Posted on 06/19/2010 12:10:06 AM PDT by LeoWindhorse
Really? It wasn't an issue 40 years ago?
Homos were throwing condoms in churches, marching in "gay pride" parades, teaching "fisting" to 5th graders, getting "married", and demanding the "right" to prance through the barracks 40 years ago and nobody cared?
Gimme a break.
The Coast Guard has already been altered from its original ideal, with the advent of the drug war. It changed the nature, and character of that service dramatically, and I fear that the Coast Guard may not survive another such alteration...
the infowarrior
I know a Marine that believes that has already happened, and he sez the units are called "The Navy" of Course his Swabbie Kid Brother sez its the other way around hahah.
Prediction: The Kenyan and his minions will soon have to resort to a draft to fill the ranks of the military and his “Civilian National Defense Force” or whatever it’s morphed into.
I do not agree that those who are predisposed to or choose to engage in homosexual activity should be accepted in the military. Nor do I think the mass media is my friend -Frankly, the mass media is a tool of the leftists —My problem as I stated was the accuracy of the article which you seem to accept hook, line, and sinker...
Djou joined four other Republicans to side with the radical gay lobby and vote for repeal of DADT. He then went on to say that members of the military who can't deal with gays kissing in the barracks should not be in the military:
...the President or the Congress, give an order, a directive, it’s followed, and it’s followed to a tee. That’s what you’re expected to do. And if you can’t do that, then you shouldn’t be in the service and you shouldn’t be wearing the uniform. It’s as simple as that.
It's not a matter of the "mass media" or the "accuracy of the article" - - I don't believe the scumbag Democrat newsrooms any more than you do. But click on the above link. Go check the Congressional roll call. Go check the video. It's all right there before your freaking eyes.
Have a nice life.
I had not heard that, but I’ll take your word for it. In a way they’ve always been ‘second class’ among the services, probably because they’re less susceptible to deployments and direct combat. It’s too bad about that perception. I have a few friends who went in after high school and remained, and they say that the political correctness is overboard, and readiness suffers because of that. I can’t imagine what it would be like being assigned to a cutter where a large portion of the crew are sodomites. NOT GOOD.
He can and will be replaced like Mr. Cao in New Orleans. It’s a done deal because liberal voters in Honolulu and New Orleans won’t be split on November 2. Liberal voters dominate both cities and always will.
Djou sounds like he is a “Linda Lingle Republican” which isn’t much of a Repubican at all, but tne RNC likes them.
RNC needs to be flushed out.....
This was yet another problem which surfaced in the USCG. My late father was a 24 year veteran of the USCG, and a Chief Warrant Officer 3 when he retired. I, myself grew up with the Coast Guard, although my service was done in the Army. The observations I gave were not really mine, but those of my father who saw the changes first hand. When the USCG became a front line force in the drug war, corruption entered into his beloved Coast Guard, and that both angered, and saddened him. Ditto with the overboard "PC".
He saw his Coast Guard morph from a service mostly dedicated to saving lives in sea rescues to something else entirely. Another drastic change will morph the USCG even more, perhaps to its ultimate detriment...
the infowarrior
Why -because I am not a loose cannon foaming at the mouth and reading more into this then is there?
It is bad enough that he voted to repeal -why exactly he did this what is in contention -the article does not tell me but instead attempts to steer me to an assumption and your incredible opinion e.g. petri dish adds nothing...
Didn't anyone ever punch out a some leering faggot making lewd comments? I really don't understand it..... if the roles were reversed & the homos were being verbally or emotionally mocked, there would be either fights galore or pending lawsuits. Instead the straights just suffer in silence.
“Can this pantload be replaced in November?”
Sure he can. By an ever FURTHER left DEMOCRAT.
They were mad back then because Clinton sought to justify a way for gays to be in the military , rather than be completely denied Armed Forces service and relegated to civilian life , or the Peace Corps or what have you .
This was a sweep it under the rug maneuver , and yet it was a better option to allowing outright flaming gays to do their thing openly .
Now the controversy is that they want to allow outright right open gayness , with only so-called fraternization controls , and the majority of those serving , the VAST majority , are NOT good with that . It is a PC social experiment being shoved down the throats of those that serve, during a time of war .
Vast numbers of retired Flag & General officers oppose it , the present Commandant of the USMC and many high ranking Army Generals oppose it , but pip-squeek politicians. like this guy who claims Army Reserve Captain’s status as his ultimate authority , advance the matter , over the wishes of the rank & file .
It was not a good idea in the first place , to even open the door a crack . Now that the crack is open , they want to force the door .
Puns entirely intended , for this is truly their objective here .
This shall not stand
I’m wondering if this is exactly why Dick Cheney was for repealing it? If Bill Clinton was for it, and was the one who put it in? I always thought that B. Clinton was against DADT?
Everyone gets wrapped around the axle on this and we have allowed the libs to frame the debate. Gays are NOT discriminated against in the military. What IS discriminated against are certain gay behavior or acts. The military discriminates against any number of ACTS or BEHAVIOR. Use drugs you cannot service, have taken medication for ADHD, you cannot serve, commit a felony, you cannot serve. Be over your body fat percentage, you cannot serve. The military routinely controls sexual activity through the UCMJ. Have sex with a subordinate, say good bye to your retirement, commit adultery you can be kicked out, gay sex in the barracks you will be kicked out. Hell, get caught having any type of sex in the barracks and you could be subject to an Art 32 hearing at your CO's discretion. Service members cannot use,or sell drugs or any material (i.e. spice) the military deems illegal, fail to manage your weight, early discharge, injure yourself not in the line of duty, goodbye and no VA care. DUI or acute alcoholism, your out, there are what nearly 200 articles in the UCMJ that discriminate between certain behavior. The military has always discriminated against certain acts or behaviors, all for the good of the service. Gay man or woman want to serve, great, just do not hot rack when somebody else is still in the rack. Gays like heterosexuals are not allowed to have sex in the bachelor quarters. Gays and straights can rent a hotel room or an apartment and play hide the salami all they want. No harm no foul. Most who get in trouble, proposition a member of the same sex, engage in gay sex in the barracks or decide to challenge the system.
Remember the military DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS, would somebody please tell that to Krauthammer, he needs to learn a little bit more about the UCMJ and how the military functions.
My guess is that the ‘drastic change’ will be that the USCG will become the preferred service for sodomy & sodomites.
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.