that all of a sudden there are going to be gays in the military"

Yuo also said that since gays are already in the military, repealing DADT doesn't change much. You said this...

"Never had any issues before...but now that we aren't going to kick them out...its all of a sudden an issue"

My point is that if someone is hiding the fact that he is gay, and no one knows he is gay, that's one thing. If that same guy comes out, tells everyone he's gay, and is openly lusting after other men, that is something different. Maybe it's not more problematic, but it's different. It seemed like you were suggesting that repealing DADT would not change anything.

[Fly Rod]

All this concern about Gay's, I'd be just as concerned about Greeks, they carry the VASELINE with them, hooooooo.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim:
"which was explaining the obvious contradiction in liberal ideology about whether or not people can refrain from sexual activity. "

There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. Contraception is not a liberal ideology, although it is against Catholic ideology. I'm sure lots of republican's have sex before marriage. Maybe not devout Catholics, but give me a break. I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married.


I asked if you were married while deployed because you were able to control your sexual impulses. No affairs, no hookers.

Your response was "No, I did not cheat on my wife. But you see, except for the rare day off, I had no opportunity, because I was surrounded by men, who I'm not attracted to If I was gay, how could I not feel some sexual impulses toward some of the guys?"

So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? I suspect you would have done your job and stayed faithful. Yet you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight.

I have one other thoughts/question and then I have to get back to work to get finished up so I can take tomorrow off.
1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job.



Nebe and I had coffee with a friend of ours (and Spence's) last night. He posts, but not in the Political forum. Vietnam Vet, paratrooper, shot in combat and a lot of time in that jungle. Still crazy as hell in his early 60's. I asked his thoughts and he reiterated a story of his time in Nam where one of the toughest, 'killing machine's in his unit was gay and they all knew it. No one person had a problem with it, ever. During combat, where as he said, your so scared and focused on staying alive that everything else doesn't matter". I can't offer anything as I don't share that perspective or experience with you guys.


Happy holidays to you and yours (Sincere!)

Wow.

"There is no contradiction. The availability of contraception vs abstinence programs, which largely is done at the high-school age level is apples to zucchini from soldiers in the United States military. "

So you're syaing there's no contradiction because asking high schoolers to control themselves is one thing, but asking soldiers to control themselves is somehting else? If that was valid, and it's not, I wonder why women in uniform have had as many problems as they have had? If anything, sexuality is more pervasive in uniform, especially in combat commands, because it's such an intense, stressful, depressing, lonely existence.

"I got married at 26, I certainly was very thankful for contraception before and after I got married. "

Good for you. The fact still is, that the availability of contraception, with the inevitable degredation of sex into a casual thing, has led to an explosion of societal problems. It might have been good for you, it has not been good for society. That's a different debate...

"So if I follow this logic, if there were women there you were attracted to, you would have had a harder time not cheating on your wife? "

No. What I meant was this. Let's say I was single, and there was a girl in my command I had a crush on. Or even if I was married, maybe there was a young girl that I wanted to look after, maybe I feel like a father to her. I might have let those feelings influence my decisions, decisions like who has to kick down a door and secure a room. I'd like to think I could still be just as objective, but human nature is what it is.

I guess what I'm saying is, at a minimum, repealing DADT will make effective combat more challenging. And in my opinion (rational folks can certainly disagree), combat is challenging enough without needlessly injecting more challenges, just for the sake of political corrcetness.

But at the same time, I can respect the feelings of a patriotic homosexual who feels the same calling to serve that I felt.

"you think all that man meat will make every gay soldier a walking hard-on who is too distracted to fight. '

nope, that way more extreme than what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this. Let's assume I'm a private and my lieutenant is openly gay. I'm straight, but I know there are other gays in my platoon. If I suspect that the lieutenant is giving me the dangerous jobs because he's got a crush on the other guys, that's a serious problem. Even if I have no valid reason to believe that, it's still a problem. The only way to eliminate that problem is to only allow heterosexual men in combat. Is the problem severe enough to warrant such a radical solution? That's the debate. Time will tell.

"1. Out of your unit/platoon/brigade was anyone gay? Did you suspect anyone was gay? Did/would it matter to you as an officer as long as he did his job. "

In my company, I didn't suspect anyone was gay. I'll say this. If one of my guys was gay, I still would have died for him without hesitation. But I'd bet that if one of my guys was gay, some of the men would have complained to me about thinking it's immoral, about not wanting to shower with him, not wanting to bunk with him, etc...I had enough going on, I was glad I didn't have to deal with that distraction.

As to your heroic friend...I have said repeatedly that when in actual combat with bullets flying (I've been there twice), sexual orientation is not on anyone's mind. But the day-to-day living in a forward-serving combat command, things are a little different. Morale is very important, respect for the chain of command is vital.

I've been in combat, and now I work in an office. They are very, very different environments, they are very different realities. What works in one may not work in the other. In fact, what may be required in one, may be disastrous in the other. I may not trust my boss or co-workers in the office, but I can still do my job effectively. I cannot function in a combat command without that trust. That trust has to be absolute and total. And I'm not saying that repealing DADT necessarily erodes that trust, but it makes it a little harder, it invites additional challenges to overcome.

Hope you have a wonderful holiday too. God Bless all here.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

58% of combat Marines are opposed to the repeal, and Spence is in a position to suggest that they only "say" they're opposed to the repeal because of pressure from leadership.

That's not what I said.

Spence, you dismiss EVERY SINGLE FACT that doesn't support your agenda.

Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I also can't help butr notice that you refuse to address my question, based on Scott W's post...

If you think I'm a liberal, and all liberals have a mental disorder, wouldn't you be biased to think my response was the product of non-rational thought?

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The only way to eliminate that problem is to only allow heterosexual men in combat. Is the problem severe enough to warrant such a radical solution? That's the debate. Time will tell.

Based on this line and the rest of your last post, do you feel the same about women in combat?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not what I said.


Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

-spence

"That's not what I said."

Here's what you said...

"It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership."

If you can tell me that there's a significant difference between what you said, and what I claimed you said, I'm willing to listen.

"Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

58% of combat marines are opposed to repealing DADT. Instead of accepting that those who are in that situation could have a valid concern, you dismiss it, claiming that those men were coerced into being opposed to repealing DADT by their commanders.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Based on this line and the rest of your last post, do you feel the same about women in combat?

Same logic, yeah. I hate saying that I want to deprive patriotic women of their desire to serve in combat, but it's a rough environment. The introduction of women into combat areas has not been without problems.

I love my wife and my mom, and I don't think that my opinion that women shouldn't be in combat is based on sexist notions, it's not like I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I believe in equal opportunity for women in the workplace, I guess I feel that combat is a different animal.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you think I'm a liberal, and all liberals have a mental disorder, wouldn't you be biased to think my response was the product of non-rational thought?

-spence

Yes I would. Because there is no possible rational reconciliation of the flip-flopping hypocrisy that Scott W unwittingly exposed. If you don't see an indefensible inconsistency there, you aren't seeing clearly. If you think big government and high taxes is the answer, despite what's happening in Europe as I type this, you aren't thinking clearly, rather you have been indoctrinated. I know how patronizing that sounds, I just can't come up with another explanation of an ideology that claims that serial killers have the right to live but not unborn babies.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"That's not what I said."

Here's what you said...

"It wouldn't surprise me if the Marines were higher partly due to the opposition from their leadership."

If you can tell me that there's a significant difference between what you said, and what I claimed you said, I'm willing to listen.

I doubt you are, but here goes...

Of all the military leadership, the Marine Commandants have voiced perhaps the most vocal opposition to DADT on the basis that it won't enhance the fighting force and may be a distraction that would cost lives.

If my direct leadership said the same in context of my personal duty it would certainly be a factor in my position on the matter.

"Name one "fact" presented in this thread that I've "dismissed".

58% of combat marines are opposed to repealing DADT. Instead of accepting that those who are in that situation could have a valid concern, you dismiss it, claiming that those men were coerced into being opposed to repealing DADT by their commanders.

Good to see you use the updated statistics.

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. I also mentioned that from what I've heard this concern is being factored into the strategic shift in direction.

Hell, this is validation if anythings else, and a far cry from an accusation of "coercion". Once again, you're just applying your radical left-wing template on the situation, rather than reading it for what it is.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This is why I love the Political forum soooooo much. I love the fact that this thread was started by asking what people's "thoughts" were on a subject....and escalated to me not being able to admit I'm wrong and being "All Over the Place" .

Ah yes, the principle reason I've, for the most part, stopped posting in here - Constructive *discussions* are impossible.

"What's your opinion (though I don't really care unless it's fully in line with mine)?" is a common theme.

Try to create dialog and you're an idiot (or #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&) as soon as you don't agree with someone else's opinion. Political commentary from the media is considered fact and every topic turns into a repetitive, nitpicking, out-of-context battle of selective hearing and verbiage spinning, where someone challenges the people they disagree with to disprove their own outrageous hypothesis.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For the hundredth time...if a gay officer tells a private to take a hill, if that private has any inkling that his selection was influenced by his commander's sexuality (regardless of whether or not the private has a good reason to be concerned) than you can't function in combat.

And that private better be NJP'd or have his face stomped in.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes I would.

Then why answer the question?

Because there is no possible rational reconciliation of the flip-flopping hypocrisy that Scott W unwittingly exposed.

"Flip-flopping" and "hypocrisy is redundant...as is "ScottW" and "unwittingly"

-spence