What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
884 Comments
- badqat, on 01/15/2009, -21/+1101Um...isn't "don't ask, don't tell" a remnant of the Clinton era?
- roctimo, on 01/15/2009, -4/+433I think Chris Rock said it best when he said that if gay dudes want to fight, let em fight. Cuz I ain't fightin!
- LemonDefragger, on 01/15/2009, -7/+381Damn, that was my plan in the case of a draft!
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -42/+326Many have been calling for a withdrawal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," throughout the Bush years and he refused to make any change. Clinton enacted it as a compromise. Full recognition of gays in the military is long overdue.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -30/+273Clinton passed the legislation in the early 1990's, not Bush.
Here are better links the Telegraph and The Daily are crap (they think Bush was President in 1993)
http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/ob ... - rocketman42, on 01/15/2009, -4/+208Strangely, the article eventually gets it right, but not until near the end.
"The issue became a distraction in the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency. He tried to push through reform that would have allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly but had to compromise with the "don't ask, don't tell" solution, which has been maintained by the Bush administration. " - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -8/+211I'm in full agreement with respecting homosexuals as equal members in the armed forces. As a military veteran, I can speak from experience that homosexuals served side by side with me during my active duty and have likely served in every single one of the armed branches for a very long time, perhaps since the first Continental Army. Changing the policy isn't going to introduce homosexuals into the military - they've already been there and have contributed greatly. No, what this will do is finally respect homosexuals who have served honorably, are serving honorably and will serve honorably ... despite the dishonorable treatment they've received and continue to receive from fellow service members and the american taxpayer.
I would rather see a new policy - if you're an jackass toward anyone because their lifestyle is distasteful to you, you can't serve in the armed forces until you change your attitude and behavior. Again, from experience, and likely a reflection of american culture overall, the military has always had a large population of complete jackasses mixed in with some very decent human beings who also happen to be serving. - drinking12many, on 01/15/2009, -3/+177We had a guy in our unit that was not openly gay but everyone knew he was. I liked him he was a hard worker and a hell of a nice guy. I saw him out one night miles and miles from the base in a dress he was so worried I was going to turn him in. I told him "dude you work hard and your nice to everyone. Everyone pretty much knows your gay. They dont care. You have nothing to worry about from me." Had a women in my guard unit basically the same thing everyone knew she was they just didnt care.
he was very appreciative but i let his work stand on its own merit regardless of how he lives his life out of work. Its not my business. He did his job and he did it honorably not reason not to let him have the oppurtunity to serve just like anyone else.
And I am a Republican and many in the military feel the same way not all but its not like it used to be. - nmessick, on 01/15/2009, -29/+178Yes, but its popular to blame Bush for all our problems.
- PGPirate, on 01/15/2009, -2/+147LoL, you said gay and discharge
- 7m7uf, on 01/15/2009, -0/+128It also helps stop recruiters. I was getting calls at least once every 3 or so months, sometimes more - until i told the recruiter that i didn't think the military was a good fit for me. They asked why and i said "It's because i'm gay" and they were like "OH! That is a problem" and i responded "Not for me it isn't".
Never heard from them again. - Ysabetwordsmith, on 01/15/2009, -24/+145This will be an excellent gesture of acceptance to men and women risking their lives to protect American interests.
- unknownpoltroon, on 01/15/2009, -18/+137This will obviously destroy the military. Just like letting in blacks and women did.
- Cerialthriller, on 01/15/2009, -8/+116haha. Excuse me Chief, you know where I can troll for some ***** while i wait in this unusually long line.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -1/+109NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! If I'm ever drafted, this means I can't say I'm gay and get discharged.
- unixfg, on 05/23/2009, -1/+102I told that to a recruiter and we got into a discussion about his gay son.
- HumanNouveau, on 01/15/2009, -19/+112Sodom and Gemorrah... never happened. Those are imaginary places from legends. Iraq is a real place. The soldiers there are real.
My daughter was recently in the military. I'm retired. I think anyone who's been around soldiers lately realizes that this generation is not the same as those that came into the service in the 70s or even early 90s. Sure, there is a darkened fringe, but most are fine with gays. If you're not gay, a simple, "Dude I'm straight" is enough to have your gay roommate leave you alone. If it's not, the UCMJ still has plenty of articles to cover sexual assault and harassment issues.
This IS change we need. - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -0/+92I told a recruiter that I had too many flashbacks from LSD to handle firearms; he never said another word.
- nihilville, on 01/15/2009, -10/+91It shouldn't be nearly as hard as when Clinton attempted it. Public opinion in America has always been a slow painful progression to more tolerant view points.
The ABC News/Washington Post Poll, which has tracked the issue for 15 years, shows that public attitudes that were in line with the “don't ask, don't-tell” policy in 1993 no longer are.
The poll posed two questions.
The first was: “Do you think that homosexuals who do not publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military?” In 1993, 63 percent said yes; in July 2008, 78 percent said yes.
The second question was: “Do you think that homosexuals who do publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” In 1993, only 44 percent said yes; in July, 75 percent said yes. - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -0/+79lf they wanna fight, let them fight, 'cause l ain't fighting.
l wouldn't give a ***** if l saw a Russian tank rolling down Flatbush Avenue.
l ain't shooting nobody. So call me a *****.
When the war is over, l'll be the ***** with two legs, thank you. - utinam, on 01/15/2009, -10/+85Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
Major Tate: No sir, I don't.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
Major Tate: Yes, sir.
Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick.
--"The West Wing", 'Let Bartlet Be Bartlet' - ILikePants, on 01/15/2009, -3/+77It IS possible for spouses to disagree.
- BowieX, on 01/15/2009, -6/+77I'm not your com-. . . bo-breaker!
(Well, actually, I spose I am.) - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -5/+75Yeah, ending discrimination is a terrible thing.
- chokeaduck, on 01/15/2009, -11/+72Wow, I thought that was an odd comment to make, and then I checked your recent diggs and comments, and it begins to make a bit more sense. Well then, enjoy being dugg down.
- Lucas123, on 01/15/2009, -18/+78I thought the very same thing as soon as I saw the title. Just ignorance run amuck.
- IphtashuFitz, on 01/15/2009, -1/+59I wouldn't want to bunk with a corpse either no matter what his sexual orientation was.
- grodani, on 01/15/2009, -19/+75The same problems existed when racially integrating the military. Do you think that was a bad idea, too?
- Volatile36, on 01/15/2009, -0/+56The flat-feet thing doesn't work either anymore. Hell, I think they'd take just about anyone now.
- Zman0101, on 01/15/2009, -8/+63Not now Chief, I'm in the ***** zone!
- emkaysmith, on 01/15/2009, -11/+65Lots of males are racist, too. Obviously, we can't allow Blacks or Hispanics to serve in the Straight White Army.
- publiclurker, on 01/15/2009, -12/+62Strange how they did not seem to have any problems with him until after he came out. Seems fairly evident where the true problems lied.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 01/15/2009, -26/+76There was a marine on the radio today who had an excellent point about why this is a problem with sexuality in general. He said the reason the marines don't allow coed training is because the opposite sex is a serious distraction for young heterosexual people anyway, and it only gets worse when you get the sort of men and women who want to become marines. Then, when you add in homosexuality, it becomes nearly impossible for the marines to avoid that in their own sex-segregated training units.
There are unit cohesion and training issues that make this a difficult issue, but of course, all of the know-it-alls out there can rest assured, in their smug arrogance that the real issue is just neanderthal-brained macho boys who are worried that they're closet gays not being able to get along with homosexuals. One of the reasons we don't allow men and women to fight side by side is the last thing you want is to have your soldiers falling in love in a time of war, and putting their loyalty to their lover above their loyalty to the rest of the people in their unit. Israel had a problem with this, where men would take needless risks to protect women in their ranks, in ways that they wouldn't have if it were another man. - K0MMIE, on 01/15/2009, -16/+64Then their co-workers are bigots and should be dealt with accordingly.
- apackofmonkeys, on 01/15/2009, -0/+47And it's going to be FAAAABULOUS!
- bakaferret, on 01/15/2009, -2/+49Just curious...not really trying to dispute your point...but what do you say about friendship bonds that form between people? Obviously not as intense as sexual tension between people, but I've heard of pretty fierce loyalty in the military that has nothing to do with attraction.
- Murdats, on 01/15/2009, -9/+54yes, jimmy is our resident outspoken fundamentalist, creationist, AGW denying and generally all round wrong on everything idiot who believes he is smarter then anyone else alive and smarter then the entire scientific population combined.
- jerrycan, on 01/15/2009, -6/+47I'm not your friend, comrade.
- bakaferret, on 01/15/2009, -5/+45Yeah...we don't want gays fighting for our country. They're not good enough.
/s - ghdave, on 01/15/2009, -8/+48I'm not your Chief, pal.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -2/+41There's a lot of things I don't agree on with my wife. Especially if issues come up over a decade apart.
- GeorgeStone2, on 01/15/2009, -1/+40"Good god you're a woman."
- Mnementh2230, on 01/15/2009, -2/+39Young men, there's a place you can go!
I said young Men - when you run outa dough!
You can Enlist! And I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time!
*bam bam bam bam bam*
It's fun to be in the U. S. ARMY!
It's fun to be in the U. S. ARMY!
They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ... - duckbillgates, on 01/15/2009, -18/+55Wow, turning back Don't Ask, Don't Tell and closing Guantanamo in his first week? You mean he's actually delivering the change he promised? Nice!
Conservatives are going to go INSANE over this. - BenTheTank, on 01/15/2009, -31/+67Allowing gays to serve in the Military is not the same issue as equal employment rights or gay marriage. We're talking about a profession where the troops live together, sleep together, shower together, etc.
We used to have an openly gay man in my Squadron (he was discharged about a year after coming out) and even though he was a good guy and good troop, it caused a TON of problems; especially for our leadership and the individual.
You may not ever see it from behind your computer or at your civilian workplace, but this will cause WAY more trouble than good. - flammablewater, on 01/15/2009, -8/+44I'm not your pal, friend.
- bakaferret, on 01/15/2009, -11/+47Oh no! If you allow the dreaded gays to be open in the military, why, soon all of our good ol' boys will fall into the den of sin!
/s
I'm a Christian, and I am SO tired of ignorant bigots touting their belief and carefully plucking Bible versus that are convenient to them. They completely ignore versus in the SAME BOOK as Sodom and Gemorrah that advice you to give away your daughters to complete strangers to save yourself and stone adulterous women, claiming "Well that was from another time." Why couldn't you say the same about other things? - Dipsomaniac, on 01/15/2009, -7/+43Mostly because that was the price that Clinton had to pay to get Republicans in the Senate and House to play ball on other legislation.
- coolcrowe, on 01/15/2009, -7/+43***** you both. I'm in the military and I have no problem with gays. Stop stereotyping.
- Akairenn, on 01/15/2009, -1/+35Why not? I mean, sure, he'd smell a bit, but think of the tactical advantages of a zombie in your unit.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 924 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is