GOP'ish candidates

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

...I thought DADT was a good compromise between allowing gays in the military, and taking into consideration the reality that an openly gay person in the military, right or wrong, is going to be a distraction and at worse will put gay servicemen/women's lives in danger...

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive.

Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.

The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.

The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...

I put NO WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. Perhaps a remedial course in reading is in order.

And as for the notion that you "didn't register an opinion one way or another," well, I'll leave it to all the sentient beings who might read your post to come to the obvious conclusion.

[ila]

Originally Posted by paladin68

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by ila

There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?

We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.

As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.

And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.

As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.

And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.

You wrote:

"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."

Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.

As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there.

As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote:As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.

No sense of humor either.

Originally Posted by smc

You wrote:

"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."

Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.

As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there

Stating it will cause a distraction is NOT taking a position one way or the other.

You are referring to PAST events. I am referring to the present and future. There IS a difference.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, there are, just as there are in any other segment of society.

Ila, the quoted section from transjen illustrates the reality in America. It may be different in other countries, but for now, this attitude exists here, as smc confirms. I don't know why, when we're talking directly about DADT, everyone pretends like this problem between gays and certain rednecks don't exist, but while not directly discussing DADT it seems everyone knows this to be true.

Yes, smc is right. These people who believe it's their god given right to beat up gays & transgendered people exist in the military, just like in any segment of society (unless there are a greater percentage of rednecks in the military than in the general population?). It is a distraction. I'm certainly not saying it should be a distraction, but it is. If I want a job to get done, I'm not going to put a bully and his target together to work on the job right? Unlike in the general population, distractions in the military can potentially cost lives.

[transjen]

In a few hours Iowa will start the primaries kicking off the offical run for the white house
I find it funny when you hear all the talking heads debate and bicker over the reason why most of the GOP voters still are shopping for who to support
Just about everyone except Huntsman have had there 15 min of being king of the hill
Sadly the real reason behind this goes unsaid
Yes there is a reason why this is happening
While the talking heads are scared to say the reason i'm not
The reason the poll numbers are up then down and the top keeps changing is all so simple they are all interchangeable and all there ideas are pretty much the same, everyone is on there own lower taxes for the rich do away with all regulations do away with corprate taxs do away with all goverment spending except miltary and start war with Iran
So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three

Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!

[franalexes]

When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!

when is W going to admit he screwed up the country? he still cliams he made no mistakes
durng W's final year we were losing a average of 75 k jobs a month
Obama has stopped that trend and the private sector has been adding jobs each month and this is while the GOP governors have been on a job cutting spree cutting state jobs just to keep the unemployment numbers high
And how can he do anything when the GOP always says no to everything
The GOP goals to to wreck the econemy just to take over
Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!

Well W deserves all the credit, he made this mess and Obama has been fixing it which isn't easy when he's blocked at every turn by the GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.
Governors regardless of D's or R's with the help of their legislatures have had to cut funding because the poor economy results in lower income for the States and they wish not to become as indebted as Obama has pushed this nation.

Borrow all the money you can, increase your debt, and then tell me how rich you are. REALLY!and if you aren't rich after doing that it's not my fault because I convinced you to do it.

[franalexes]

Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

[GRH]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.

And we were promised that free trade, deregulation, union-busting, and cutting the top marginal tax rates for the 1% would cure all our economic woes under W (and earlier administrations). We see where that got us. So it's far from the first time that political promises were, at best miscalculations, and at worst, outright lies.