Sorry, I read your prior post out of context. And I agree with this quote.

Even though I didn't lol, or even crack a smile, this could be the funniest thing ever posted here.



They are already acceptable.

What's important here is that John McCain, a notably poor decision-maker, opposes this move. Statistically - another thing McCain doesn't understand - this is the correct decision.

I doubt most of you will care to watch the whole thing, especially our military members, but skip to about 5:48 for the important part:



Blah, embedding is disable.

Gaga owns

Cool. Something that actually make Gaga relevant.

To quote every douchebag NCO I ever had

"Good initiative, bad judgment'.

The problem here isn't gays, it's a infantile culture that barely functions on a civilized level. Fortunately, there are enough competent people who put up with the bull**** of their peers and subtly manage their superiors that things get done.

Women serving in the military, good deal. Blacks serving in the military, good deal. Gays serving in the military, good deal.

Women serving in predominantly male infantry (for example) companies, bad deal. Gays serving in predominantly homophobic infantry companies, BAD DEAL FOR MISSION READINESS. It used to be that it would also be a bad idea to have mixed race companies---oh wait, we still have that problem. My bad.

Not to mention the timing could not have been worse. "We're 'ending' Afghanistan and making significant social changes to our force structure!" Great ****ing idea.

This has nothing to do with gays being inferior or not fit to serve (not the case indeed, I worked with some very professional homosexuals in the military, they just kept their sexuality to themselves like adults). It has everything to do with the military consisting of a bunch of ****wits with questionable worldviews shepherded by a few brave, intelligent souls who usually get the short end of the stick(her).

Because we are trying to legislate a social change, it is going to cause upheavals, just like desegregation did during the civil rights movement. Any of you who disagree with my are being stupid.

I agree, there will be social upheavals. Oh well.
When it's over, the world is a better place. That's how growing pains work.

-Feel free to take that as a cheap shot at the classic sitcom, btw.

Well ideally don't ask don't tell would simply be amended so that everyone had to be professional and not talk about their sex at work. Too much to ask from 18-47 year old kids I know.

I object to her claiming that military service is 'Honorable'.

What's so honorable about learning how to unquestioningly do as you're told and kill people to support an imperialistic government that ignores the rights you claim you're fighting for?

Nothing. In fact, it's kind of the opposite.

Repeal is long overdue. With all the US rhetoric about equality and freedom, policies like DADT are incredibly hypocritical.

That's funny, I'm in the military and I don't do any of those things, JM.
--
Anyway, guys, it's my opinion that you guys are looking at this all wrong. The most pervasive problem that arises from this is *not* going to be people getting discriminated against because they're gay, (though I agree it will be the most apparent problem because we all know the media's going to seek out and run with any stories of discrimination that do come up). That's not to say that hate crimes against homosexuals are not a terrible travesty; just that hate crimes of any nature (ie, based on sexual orientation, religious beliefs, race, etc) have already been happening and will continue to happen in the military, and they have already been dealt with harshly and will continue to be dealt with harshly, regardless of the military's stance on non-heterosexuals serving.

Before I continue, allow me to paint "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in a slightly different light. It is commonly believed that this policy discriminates against homosexuals in that it does not allow them to be who they feel they are as a person and to practice sexual acts in the way that is pleasing to them. But this is not the intent behind this policy. (I'm not trying to teach you all something you already know, so bear with me.)

The intent behind this policy is simply that the military is not interested in getting involved in the politics surrounding gay rights. Whether or not homosexuals can serve in the military has nothing to do with the military's overall mission, so the powers that be don't want to get caught up in it. The policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" was put into place not to tell homosexuals they are not allowed to serve in the military, but to sidestep the entire issue by saying, "Listen we don't care if you're gay, straight, lesbian, bi-sexual, a-sexual, zoo-sexual, or whatever. Your sexual orientation is not the issue and has no bearing on our mission, so we're not going to ask you. Similarly, because this issue has no bearing on our mission, we don't expect you to make a soap box out of it and spout off about your preference, whatever it may be."

Spook struck on how this should go, just a moment ago. He said "don't ask don't tell would simply be amended so that everyone had to be professional and not talk about their sex at work." The funny thing is this is ALREADY EXACTLY HOW THE POLICY IS SUPPOSED TO OPERATE. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, and what tends to happen is that people with sexual orientations that are abnormal when compared to the majority are expected to follow the policy, while people with more normal sexual preferences are not.

All that to say that I think that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does not need to be "repealed;" it simply needs to be implemented and enforced in a way that supports and reinforces the original intent of the policy by enforcing professionalism and a focus on our (service members') mission, and not allowing talk of sex or sexual acts or preferences to occur. But then again, that may be beyond our capability as a culture.

Sarn - Yeah, you do. Just by being part of it you support a government that ignores it's own constitution. You also show a willingness to use deadly force against another person.

You are not a nice man.

Forget about don't ask, don't tell. Repeal the military instead.

That's a brilliant idea JM you should go into politics.

Legislation is the fastest way to implement social change. If you look at the history of social change in the US, it's almost always helped along by legislation. Public opinion changes too slowly to be an impetus for change. Public opinion, however, changes very quickly when there is legislation changing the social structure. This could be seen as a form of cognitive dissonance.

Playing to the lowest common denominator is never a rational argument. It would be no different than legalizing rape by using the argument: Men are horny. When men get horny they get to rapin'. Thus, rape should be legalized.

Or move to Costa Rica.

What.

What are we so afraid of?

I certainly agree with that, but the timing could certainly be better. It also makes me uncomfortable that people seem to think this issue is as simple as a discrimination policy.

And Sarn, while that's a good summation of the intent of the policy, you can't deny the fact that it is official practice to separate someone who identifies or is identified as homosexual (or even bisexual) and not someone who is heterosexual.

So I guess now that Snoopy has been banned and Sarn is being rational, JM is taking a serious shot at being the new reigning epic ass. Of course there are issues within the military, as there are within any large organization, and they are going to be more obvious due to the fact that our military's purpose is to kill people and break things in order to preserve our national security but his idiotic generalized characterization of the military is asinine.

I think he has a moral problem with the idea of force.

Not my problem he lives in a fantasy land!

I figured he just lack the requisite midi-chlorian count.

Do you seriously believe our military is in Afghanistan protecting our national security? Why? Nobody there threatens us. In fact, they are making it worse.

Do you seriously believe abolishing the military all together is a good idea?

Yeah, ya know al qaeda totally was never in Afghanistan. Actually I am going to put forward a theory that they were an invention of the U.S. Military(much like JonC before his escape) to provide a reason for escalation. In fact I don't think Afghanistan really exists. It is almost certainly a fabricated country which is used for secret military training and a Masonic recruitment. This is all building up to the inevitable take over by the illuminati. I'm sure of it!
And THAT is what the military is doing in Afghanistan.

About 75% of it, yes.

http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/DAT2010mint.jpg

The annual budget for the department of education is 46 billion. That's the same amount the navy alone spends on airplanes and ships (to say nothing of salaries and all other expenditures).

So I suppose that automatically makes me an evil, war-mongering ******* because I work for a defense contractor, huh?

That's rather misleading given that billions of more dollars are spent on education at the state, county and city levels that that chart doesn't account for.

You're changing tracks sir. You starting with an assertion that the martial profession in general is dishonorable and immoral. Now you are making a point out of one conflict that even most within the military will agree has been poorly conducted in recent years.

You my friend, do not have an argument founded in anything but dogma and hippie bull****.


Also, Free is right (in some respects). Our military is still, in many ways, structured to fight the cold war like we wanted to fight it. Sad day.

Surely that means he knows all about rifles.

Point. You have one.

It's disconcerting seeing the actual breakdown of the federal budget like that, though. It seems so wasteful. What if we took 500 billion dollars from the military every year and spent it on national infrastructure? Scientific research?

See, I have a problem with this kind of phrasing. People say 'take 500 billion dollars from the military' and then suggest we do it by just cutting the budget. Yep, great idea guys.

The US military needs serious restructuring (especially in light of the last ten years) so that it spends 500 billion dollars less and gets 1 trillion dollars more results.

It's certainly possible. I'm sure you've all heard of Pareto's principle, where 20 percent of your actions supposedly get 80 percent of the results...

In many respects, the US military gets about 20 percent of the results for 20 percent of the work. Better is possible, but not the way we're set up now.

I forsee a whole lot of problems stemming from this in the next few years, but the same could be said for the civil rights movement and the integration of schools, first wave feminism, and just about every other important step any society in the world has taken towards equality. So yes, this is going to cause a lot of problems, but acknowledging that doesn't mean you don't completely support this step.

And I have no trouble believing that the military is a lot like high school in terms of drama, (that's not a dig against the military - I've seen enough workplaces to know that the same can be said anywhere. Hospitals are some of the worst in terms of petty drama I've ever seen) but I really don't think petty drama is a legitimate reason to not allow them in the military.

And for the record, attempting to say or imply that the entire military is a terrible institution that contributes little to nothing positive to the country is just as ridiculous and ignorant as saying that the whole organization is an honorable force for good that does no wrong. (spook, that wasn't directed specifically at you, I just can't be bothered to try to find the poster(s) it IS directed to. Just don't want any confusion since you posted right before me)

I tried to google a convenient list of things the military has contributed back to the US, in medicine, inventions, and general science. I have no doubt a list like this exists, but I cannot find it.

I would like to think it was the military that contributed those things, but truth me told, most of those things came from the industry that was built up around the military.

Most of us can't even separate the two! I know I have trouble.

EDIT:no I got it sugarless, I'm confident in my position right between those two views and I know that any semi intelligent person is going to see what I'm saying.

And also misleading because because it doesn't take into account that, according to that figure, the DoE is roughly 46 billion over-funded.

Exactly.

We did end up with a lot of cool stuff out of the way the US fought the Cold War, but for every dollar that led to something like the Internet there were a million dollars wasted on space lasers, anti-gravity and psychokinesis.

And the attitude hasn't changed. In fact, in a lot of ways it's gotten worse - the projects are more expensive but less ambitious.

My favorite Iraq boondoggles:

- Some general's son-in-law was hired to supply armored trucks for a couple hundred thousand each. He delivered salvaged WW2 jeeps with steel plates welded on, but no engines or tires. He still got paid. Why? Because his contract didn't say anything about making the trucks do anything.

- There are tens of millions of dollars of abandoned construction materials and equipment in the middle of some Iraqi desert. The US was going to build the Iraqis a new prison but never got around to doing it.

- The US spent $1 billion to renovate one of Hussein's old palaces into the world's largest embassy. It's a gigantic fortress in the middle of Baghdad. I'm not sure what function this embassy is supposed to perform that is not already being performed by the other 10,000 garrisons the US is operating in the region but I guess I'm just a stupid pragmatist.

- The US shipped in pallets of $100 bills - honest-to-god wrapped pallets of money - to hire local contractors for the reconstruction effort. Nobody knows exactly how much money the US government gave away, because nobody was doing any bookkeeping: the Bush administration hired inexperienced 18 year old kids off of a neocon fan website (I am being ****ing serious, this is not a joke, they really did this) to run the project and nobody was writing anything down. They weren't even recording the names of people who took the money. Based on the weights of the shipments they think it was over $20 billion.

The National Guard and Coast Guard are military organizations that directly contribute to civilian safety.
Big annoying cars like the Hummer.
Little annoying cars like the Jeep.
Cell phones.
The Internet.
Nuclear power.
Going back a bit, the Civil War resulted in a massive step forward for medicine.

-Also the whole revolution thing, but you could technically argue that was the colonial army...

Except the national guard has been 90% nerfed by effectively being integrated into the federal standing army.

That's the nature off all research and development though. The number of failures greatly outweigh the successes. Of course, the government side doesn't have to recoup the money spent on failures through the successful developments like on the private side of things.