Skip to comments.Now That Homosexuals Can Serve 'Openly' Will They Obey DoD Directives?
Posted on 09/23/2011 5:08:35 PM PDT by RetSignman
SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
References: (a) DoD Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty, August 2, 2004 (hereby canceled)
(b) Sections 973, 888, 101, and Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code
(c) DoD Instruction 1334.1, Wearing of the Uniform, October 26, 2005
(d) Section 441a of title 2, United States Code
(e) through (i), see Enclosure 1
“but now if you think it is normal to start stabbing another man up his crap hole or a woman to wear a strap on and pretend she is a man then”
Of course I never said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. Good day to you.
Your blather is pointless. Bone smoking butt pirates have no business in the military.
Since I have been helping run or running by myself the Homosexual Agenda ping list for 10 years on FR, not only have I read a tremendous amount about the homosexual agenda and the "gay" life, I have also heard from a large number of former and currently serving military.
Every one of them (except one guy who was a leftist who got banned, and seems to be back) said that homosexuals in the military are a HUGE FREAKING PROBLEM but the problem got MUCH WORSE under DADT. Because the homosexuals felt freer to "be themselves". How can someone who is mentally ill perform well in the military? They cannot. Someone who succumbs to adultery is commiting a sin, and according to the military code, a crime. But they are not by definition mentally ill.
Homosexuals, OTOH, are by definition mentally ill. IT is a psychological sickness, as well as a sin, and still currently, a crime in the military.
Now homosexual agenda pushers are pushing for trasnsgenders in the military. They will never stop. I know what I am talking about and you do not. Or you are promoting the agenda by stealth.
Also, I dont think I agreed with some guy who said that homosexuality in the military caused no problems. I dont think he said that. I think he said that those who did their duty and followed the rules were left alone, even though everyone knew of their inclinations. If I am wrong in this understanding, let him correct me, not you.
He said that the homosexuals caused no problems and you agreed with him. Countless freepers have commented on the threads and privately to me the grave and terrible problems homosexuals have caused in the military. One of the links I posted details that homosexuals cause 2/3 of the sexual offenses already - this is before they are now allowed openly. They are well known for forcing themselves on normal men and women.
You cannot deny this because the facts show me to be right and you to be wrong. Again if you are well meaning but ignorant I am sorry, but I am so angered and disgusted at the homosexual agneda destroying and perverting our schoolchildren, military and so many other aspects of our life - including our Constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association - that I see great danger ahead. If you do not, either you need to open your eyes and learn, or you are part of the problem.
Well, little jeremiah, there is an old saying: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.” And you just keep on pounding. I did not say that homosexuals in the military were not a problem. And I was not commenting on what the homosexual agenda has been up to and how it may have been using/misusing/abusing DADT. Nor do I question any of the data you raise. Believe it or not, I am neither stupid nor naive. Nor am I in support of homosexuality in the military or anywhere else. It is sin. It is destructive. It is self-absorbed, the very opposite of the virtue that any unit of the armed forces needs for its individual members to survive and for its mission to succeed. Clear?
But I see that you either are unable to observe distinctions in argumentation or are choosing deliberately to ignore them, and thus you go hammering away at a nail that isn’t there. So, I see continued discussion with you as pointless.
Your blather is pointless.
I notice that in the last few days a lot of people on FR are now promoting homosexuals in the military in a sort of semi-stealth manner. One got zotted yesterday, flowerplough. More will as they reveal their actual intent.
Yeah, yeah, pound away. Your braying is pointless and your manners boorish.
Occasionally, try to read what people say.
Feel free not to reply.
I read every word you wrote, carefully.
Accusing my manner instead of my actual points is odd.
“DADT, if rightly applied, would simply mean that one is to do ones duty irrespective of their inclination. If they cannot, then they should be removed from the armed forces of the United States. Clearly, there are those presently in the armed forces who havent accepted this, and so have remained in the armed forces under false pretenses, and they have been used by certain politicians to gain political advantage even though it clearly is harming the country. This is wrong. And I hope that the whole issue will be re-examined and changed.”
You didn’t respond to that very clear point. Instead you accused me of saying the opposite. That isn’t just odd, it’s dishonest.
You misrepresent your own statements, on this very thread.
Blowing smoke is all you’re doing. Anyone can read just your comments, and mind, up this thread and see what you’re doing. Up the thread you stated that the old “Ask, tell and out the door if wrong answer” was destructive!
DADT which was implement and pushed by Clinton - a leftist piece of scum - was meant to ease the way into what we have now - open sexual perverts in the military. Even under DADT there have been tremendous problems, which you ignore.
And your method of “debate” is obfuscate, blow smoke, and when the truth is pointed out, call me names.
Typical, SOP, and I’ve seen it plenty of times over the years on FR.
I scanned over several pages of your comments and realize that other than this little thread, you have posted exclusively on religion topics for at least the last couple of years. So that is your main interest here on FR and apparently you know very little about homosexuality or the agenda.
So, my advice to you would be to study up, and you may learn something about it. If it’s not a topic that interests you, so be it. It should interest every conservative, since the agenda means the destruction of our Constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, religion and association. For starters.
“Where are the Rs? Why are they dead silent? Words fail me.”
At least Santorum had the spine to speak out at the last debate. Kudos to him.
Romney wouldn’t. I’m not as pessimistic about Perry. His passion for states’ rights got him misconscrewed in his initial comments about New York. States’ rights don’t mean squat to a national military force, which falls under the Federal aegis alone.
Santorum is one of the few who stands up for the military and Truth.
“Santorum is one of the few who stands up for the military and Truth.”
Amen to that. God Bless him! (you too!)
Thank you! It’s amazing how people who know the truth are chicken. Cowardice has gotten us where we are.
I believe you are thinking of the SA, the Brownshirted Storm Troopers. The SS were expected to be breeders. This isn’t to say there weren’t fruits in it. Its just that it was the SA that was loaded with them.
You are right and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction!
“Thank you! Its amazing how people who know the truth are chicken. Cowardice has gotten us where we are.”
Since the repeal was inacted on 20 Sept...the various service chiefs sent out memos saying it was a “good” thing and no one was supposed to be hurt by it...blah, blah, blah.
Since then, I haven’t heard anyone speak about it. Either the average “Joe” doesn’t really care or they are afraid to say anything (apathy on morality is pretty high). Right now, the repeal only allows the homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle, but doesn’t give them spousal rights. They are already, in the press, screaming for spousal privileges. I have yet to meet anyone that is being “open” about their sex life...other than the normal bragging heterosexual playboy players.
In the military, there is already a constant problem of heterosexual misconduct....we just don’t need this problem.
Recently on one thread or other someone (wish I could remember, I could look back and find it easily) posted the info that 2/3 of sexual misconduct or crimes actually, in the military, are already homosexual in nature.
Now what will happen...