2

12/3/2007 11:22:51 AM

if i were gay and wanted to join the military i wouldnt tell anyone cause that would get me kicked out

12/3/2007 11:26:34 AM

Mitt Romney's stance(s) on Anything- subject to change with popular opinion


is what this thread should have been called

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 11:30 AM. Reason : d]

12/3/2007 11:29:53 AM

questions like this and the answers given at the debate just reaffirm how almost every single answer the candidates give is based on what they think the right answer should be, however not the right answer based on their own views, but based on what they assume will be the most well received answer...popularity contest

12/3/2007 11:33:01 AM

Quote :

"and more military personnel were discharged for homosexuality under Clinton than in the following years."

Umm... yeah, you're comparing 6 years to 4 years... do you not see why this is a dumb comparison for the statement you're trying to make?

12/3/2007 12:10:58 PM

and i think that it would stand to reason that soon after a policy is implemented, a large number of people will quickly be expelled. As the ranks are purged of gays over the years, there will logically be less to kick out.

12/3/2007 1:21:13 PM

^^ Um. . .I already posted "Best graph I could find. If someone has a better one, have at it." You're being disingenuous and you know it--but I understand that you simply must spasmodically defend Bill Clinton and his ilk at every opportunity. But I am simply trying to inject some facts into the anti-Bush, anti-Republican hate orgy.

If you look at the Wikipedia.com chart, you will see that discharges of military personnel were trending upward under Bill Clinton and downward under George Bush--that's a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell

Quote :

"The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released yesterday -- continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay men and lesbians because it needs them in a time of war. According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001 -- but in the past five years the average has fallen below 730. The data were provided to The Washington Post in response to a request."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html

^ And I don't know where to begin with your post. Does your "logic" not allow for more gay recruits joining the branches of military service?

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 1:42:35 PM

Quote :

"I already posted "Best graph I could find. If someone has a better one, have at it." You're being disingenuous and you know it--but I understand that you simply must spasmodically defend Bill Clinton and his ilk at every opportunity. But I am simply trying to inject some facts into the anti-Bush, anti-Republican hate orgy. "

Now it just seems like you're trolling.

Do you really not get that it's not fair to compare a 4 year measurement to a 6 year measurement with normalizing per year?

This has nothing to do with defending Clinton, this is purely a statistical issue. The fact is, if you want to even glean facts from such a useless statistic, is that Clinton's average discharges PER YEAR (since we're dealing with unequal time spans) is LOWER than Bush's.

12/3/2007 1:47:25 PM

^ Can you read--seriously?

Quote :

"The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released yesterday -- continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay men and lesbians because it needs them in a time of war. According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001 -- but in the past five years the average has fallen below 730 [emphasis added]. The data were provided to The Washington Post in response to a request."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 2:30:49 PM

^ I'm glad you're looking deeper in to issues, that's a pretty good article, and what you should have dug up the first time.

Quote :

"Steve E. Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network... said the reduction in discharges since 2001 indicates that the military is applying its policy selectively now because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have lowered support for joining the military among youths and their parents."

So tell me, how does that comport with your statement that I " simply must spasmodically defend Bill Clinton and his ilk at every opportunity?"

12/3/2007 2:38:21 PM

^ Right or wrong, that's my impression of you. And my previous posts actually provided sufficient evidence to support my position.

12/3/2007 2:42:48 PM

hooksaw

can you picture him drooling and salivating everywhere as he types?

12/3/2007 2:43:32 PM

^ Can you picture this:

12/3/2007 2:47:08 PM

^^^ You're entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

If you are interested in reality though, that's what I try and provide you. You were attempting to somehow show that Clinton was against gays using data that couldn't, and doesn't support this point of view.

As me and agentilion both pointed out, that data doesn't mean what you think it means, when you consider why the numbers go the way they go. I know math is not your thing, but it's not a hard concept to understand.

If you want to attack Clinton, he's got many weaknesses, but the amount of gays discharged under DADT isn't really one of them.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2007 2:47:33 PM

Quote :

"Bill Clinton created the policy at issue--even though some of you have actually tried to pin it on Colin Powell --and more military personnel were discharged for homosexuality under Clinton than in the following years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell"

Quote :

"The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell"

from the wiki article

12/3/2007 4:03:41 PM

Quote :

"The actual policy was crafted by hooksaw and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush."

From the wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell#Beginning_of_the_policy

12/3/2007 4:13:24 PM

he's actually honestly replying the question, not just dogmatically saying 'YES B/C THINGS NEVER CHANGE OVER TIME NEWB' like the other candidates

what is wrong with being skeptical about something, and finding out that it works somewhat and then wanting to know input from the army generals to see if it's still good?

seems like the best answer to me.

12/3/2007 4:22:40 PM

^^ haha

12/3/2007 4:33:53 PM

The decision to implement "DADT" was Bill Clinton's--deal with it. Your spin is tiresome.

Quote :

"So I wanted you to hear my thinking and my decision [emphasis added] directly and in person because I respect you, and because you are among the elite who will lead our Armed Forces into the next century, and because you will have to put this policy into effect and I expect your help in doing it."

Quote :

"Shortly after I took office and reaffirmed my position [emphasis added], the foes of lifting the ban in the Congress moved to enshrine the ban in law. I asked that congressional action be delayed for 6 months while the Secretary of Defense worked with the Joint Chiefs to come up with a proposal for changing our current policy. I then met with the Joint Chiefs to hear their concerns and asked them to try to work through the issue with Secretary Aspin. I wanted to handle the matter in this way on grounds of both principle and practicality [emphasis added]."

http://dont.stanford.edu/casestudy/appendixD.pdf

BTW, a quotation listed in a Stanford law case study is actually a more credible source than Wikipedia. FYI.

Quote :

"According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001 -- but in the past five years the average has fallen below 730 [emphasis added]. The data were provided to The Washington Post in response to a request."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html

Stop trying to spin this issue--it's really making some of you look stupid. Math is obviously not your thing, moron.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 9:51:02 PM

Quote :

"that data doesn't mean what you think it means, when you consider why the numbers go the way they go. I know math is not your thing, but it's not a hard concept to understand. If you want to attack Clinton, he's got many weaknesses, but the amount of gays discharged under DADT isn't really one of them."

Quote :

"Steve E. Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network... said the reduction in discharges since 2001 indicates that the military is applying its policy selectively now because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have lowered support for joining the military among youths and their parents."

So tell me, how does that comport with your statement that I " simply must spasmodically defend Bill Clinton and his ilk at every opportunity?"


[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 10:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2007 10:02:25 PM

Well, I thought it was a dodgy answer, but the question was basically equivalent to:

"Mitt Romney, would you like to end your political career and presidential ambitions right now? Yes, No, Abort."

Having said that, I don't think he was being dishonest. Romney probably wouldn't try to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell; and if the issue came up, he'd probably do what he said.

12/3/2007 10:49:22 PM

Quote :

"The decision to implement "DADT" was Bill Clinton's--deal with it. Your spin is tiresome."

No shit the decision was his to implement Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Nobody has said otherwise--as usual you think you know what people are saying but you don't.

Bill Clinton wanted gays in the military.
Bill Clinton asked JCS how to do that.
JCS said DADT is best bet.
JCS wrote a policy.
Bill Clinton said OK.
Bill Clinton signed policy into effect.

That's all anyone has said. But you're on some wild crusade to 'prove' that people are 'defending' Clinton by 'pinning' things on Powell. Please stop. It's ruining the thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the where the thread was at before Clinton was brought up....

Is the US military ready for openly serving gays? Is the military 'smart' enough and professional enough to handle it?

12/4/2007 7:59:07 AM

there is no debate here

this is a testament to America's intolerance and inability to accept others outside of a majority viewpoint
this is modern day segregation
this is a product of the false sense of separation of church and state

the support of don't ask, don't tell, and lack of support for gay marriage - in 40 years, it will be looked upon the same way military and civil segregation based on race is looked upon today

12/9/2007 7:48:32 PM

Quote :

"if i were gay and wanted to join the military i wouldnt tell anyone cause that would get me kicked out"

12/9/2007 8:19:51 PM

the jews in nazi germany tried not to tell anyone of their religion for fear of persecution

an extreme example, but you get my point - the option of hiding your beliefs in fear of repercussions isn't exactly the American way

12/9/2007 8:37:36 PM

If jews were trying to join the military and were known for fucking other guys in the ass it might be a little different.

12/9/2007 8:42:57 PM

give me a fucking break, cassell. this is NOT the same as segregation.

Quote :

"Is the US military ready for openly serving gays? Is the military 'smart' enough and professional enough to handle it?"

Absolutely. Most of the officers are already ready for it. The rest can be trained to be professional in whatever way is needed. That's the dumb thing about those who say "the military isn't ready." The military will do pretty much whatever the fuck you train it to do in basic training.

12/9/2007 10:06:33 PM

its a form of segregation

12/9/2007 10:11:04 PM

no it isn't. no one is saying that gays can't use the same god damned drinking fountain, you asswipe. Please, don't cheapen what blacks went through just to promote your fucked up views

12/9/2007 10:12:00 PM

its naive to say that the idea of "you can be gay, but you can't vocalize it"
and to say its not reminiscent of separate but equal

one sexual orientation can do whatever they want, the other must suppress their views because...they are not as equal...im not sure what other explanation there is...

and a rebuttal does not consist of calling me an asshat

12/9/2007 10:17:43 PM

^^they are not allowed the same expression as heterosexuals

12/9/2007 10:18:36 PM

but we don't make them sit at the back of the god damned bus. We don't lynch them for looking at our men/women wrong. We don't turn god damned firehoses and dogs on them. We don't make them go to different schools.

jeez, idiot

12/9/2007 10:36:00 PM

^ So you're saying that something isn't segregation unless people are lynched/hosed/chased by dogs for it?

12/9/2007 11:27:27 PM

ummm no. I'm saying that the two aren't comparable because they aren;t fucking comparable.

12/9/2007 11:35:31 PM

Quote :

"but we don't make them sit at the back of the god damned bus. We don't lynch them for looking at our men/women wrong. We don't turn god damned firehoses and dogs on them. We don't make them go to different schools."

Obviously the nature of the two experiences are fundamentally different, but don't tell me that, in the 1960's, any of that WOULDN'T have happened to gays if you could tell them just by looking at them.

12/10/2007 8:26:33 AM

I do not see the issue of "Dont Ask, Don't Tell."

If you and Private Pile want to hit up legends and take it up the ass that is your agenda. Just keep that shit low key while on duty. Chicks in the military do not want the dudes hitting on them while doing their job. Likewise the straight guys do not want the gays to be checking out their ass in the showers or flirting with them. I do not see the issue if people go to work to work and keep their private lives at home.

12/10/2007 10:07:32 AM

If that were how it worked, it wouldn't be nearly the issue that it is today.

It doesn't work like that. At all.

12/10/2007 11:38:44 AM

^

Well, yes.

First of all, straight guys who think gay men are checking out their asses in the showers are seriously delusional about themselves. But I digress.

Plus there's a huge gray area with this policy. It's been my experience that gay people in the military are often just open secrets. Like, duh. The lesbian sergeant, anyone?

(semi-related side note: I went to pride last year in SF with a gay marine and we saw his CO there, a lesbian)

I can't imagine this policy has any real effect in practice except to give those in power "one more thing" to use against an individual politically. The military, like any large organization, is political and therefore a game of advantages. The "sexuality thing" just sets some people back on getting rank, if they aren't good enough at hiding it.

12/11/2007 9:25:12 PM

Get Straight or GTFO

12/11/2007 10:07:31 PM

^^ There have been instances of people anonymously reporting people they suspect of being gay to COs which have led to discharges.

12/14/2007 3:34:55 PM