GOP'ish candidates

ila · #1 12-09-2011

Quote:

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 · #2 12-09-2011

Quote:

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 · #3 12-10-2011

Quote:

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 · #4 12-10-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc

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

No sense of humor either.

Quote:

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.