"Don't Ask Don't Tell" and Obama Administration
 

I don't really know how this goes beyond a duty to defend.

I think the democrats are getting to where they hate Obama more than the republicans.

Obama would have to do far worse.

Repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is all about duty to defend by increasing the human resources available for our military.

We get it Mr. Fun, you're gay. How special you are.

Naw, I think the most persecuted minority in the army is the highly educated, no experienced ******* whitey officers. No other groups has such a high percentage of gunshots wounds from the rear. And If I'm in the service, I know what I'd rather take in the rear.

When I worked for the air force research lab as a civil servant we (the officers and the civil servants) went to a Commander's Call where either a full bird colonel or a 1-star general (I think this one was a colonel) talked about whatever the hell they were going to talk about and then asked the audience if they had any questions or concerns. Some young kid stands up and says "I've been a 2nd lieutenant for over a month and I haven't done anything interesting yet what's the deal!" and the commander pretty much told him to shut the **** up and that maybe he'd do something interesting when he wasn't so friggin incompetent "and don't protest that you actually do know what you're doing because that's a lie, you're a 2nd lt. for crissakes."

On an unrelated note, it was a running joke that the 2nd lieutenants had nicer cars than the majors and lieutenant colonels.

On an unrelated note, it was a running joke that the 2nd lieutenants had nicer cars than the majors and lieutenant colonels. Because they're kids and the priorities and responsibilities are different.
You know, like in the civilian world.

Perhaps you give him too much credit. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/frownnod.gif

Ah, I see the disconnect now. I'm actually giving him no credit whatsoever. I'm sure the humor value and any cleverness that might be found was unintentional, not the misuse of the phrase. I have no doubt that MrFun thought "duty to defend" referred to the military's defense of the country. That's a typical MrFunism.

Ah, carry on then. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Also, Mr Fun.
I really don't think it's proper to start threads about your perception on the ability to join the military, when you have no intent of enlisting.
I have to be honest, I think it's borderline disgusting. "Here. Let this guy go fight. Me? Oh, no. Not me. He should be able to pay on my debt though. That's only fair."

Do you see how that looks?

Only to those who don't bother to think about it too hard.

What are you talking about, you're the third gayest person here.

I guess "at all" probably would have been more appropriate.

Why wouldn't it be? MrFun's future intentions aren't relevant to the issue, and he's not advocating that 50,000 open gays be conscripted like some flamboyant Janissary Corps. He's only lobbying for someone else's opportunity to enter the service, not the entry itself. It's "The same rules should be applied to gays and straights with respect to entry into the military," not "You guys should go pick up my flaming friend Keith and sign him up. He totally wants to join, even though he refuses to admit it."

So I still see this moving in the direction that soldiers' views don't matter about the DADT policy. Great. Glad to see civilians want their ideals pushed onto the military.

Out of interest, how would the military handle fraternization within the ranks in the event of a repeal of DADT?

Maybe in the Rock Hound Squadron.

DD, I don't know, but I would expect that if the policy was Do Ask and Do Tell, there would be separate quarters. It's hard to accommodate that policy under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I think the problem is that the straight soldiers will be worried that the gay soldiers are checking them out, thereby turning the straight soldiers gay.