Sargeant: Private Gump, do you think I'm sexy?
Gump: Yes sir.
Sargeant: I can't hear you!
Gump: Sir, yes, sir!!!!
Posted on 01/14/2009 2:34:57 PM PST by Zakeet
President Obama will end the 15-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.
Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:
"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes'."
The little-noticed response, made in a video posted on change.gov, made barely a ripple outside blogs focused on the gay community, but that's not surprising, said those who have been pushing to overturn the ban. Not only was Obama's position expected, they said, but support for reviewing or repealing the policy has grown markedly in recent years, including from some unexpected quarters.
The end of "don't ask, don't tell" may not happen immediately, several critics of the policy said. Although they appreciate clarity from Obama on the issue, they anticipate that the demands of the economy and two wars are likely to trump a speedy policy reversal.
"The question isn't if we do it and the question isn't when we do it, it's how we do it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, whose 2006 bill to repeal the ban earned broad support among Democrats in Congress but did not move forward in the face of a near-certain veto by President Bush.
"I'm going to reintroduce the bill in the next few weeks," Tauscher said. "We've got the American people behind us."
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
“There will be alot of soap kept in socks.....if you know what I mean..”
BLANKET PARTY!!!!!!!!
We did that to a guy in basic who since the first day was whining that he wanted to go home. He started accusing us of doing things we didn’t do causing us to get smoked for hours on end as “revenge” for him not being able to leave.
Just a couple of little things like their oaths. That’s all.
To answer your 1st question, NO. That would only make us worse than any other 3rd world S*** hole of a country whose military does this and our military would never again have any credibility in the eyes of Americans.
2nd - Would be nice, but we have a small thing called civilian control over our military.
3rd - There are always creative ways to ensure that this doesn’t get out of hand. Give those in uniform a little more credit.
4th - See #1 and 2.
5th - When has our military ever turned tail? They have lawfully and honorably obeyed orders. That is the difference between the U.S. military and any other military in the world. We do what we profess to do when we take our oaths. Regardless of whether we agree with the orders or not.
Btw, I forgot the sarcasm tag on my last line in my original post. Hope it was clear enough.
SZ
“I’ll let men judge from their experience if there would be a problem serving with male homosexuals.”
Damn skippy there will be a problem.
There was a guy in Germany who “came out of the closet”, and he’d run as fast as he could to be the first one to the showers, and would be the last one to leave. He did this for an entire week in Hohenfels and was caught one night by our brigade commander who happened to notice him running for the showers and then seeing him leave 5 hours later. He was sent back to the rear the next morning, and was kicked out of the military by the time we got back to Baumholder 3 weeks later.
“Then there is the whole issue of heterosexual male aggression directed at women, but the military seems to live with that.”
That’s really not as big of a problem as the media and leftist organizations make it out to be.
There was a ban on homosexual activities, and THAT should be kept in place.
Not entirely correct, if you came out and said you were homosexual, true or not, you got yourself and Administrative Discharge.
You can't see that the emotional levels of teenagers who just cut some raghead in half with a SAW at conversation range and add in a love affair with his NCO...
Hot Flash! You don't join the Marines to learn a trade. You want to KILL! You want BLOOD! By the time you get out of PI or San Diego, you're half crazy. You want to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. You stick a cigar in a charred skinny's mouth and take pictures as everyone in your fire team laughs. You're half starved, you haven't had a shower in weeks, you've been trapped in a MOPP suit for so long a porta-pottie would smell good, you haven't slept in 96 hours and you are so stupid with exhaustion if you stop moving you'll fall asleep in a gravel driveway in the rain, and you see a hand in the road with a watch on the wrist, and all you can think of is "Takes a lickin' an' keeps on tickin'!"
All that, and you can't see any problem with adding obsessive/compulsive sexual insanity as a social experiment?
What will be worse is watching the reenlistment numbers drop.
Remember, FR is the last place you want to make a mistake like that...
The only good thing I see about this is they won't be able to use that trick to get discharged anymore.
I just dont’t see the problem with this. My Libertarian side kicks in and I take the Heinlein approach — everyone should be allowed to serve in some capacity. Frankly, I think you are all overreacting.
Who cares if a person is gay or straight if they’re a good soldier? We need to be fighting the fight against what matters — when Obama tries to implement universal health care (which will result in the ruin of the US health system), higher taxes (which will gives us a real depression), install super liberal judges (which will prolong the nightmare that is abortion no demand and more rights from criminals than victims), etc. These are the issues that matter.
This is effing crazy...does this idiot not have a clue about what sort of cans of worms this will open.
Geezuss.
Queer Nation.
The American voters are the stupidest somebeaches in western history since post WWI France.
That is not true.
You need to examine the voting stats.
Obama won because he grabbed the moderates and had a very motivated youth, black, latino and oriental vote.
Mccain only got 3 million less than Bush 2004.
Obama got 10 million more than Kerry 2004.
7 million new voters maybe....
Obama got nearly all the middle of the road idiots, some of whom Bush got in 2000 and 2004.
And Obama got a lot of new folks...minorities mostly.
You are right though that a high GOP turnout is all we got left, that and a stronger white vote. We got 57% this time...first time in history that wasn’t more than enough.
Thanks open borders.
I think you have it about right. A service member I talked to expressed the same sentiments. He was certain that open homosexuality would be disastrous to morale. But he didn’t think that the rumored presence of a homosexual bothers most soldiers much as long as he does his job and keeps his sexual proclivities to themselves and under the gaydar.
Any gay activism (picture a gay pride day parade on a base) would have everyone running for the hills. And that’s what we would be in for if Obama and friends have their way.
It’s unimagineable that left wing and homosexual activists would settle for just “don’t ask don’t tell” . As soon as it became apparent that most Americans were OK with “Civil Unions”, they discarded the issue and insisted on “gay marriage”. So at this point it’s vital that the military at least maintain the “don’t tell” restriction.
It truly has been amazing to watch the left-liberal gay-lovers go nuts over a minute minority of Catholic Priests who violate their vows and become more like what the LLGLs have advocated all along.
Probably the society-wide trends of the last 40+ years have had a great influence on a small # of Priests who slide toward the “if it feels good, do it!” approach to life.
First liberals work to trash all standards, and then when they manage to have some (limited) influence on some in the Priesthood, then they want to take the results of said liberal influence and use it to smear all of the Catholic Church.
Talk about hypocrisy......
Sargeant: Private Gump, do you think I'm sexy?
Gump: Yes sir.
Sargeant: I can't hear you!
Gump: Sir, yes, sir!!!!
True.
And unfortunately, it was going on for many years. It’s no secret that homos hid out in the Catholic priesthood. At least not among us Catholics. Back when I was in grade school, we all heard the whispers, accusations. And this was in the 70s. We even had a priest and nun run off together when I was in high school. Again, a minority. But that’s what’s publicized.
“First liberals work to trash all standards, and then when they manage to have some (limited) influence on some in the Priesthood, then they want to take the results of said liberal influence and use it to smear all of the Catholic Church.”
Well said.
Remember Cardinal Bernadine? (sp) He was falsely accused, it was a huge scandal and sensationalized by the Media. His homo accuser recanted. Not that it made any difference as Cardinal Bernadine’s name was smeared beyond repair. But we didn’t have all the articles or news reports once his accuser racanted either. It didn’t make good copy/story.
We lost because:
1. McCain ran a half-hearted campaign that gave no reason why people should vote for him, other than he is not Obama.
2. He more than likely believed his "maverick status" would attract the moderates and independents to his side to offset the loss of conservative votes (which did not).
3. McCain fumbled badly during the economic crisis.
4. McCain's "maverick status" did not prevent the perception that McCain meant another four years of Bush.
5. McCain simply shunted the conservatives. Then probably realized that he was in serious trouble and brought in Palin as a desperate measure.
6. The GOP still has no clue on how to counter the media spin.
7. In this age where image is everything, an old geezer ran against a younger, more dynamic candidate...nuff said.
The GOP better learn that you cannot win without the conservative base. They also have to learn how to better sell the idea that conservative principles are what is best for the US (especially to younger voters). Finally, they have to counter the negative media spin.
Blame both parties for that. Of course the dems want it to increase the voter base. But Reagan granted amnesty in 1986 and both Bushes did nothing to prevent it from getting worse. Part of the reason was to attract more Hispanics to the GOP (which has been working well hasn't it?).
But hey, at least they are doing the jobs that Americans won't do...for cheap.
I voted for McCain because the thought of our soldiers taking orders from Obama made me sick, but your statement is correct.
I trtied to tell folks here three years ago that the vast majority of these latin hordes would vote Dem.
I was lambasted as a racist and they would tout Rove’s fake Texas numbers from 2000.
Myself and a few others got banned for year or so for our troubles.
Now, 2008......latinos vote 80% Obama and whites vote 57% for McSarah
Obama wins anyhow....first time in history that 55% of the white vote was not enough for anyone
Where are all those folks who called me and others here racist and wrong now?
It’s almost hopeless unless whites start voting like they do in Utah or Mississippi or we become the CrackerVato party.
sucks....some folks here are still stuck on stupid and acting like demographics don’t matter
brainwashed self hating lemmings or faux conservatives gleeful at the death of the white vote
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.