With gay ban debate over, military im...

With gay ban debate over, military impact in doubt

There are 77 comments on the KOTA-TV Rapid City story from Dec 19, 2010, titled With gay ban debate over, military impact in doubt. In it, KOTA-TV Rapid City reports that:

The debate over gays in the military has been settled with a historic decision to allow them to serve openly, but big questions lie ahead about how and when the change will take place, how troops will accept it and whether it will hamper the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOTA-TV Rapid City.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
The Pink Diaper

AOL

#65 Dec 23, 2010
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Go for it. I would love to watch a troll beheaded by the Taliban. I hope they shit down your neckhole and carry your head around on a pike too. Loser.
Now, is that a way to talk to one of your DNA imprinted brethren, oops...sorry, there is no gene signifying a gay person, I forgot.

OTOH, you can join me when I visit Brucie Woosie at the recruitment center, even though we're sisters, maybe we can get in the same unit? Hope to see you there sugar britches....
Hogwash

AOL

#66 Dec 23, 2010
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's take a look at the actual report since you seem to care so strongly about their opinion. Have you even read it? I have. Below is a link to the actual report so you can fact check me babe.
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/061...
69% said that they believed they had served with someone that they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of that number, 92% of them described the experience as very positive, positive, or neither positive nor negative.(Page 180)
Based on that fact alone, your argument is total bullshit. Sorry. I'm not nearly done yet though...
Take a look at pages 184-189 on the report. Those questions were asked to soldiers who believed that they had a gay or lesbian soldier in their unit.
-92% described the unit's ability to work together as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
-89% described the unit's morale as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
-93% described the unit's performance as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
On question 48, 47% of the respondents said that a soldier's sexuality had no bearing at all on their ability to perform the job with smaller margins saying that it had "some" or "a little."
Scroll even further down and look at page 194. 64% believe that the DADT repeal could be implemented very easily, easily, or equally easy and difficult.
Scroll down even further and look at page 219. One of the criteria put forth as one of the 3 most important factors was "having only heterosexual members in the unit" and a mere 5.2% chose that option.
On page 226 they ask the question;
"If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said that he or she is gay or lesbian, how would that affect your ability to fulfill your mission during combat?"
53% stated that it would have no impact, 5% stated that it would affect them positively or very positively, 11% said equally positive and negative with 24% stating that it would affect them negatively or very negatively. 10% said they did not know how it would affect them.
On page 229 they ask what you would do if you had to share combat or shower facilitates with someone who was openly gay. 31% said they wouldn't do anything. 25% said they would go at a different time. 11% would say something to the lesbian or gay service member. Only 16% said they would see if they had other options.
Clearly, it isn't a big deal. What the hell is wrong with you? A CLEAR majority of those polled have no issues. Even when looking solely at combat troops, a majority of them don't care. With strong leadership there won't be anything to worry about.
Was that post too "emotional" for you McCarthy?
That report is flawed! Anything emanating from the "empty suits" administration is questionable at best. Filled with pimps, Dyke's, gays, "pinko's" and other nefarious characters, hardly a resume for honesty, character and integrity.

http://www.frc.org/infocus/congress-should-be...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#67 Dec 23, 2010
Hogwash wrote:
That report is flawed! Anything emanating from the "empty suits" administration is questionable at best. Filled with pimps, Dyke's, gays, "pinko's" and other nefarious characters, hardly a resume for honesty, character and integrity.
And as support for your claims you provide what exactly? A screed from an organization now listed as an anti-gay hate group for their malicious and false propaganda. At least you did "think" of an appropriate screen name for yourself, "Hogwash". Because that is all you have given as a response, pure, unadulterated hogwash:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelli... #
Bill R

Raymond, WA

#68 Dec 23, 2010
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's take a look at the actual report since you seem to care so strongly about their opinion. Have you even read it? I have. Below is a link to the actual report so you can fact check me babe.
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/061...
69% said that they believed they had served with someone that they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of that number, 92% of them described the experience as very positive, positive, or neither positive nor negative.(Page 180)
Based on that fact alone, your argument is total bullshit. Sorry. I'm not nearly done yet though...
Take a look at pages 184-189 on the report. Those questions were asked to soldiers who believed that they had a gay or lesbian soldier in their unit.
-92% described the unit's ability to work together as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
-89% described the unit's morale as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
-93% described the unit's performance as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
On question 48, 47% of the respondents said that a soldier's sexuality had no bearing at all on their ability to perform the job with smaller margins saying that it had "some" or "a little."
Scroll even further down and look at page 194. 64% believe that the DADT repeal could be implemented very easily, easily, or equally easy and difficult.
Scroll down even further and look at page 219. One of the criteria put forth as one of the 3 most important factors was "having only heterosexual members in the unit" and a mere 5.2% chose that option.
On page 226 they ask the question;
"If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said that he or she is gay or lesbian, how would that affect your ability to fulfill your mission during combat?"
53% stated that it would have no impact, 5% stated that it would affect them positively or very positively, 11% said equally positive and negative with 24% stating that it would affect them negatively or very negatively. 10% said they did not know how it would affect them.
On page 229 they ask what you would do if you had to share combat or shower facilitates with someone who was openly gay. 31% said they wouldn't do anything. 25% said they would go at a different time. 11% would say something to the lesbian or gay service member. Only 16% said they would see if they had other options.
Clearly, it isn't a big deal. What the hell is wrong with you? A CLEAR majority of those polled have no issues. Even when looking solely at combat troops, a majority of them don't care. With strong leadership there won't be anything to worry about.
Was that post too "emotional" for you McCarthy?
DADT was a strange way to avoid dealing with a social issue, but
the research you cite is seriously tainted by the fact that
someone in the military is unlikely to admit that his personal
feelings (toward gays or mess hall food) would effect his
professional conduct as a soldier. Beyond that, it notable
that 25% of those in the military would change their showering
schedules is noteworthy. When one-fourth of the military does
not want to expose themselves to 2% of the populations, there
is a potential problem in the ranks.

In short, DADT is fundamentally flawed but the "research" you
use is equally flawed.
Hogwash

AOL

#69 Dec 23, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>And as support for your claims you provide what exactly? A screed from an organization now listed as an anti-gay hate group for their malicious and false propaganda. At least you did "think" of an appropriate screen name for yourself, "Hogwash". Because that is all you have given as a response, pure, unadulterated hogwash:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelli... #
Aw, you don't like my reference..... and you feebly atempt to counter with that left wing thumb-sucking, bed wetting, permisive enabilers, the SPLC, I'm shocked!! You must think thay have some credibility, no? You'll have to do better than that hoss....<smile>

http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_Poverty...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/meese-sou...

I harken back to: "O you lovers of God hate what is bad!" Ps. 97-10

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#70 Dec 23, 2010
Hogwash wrote:
Now that I've stopped laughing, let's see if I can reply to this...

To counter the factual evidence that the FRC is a hate group, you give us the blithering Wikipedia of the lunatic right, Conservapedia. A site so loony, that if the nuts who post their "facts" to it weren't so deathly serious about it, that it would be one of the best parodies of conservative "thought" on the web. And to top it off, the opinion of former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese being interviewed by none other than the "Conservative News Service". Thuffering Thuccotash, Thylvethter, it's not that they got their facts wrong about the FRC, it's lies and malicious propaganda against the gay community qualifying them as a hate group, it's just Dethpicable to call them what they really are...

ROTFLMAO, you are hilarious.... What other "proof" are you going to toss at me next?

Of you really want to "harken" back to the Bible, you might want to try, Matthew 7:15-20, you're buying into a whole heck of a lot of "figs of thistles" by following the deranged clowns you have offered to us...
Hogwash

AOL

#71 Dec 23, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Now that I've stopped laughing, let's see if I can reply to this...
To counter the factual evidence that the FRC is a hate group, you give us the blithering Wikipedia of the lunatic right, Conservapedia. A site so loony, that if the nuts who post their "facts" to it weren't so deathly serious about it, that it would be one of the best parodies of conservative "thought" on the web. And to top it off, the opinion of former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese being interviewed by none other than the "Conservative News Service". Thuffering Thuccotash, Thylvethter, it's not that they got their facts wrong about the FRC, it's lies and malicious propaganda against the gay community qualifying them as a hate group, it's just Dethpicable to call them what they really are...
ROTFLMAO, you are hilarious.... What other "proof" are you going to toss at me next?
Of you really want to "harken" back to the Bible, you might want to try, Matthew 7:15-20, you're buying into a whole heck of a lot of "figs of thistles" by following the deranged clowns you have offered to us...
You keep stepping in it with your insipid sophistry. Do you really think your challenges from liberal blogs and/or citations render my references moot? You must live in a cave inverted. <chuckle>

Having those "lite in the Loafers" quote scripture is likened to pee wee Herman parting the red sea. Your reference to Mat. 7: 15-20 is about false prophets that depart from the teachings of Christ, and has nothing to do with "referring" to scripture, in this case, quoting from David, et al.(Ps. 97:10)

"All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16,17

"No prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought y man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." 2 Pet 1:20,21

That being said....

"[24] Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them,[25] even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.[26] That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature,[27] and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense which was due for their error.[28] And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting." Rom. 1: 24-28

So it really doesn't matter what laws man passes in the interim, its the final chapter that counts for each and every person to reconcile. In the end, it will be God who will reign supreme over former world governments and mans folly....

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#72 Dec 23, 2010
Hogwash wrote:
<quoted text>
So it really doesn't matter what laws man passes in the interim, its the final chapter that counts for each and every person to reconcile. In the end, it will be God who will reign supreme over former world governments and mans folly....
Why are you even here then? Go prepare for the rapture or something. Godspeed.

Hogwash

AOL

#73 Dec 23, 2010
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you even here then? Go prepare for the rapture or something. Godspeed.
Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as a rapture. However, I'm prepared for the inevitable, are you?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#74 Dec 24, 2010
Hogwash wrote:
You keep stepping in it with your insipid sophistry. Do you really think your challenges from liberal blogs and/or citations render my references moot?
Your references are "moot" dear, just hysterically funny and beyond belief for anyone with critical thinking skills.

As for your scriptural hissy fit, the "God" you've carefully crafted to be in your image isn't any of my concern.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#75 Dec 24, 2010
Oops, that should have read "aren't moot".
Hogwash

AOL

#76 Dec 24, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Your references are "moot" dear, just hysterically funny and beyond belief for anyone with critical thinking skills.
As for your scriptural hissy fit, the "God" you've carefully crafted to be in your image isn't any of my concern.
You use pap from Left wing blogs like a drunk uses a lamp-post....in support of your fractured ideology rather than illumination...

You do have delusions of adequacy, no? <smile>

But, until next spring... Sayonara, boo-boo.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#77 Dec 24, 2010
Hogwash wrote:
You use pap from Left wing blogs
Dear, I realize you haven't noticed, but I haven't quoted anything from ANY blog, left wing or otherwise. I cited the SPLC's intelligence report detailing the basis for its inclusion of the dubiously named "Family Research Council" on its list of anti-gay hate groups (which isn't classified as a blog dear), but other than that, I've needed no help from anyone to discredit your sources. They pretty much do that on their own, I just came along to point out what is obvious to everyone but the completely oblivious (I'm talking about you dear). Thanks for playing...
So B it

AOL

#78 Dec 24, 2010
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Dear, I realize you haven't noticed, but I haven't quoted anything from ANY blog, left wing or otherwise. I cited the SPLC's intelligence report detailing the basis for its inclusion of the dubiously named "Family Research Council" on its list of anti-gay hate groups (which isn't classified as a blog dear), but other than that, I've needed no help from anyone to discredit your sources. They pretty much do that on their own, I just came along to point out what is obvious to everyone but the completely oblivious (I'm talking about you dear). Thanks for playing...
I don't what bath house you live in, but the SPLC has never had any real credibility at all, except amongst a few that sit in the same pew of this gnat size organization. It's all about promoting their far left agenda, regardless where it takes them.

The Director of the SPLC is Mark Potok, which doubles as a columnist with the far left, Huff & Puff post. Objective reporting from this bigot is laughable. As the OP pointed out, its more about your ideology over factual input that infuriate the the liberal Porkers!

LYNCHBURG, Va – The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)– a far-left organization famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes – has launched yet another politically motivated attack against a well-respected conservative organization. The SPLC has arbitrarily tagged as a “hate group” Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH). Most recently, the SPLC came under fire for comparing the “Tea Party” movement and other grassroots conservatives to “terrorists.”

http://www.continentaldivide.us/articles/arti...

"Most notably, the SPLC has placed alongside the Klan and other neo-Nazi organizations, the Washington, D.C., based Family Research Council (FRC) and the Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA). Their crime? "Anti-gay ... propagation of known falsehoods" (read: recognition of stubborn, politically incorrect scientific and theological facts that are beyond serious debate). I say "most notably" because these two groups alone contain membership rolls in the millions."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/...

Fact is, the SPLC is a hate group attempting to put the onus on others to divert attention from their obvious failures to bolster support from the American public at large. They once again made an ass of themselves trying to discredit the "tea party."

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#80 Dec 24, 2010
So B it wrote:
(nothing worth repeating)
Dear, you really should go back to calling yourself "Hogwash", because using the musings of J. Matt Barber to support your cause is complete hogwash... I don't know what crack house you've been living in, but when it comes to this subject, unbiased he ain't. He's using what little legitimacy he might actually have as a dean at the Liberty University (the late Jerry Falwell's stomping grounds) Law School to defend his friends in the anti-gay movement where he's a mainstay. The only person you managed fool was yourself and from what I've heard from you so far, that was no mean feat. Dipstick.
McCarthy was right

Fort Worth, TX

#81 Dec 25, 2010
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's take a look at the actual report since you seem to care so strongly about their opinion. Have you even read it? I have. Below is a link to the actual report so you can fact check me babe.
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/061...
69% said that they believed they had served with someone that they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of that number, 92% of them described the experience as very positive, positive, or neither positive nor negative.(Page 180)
Based on that fact alone, your argument is total bullshit. Sorry. I'm not nearly done yet though...
Take a look at pages 184-189 on the report. Those questions were asked to soldiers who believed that they had a gay or lesbian soldier in their unit.
-92% described the unit's ability to work together as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
-89% described the unit's morale as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
-93% described the unit's performance as very good, good, or neither good nor bad.
On question 48, 47% of the respondents said that a soldier's sexuality had no bearing at all on their ability to perform the job with smaller margins saying that it had "some" or "a little."
Scroll even further down and look at page 194. 64% believe that the DADT repeal could be implemented very easily, easily, or equally easy and difficult.
Scroll down even further and look at page 219. One of the criteria put forth as one of the 3 most important factors was "having only heterosexual members in the unit" and a mere 5.2% chose that option.
On page 226 they ask the question;
"If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said that he or she is gay or lesbian, how would that affect your ability to fulfill your mission during combat?"
53% stated that it would have no impact, 5% stated that it would affect them positively or very positively, 11% said equally positive and negative with 24% stating that it would affect them negatively or very negatively. 10% said they did not know how it would affect them.
On page 229 they ask what you would do if you had to share combat or shower facilitates with someone who was openly gay. 31% said they wouldn't do anything. 25% said they would go at a different time. 11% would say something to the lesbian or gay service member. Only 16% said they would see if they had other options.
Clearly, it isn't a big deal. What the hell is wrong with you? A CLEAR majority of those polled have no issues. Even when looking solely at combat troops, a majority of them don't care. With strong leadership there won't be anything to worry about.
Was that post too "emotional" for you McCarthy?
You ask if that particular post from you is emotional. You ask that question because I've charged that everything you post is based on emotion, and that most of it is childish and immature. I also said that, like children, you and your pals demand immediate gratification, even at the risk of endangering our front line troops.

But it's difficult to answer your question without also knowing whether your dis-ingenuousness a result of an emotional inability to respond to what I said or is just you lying.

I’ve repeatedly said that the majority of the FRONT LINE TROOPS have a problem with the elimination of DADT, and that I think in a time of war their opinion is the only one that matters due to increased risk factors.

Your ignoring their opinion in favor of again referencing the generalized report could certainly be explained as an emotional reaction...perhaps a generalized anger toward all who disagree with your demands.

That the digression is deliberate and thus a lie is another possible explanation.
rider

Marquette, MI

#82 Dec 25, 2010
Spare us wrote:
Presumably we can expect thousands upon thousands of
gays and lesbians to be lined up at the door of their
local recruiting station tomorrow morning.
Yeah, right. In truth, DADT was about the OTHER gay
or lesbian being able to serve in the military.
&NR =1

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

UC Santa Barbara Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Russia accuses US of fueling Ukrainian crisis (Jun '14) Aug 26 Jaimie 63
News Newspaper in trouble for calling Illegal Immigr... (Jan '15) Jul '15 tomin cali 34
News Men like Elliot Rodger are not owed anyone or a... (Jun '14) Jun '15 seeforward 71
News Expert: Dry rot caused Berkeley balcony collapse Jun '15 Ya Phooey 2
News The Low-Wage Quagmire Jun '15 tomin cali 1
News TOKYO: We are proud that Japan's bright blue li... (Oct '14) Jun '15 AM-GM 6
News Kerry meets Russia's Putin amid Ukraine, Syria ... May '15 Jeff Brightone 1
More from around the web