At least, just issue them pink camouflage.
Posted on 01/17/2009 5:21:27 AM PST by Joiseydude
As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief on Jan. 20, homosexual-rights activists are gleeful about changes he will bring to the armed services. Based on his campaign promises, Obama is expected to overturn the military's policy regarding sexual conduct. Commonly referred to as "don't ask, don't tell," the military prohibits the service of openly practicing homosexuals. This policy was created early in the Clinton administration after a long and divisive fight, and the hard-fought compromise has drawn the ire of liberals such as Obama ever since.
If Barack Obama stays true to his campaign promises, the armed forces will likely lose hundreds of thousands of troops. When our troop numbers are already stretched thin, we don't need radical policies driving away more. Nevertheless, Obama appears poised to stubbornly buck centuries of military tradition by going against the will of the American people, as well as those in the military who will be affected by this change. If this happens, he is sure to have a full-blown enlistment crisis on his hands. At that point the only solution to the manpower crisis may be a return of the draft.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I wonder how this will reflect retention goals.
LEs than you think.
These are the same arguments that were made for integration of the services, allowing women in the service academies, allowing them on on ships, allowing them on combatants, and allowing them to command.
From everything I’ve seen and heard people say, we have the best Navy in the history of the world. Actually, they say those exact words.
BTW: The ferry driver for the plane crash rescue is a member of the Coast Guard. Ask the 165 passengers of from USAir flight 1549 how that’s working out.
Man, I am getting sick of these doomsday posts. It is almost scare mongering to run around and shout all the bad things he will do to our country. It might be true, who knows?
At least, just issue them pink camouflage.
As I said before, this will open a can of worms that will mutate into serpents.
Imagine the mess of having to sort out all the “Gay partner” benefits, medical, housing etc,,,. They will have to be given full marriage rights. And then there is the whole issue of gay marriage.
This is beyond ridiculous. The Democrats will destroy our entire moral society.
This came from his Press Secretary in a YouTube Q&A.
What part of; 90% of our service men and women don’t want this because of several very sound and proven reasons and say they will resign, don’t you understand?
Uh, why aren't they still in the service? If retention rates were unaffected wouldn't they have stayed?
My nephews, both pilots, are getting out in 2009-2010. I would not blame anybody for getting out with what is coming in as C in C. The goal by the left is to destroy our military’s effectiveness so who is really surprised?
“90% of our service men and women don’t want this” I must have missed this number
From the article: “Of those [2,000] polled, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist...” That’s 200 people -— of a military endstrength of 3,000,000 (AD/Res) a 0.001%.
Yep, it’s gonna be all rainbows and unicorns once zer0 takes office. No one will have a thing to worry about.
Coast Guard Reservist
Strangely you left out a part of that poll that says another 14 percent would reconsider not re-enlisting.
Of those polled, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist, and 14 percent reported they would consider not re-enlisting if the policy is changed to please homosexual activists.
So a possible 24 percent could not re-enlist. So a possible 750,000 would leave.
We are about to find out just look at his record and who is friends are.
OK. 14% of the 2000 would reconsider not re-enlisting That’s 280 who might or might not.
My point is that the article is poorly written using the same techniques people decry the MSM for using.
Bad arguments are bad arguments.
Please spare us the homo agenda. Anyone who knows the military, knows that this will have a negative affect.
I hasten to remind everyone that serving in the military is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a “RIGHT”!
Obama yet again proves what a blithering idiot he truly is
I don't understand, is the Coast Guard supposed to be a gay thing? What am I missing?
My “agenda” is one that asks writers to make cases for their position using credible arguments.
Brown is known political hack akin to the left’s Obermann and Mathews His crappola doesn’t come close to passing the smell test of writing.
Some statements about him:
“He has given conservatism a rank smell for two decades —and if there is a racist odor to the coming general election campaign, it is likely to emanate from his vicinity.”
“I’m not a big fan of Floyd Brown...He gave us the Willie Horton ads that the Republican Party has had to eat for two election cycles now.
“[Brown has] established himself as one of the nation’s dirtiest political strategists.”
“the lowest forms of life”
But it was OK to use facts from that badly written piece when it supported your argument.
I was making (obviously poorly) that the argument made by the writers are similar to those made by the opponents of integration of blacks to the military and opposition to opening up opportunities for women in the military all the way to commanding combatant ships.
An example of how wrong they are is demonstrated by the job done by one of the rescuers of flight 1549 — a woman and a member of the coast guard reserve.
My gripe is with the article. It is like a scaremongering political ad.
Query: Gee, why would that be?
Answer: That’s what the writer is- a scaremongering political hack.
See #24
So why didn’t you say it was badly written back in post #13, instead of using facts from the article to support your argument.
Well, at least homosexuals won’t be able to dodge the draft anymore.
A badly written post about a badly written article. I will now banish myself to holeystoning the cedar decks.
Hey! It was only the first cup-o-joe!
Your reply assumes answers that I wasn’t asserting and then dives off into the ferry driver. It’s entirely possible that the whole gays in the military thing is a tempest in a tea cup. There are also arguments that the lifestyle choices and active political stances made by gays — in contrast to biological factors involved with racial integration and women in the military — may be antithetical to military discipline and morale. My point is that we don’t know and that it’s stupid to pretend that there might not be significant negative consequences from Zero’s decision.
Oh hell, go ahead and shoot the messenger but please don’t ignore the MESSAGE. The President-to-be just said the same in Philadelpia via FOX news.
Imagine the movie Full Metal Jacket when the DS is dressing down his recruits and instructs them to give their M14 a “Female name” This could become a problem in the future.
Imagine a guy giving his gun a boy name.........cleaning out the breach would be interesting......friendly fire incidents....training accidents.....poor morale.....and the omnipresent theme that 99.672% of straight men dont want some homo showering next to them and looking at them....
The current arsenal of high-tec weaponry requires training far longer then six weeks of boot camp. If we go back to the draft, we'll have lots of raw recruits, many of whom would be unsuited to the high intensity training to come. Our modern military depends on a strong mind, not just raw meat. The investment in training is only paid back if you can plan on retaining troops beyond a two year hitch and I really don't see a draft being adopted with a longer (>24mo.) period of service.
I think that "boy wonder" has tipped his hand regarding a draft as he keeps dropping hints in the form of calls for "service to the country". I would not doubt he'd resort to compulsion if volunteers aren't forthcoming.
His "social engineering" will drive another spike into a coffin for our military, intentionally or otherwise.
Regards,
GtG
obama asks Barney Frank for some sleep overs.
Forget about retention. When a preponderance of homosexuals contract HIV we’ll sap our military health system in short order.
Imagine...electing a man who made a point of refusing to wear an American flag lapel pin.
It would appear we have about 30% of real Americans left in this country.
With don't ask, don't tell the 19 year old boot has no way of knowing if the DI or the boot in the shower next to him is queer. Make it open and the same macho, alpha-male, barely post adolescent-thinking young men whom every army needs will be threatened to their core.
Forty year old men don't beat up queers. When it happens it is guys barely out of their teens if at all. The queer left, which is pushing this, understands this.
The agenda is not letting queers serve openly as a matter of honor. No, the queer left agenda is the same as it was with the Catholic church in the sixties...destroy it as an institution.
How long do you think it would be before the first law suit regarding bias on the part of the military would be filed? How many law suits do you think there would be in the first two years?
How many 18 year old men who are sitting on the fence about enlisting would decide on a different path to avoid sharing barracks and/or taking orders from an openly queer soldier?
No, the agenda is clear, at least to some of us.
Yes, all the looney lefties despise Brown, and I see that you fit nicely into that category from what you've posted on this thread.
It requires legislation; an executive order cannot undue the legislation that requires the current policy. It will be a test for GOP senators.
not to forget those who would not now enlist like my two sons.
I’m just happy I did my service before obama and hos destruction came in
well I know of one guy round the corner who said he will leave, I know many who are still in and yes I have talked to them though e-mail since this announcement.
the general consensus is f those queers, will leave for many and they ain’t coming into my room or shower.
BTW none of them were polled
my two as well
The only negatives I can see coming out of this are 1. Flight of straight women from the military, as open lesbians come to dominate female military enlistees and 2. more "sensitivity" training in our armed forces.
To be frank, I have more of a problem with women serving on the front lines than I do with gay men doing the same. Issues of harassment can easily be dealt with via the UCMJ.
Stroke of genius for Big O... what better way to corrupt and weaken the military while gaining favor and support from his Gay constituents. The founding fathers would be proud and Abe Lincoln too...All aboard the Zero train to DC.
DC= Destination Cesspool.
Um, you do realize that when we talk of "gays in the military" we're actually talking about lesbians about 90% of the time, right?
Flamboyant, effeminate gay men aren't fighting to serve openly in the military. Lesbians are. The majority of gays serving in the military are female and lesbians are the ones getting kicked out. They are primarily the ones who will be allowed to stay when (not if) the policy changes.
People want to frame this debate as one of lisping, prancing queers fighting for their right to take showers together and have bacchanalian orgies in the berthings and this really isn't an accurate portrayal of what is happening in the military.
I guess Mary Matlin and Bush 41 are part of the “looney-left” since two of those quotes belong to them.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t consider either of them better than squishy moderates, and I’m trying very hard to be kind.
I specifically stated what I see as the queer-left agenda behind the elimination of DADT. I don't recall writing anything about lisping prancing queers, where in my post did you read it?.
Matlin and 41 moderates? Oh, please.
Then again neither was Reagan (if that be one’s definition of conservative) therefore they and everyone else alive must be looney-leftists because nobody will be him
And you think they're conservative? As infested as FR is, I doubt you'll have much company on that one.
Might I add, picture future promotion ceremonies where one guy/gal gets his/her new insignia pinned on then gets the smooch from his/her “partner”. How about Changes of Command where the “spouse” is honored for his/her contribution? Does the “significant other” join the Spouse Support Group? Does the “partner” of an enlisted person volunteer as Ombudsman(person)? Yee GODS! Does any of this help our troopers win wars and keep us safe?!?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.