Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officialy suspended!

[Private Sanders]

Today a federal judge ordered the military to stop enforcing DADT on the basis that it is unconstitutional (Violates 1st and 5th amendments, according to the judge.) Unless the decision is overturned, gays and lesbians will be able to openly serve in the US military. As for whether it is likely to be overturned, Congress seems to be the proper authority to do something like that, and the House of Representatives already passed a bill (the Defense Authorization Act for 2011) that would overturn DADT (the Senate has yet to vote on it), so Congress is out unless the Senate decides to vote against the bill. The Senate Armed Forces Committee, meanwhile, voted 16-12 in favour of adding the article that would overturn DADT to the DAC. Based on that info, it looks like the Senate may very well pass the bill, in which case DADT is gone for good.

I so hope the bill gets passed and the judge's ruling is not overturned.  

[ArmasTermin]

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

I think this is a terrible idea. When we surrender we shouldn't have to wave a pink flag because it's after labor day. xd

I'm joking in case any of the newfags don't know.  

[Maddness91]

Republicans will tack on something else as a gift for themselves, and Obama will call it compromise, and it will pass... so yeah gays in the military, and an extension to the bush tax cuts (not called this of course, maybe another "stimulus" just so it sounds new), and away we go! yay change from republicans just ramming stuff through congress, to them sandbagging dem. bills smile
again, this is why i'm the lib. d-bag xp
for all you keeping score, 2nd lib thing in like 4 days... rofl
also, for people keeping score, this is/will be the first thing in 2 years obama is even close to doing that he promised to do in the campaign (health care doesn;t count, because nothing of serious value [exept rescission] in the system was reformed, just the addition of 6M+ people are forced to get health care)
does this count as a -1 lib thing? xd  

[ArmasTermin]

Maddness91

Republicans will tack on something else as a gift for themselves, and Obama will call it compromise, and it will pass... so yeah gays in the military, and an extension to the bush tax cuts (not called this of course, maybe another "stimulus" just so it sounds new), and away we go! yay change from republicans just ramming stuff through congress, to them sandbagging dem. bills smile
again, this is why i'm the lib. d-bag xp
for all you keeping score, 2nd lib thing in like 4 days... rofl
also, for people keeping score, this is/will be the first thing in 2 years obama is even close to doing that he promised to do in the campaign (health care doesn;t count, because nothing of serious value [exept rescission] in the system was reformed, just the addition of 6M+ people are forced to get health care)
does this count as a -1 lib thing? xd

So you really are a liberal?  

[Recon_Ninja_985]

ArmasTermin

Maddness91

Republicans will tack on something else as a gift for themselves, and Obama will call it compromise, and it will pass... so yeah gays in the military, and an extension to the bush tax cuts (not called this of course, maybe another "stimulus" just so it sounds new), and away we go! yay change from republicans just ramming stuff through congress, to them sandbagging dem. bills smile
again, this is why i'm the lib. d-bag xp
for all you keeping score, 2nd lib thing in like 4 days... rofl
also, for people keeping score, this is/will be the first thing in 2 years obama is even close to doing that he promised to do in the campaign (health care doesn;t count, because nothing of serious value [exept rescission] in the system was reformed, just the addition of 6M+ people are forced to get health care)
does this count as a -1 lib thing? xd

So you really are a liberal?

impossibles.

you cant be a liberal who likes guns, it's like a gay guy who likes poontang, it dont work

gonk  

[Private Sanders]

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

Bollocks, mate. Canada and Europe handle openly gay personnel just fine, as does Israel. If they can do it, so can we. Hell, even the studies carried out by the ******** Pentagon say having openly gay personnel will not adversely effect military preparedness.

As for women, it's time for America, Britain, and Australia to get with the ******** program and let women into combat roles. It's the 21st ******** century. If women in the French, German, and Canadian militaries can handle being infantry, so can ours. Hell, even American women in "non-combat" roles have been in combat and handled the stress as well as men.  

[Private Sanders]

Maddness91

Republicans will tack on something else as a gift for themselves, and Obama will call it compromise, and it will pass... so yeah gays in the military, and an extension to the bush tax cuts (not called this of course, maybe another "stimulus" just so it sounds new), and away we go! yay change from republicans just ramming stuff through congress, to them sandbagging dem. bills smile
again, this is why i'm the lib. d-bag xp
for all you keeping score, 2nd lib thing in like 4 days... rofl
also, for people keeping score, this is/will be the first thing in 2 years obama is even close to doing that he promised to do in the campaign (health care doesn;t count, because nothing of serious value [exept rescission] in the system was reformed, just the addition of 6M+ people are forced to get health care)
does this count as a -1 lib thing? xd

As a gun loving liberal ( exclaim ), I must concede that the overturn of DADT was actually brought about by a lawsuit filed by gay republicans.  

[Whence it Flows]

Jackie Flores

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

Bollocks, mate. Canada and Europe handle openly gay personnel just fine, as does Israel. If they can do it, so can we. Hell, even the studies carried out by the ******** Pentagon say having openly gay personnel will not adversely effect military preparedness.

As for women, it's time for America, Britain, and Australia to get with the ******** program and let women into combat roles. It's the 21st ******** century. If women in the French, German, and Canadian militaries can handle being infantry, so can ours. Hell, even American women in "non-combat" roles have been in combat and handled the stress as well as men.

You know the difference, though? The American Army actually sees combat. So that PT test with easier standards for women? That's gonna be a problem. That EO standard that's weighted heavily against men? That's gonna be a problem. Women in America, whatever they think, are treated like queens in the military when they're not getting raped. And since the vast majority don't get raped...

You end up with a bunch of soldiers unwilling to soldier. So unless there's a massive ******** shift in the way women are treated- as in, no special treatment at all, same PT test, can't run to EO as soon as they think someone's hitting on them- women should never see a blue cord.  

[090Freak090]

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

+1

It's not about discrimination, it's about maintaining the brotherly bond amongst a fellow soldier if your have to worry about your fellow soldier liking you in a sexual way it brings out sexual tension which is not what soldiers need. Don't ask Don't Tell basically means that it is no body's business and it should stay that way... Anything that could diminish the trust and/or bond between fellow soldiers can't be tolerated.  

[Private Sanders]

Pripyat Dawn

Jackie Flores

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

Bollocks, mate. Canada and Europe handle openly gay personnel just fine, as does Israel. If they can do it, so can we. Hell, even the studies carried out by the ******** Pentagon say having openly gay personnel will not adversely effect military preparedness.

As for women, it's time for America, Britain, and Australia to get with the ******** program and let women into combat roles. It's the 21st ******** century. If women in the French, German, and Canadian militaries can handle being infantry, so can ours. Hell, even American women in "non-combat" roles have been in combat and handled the stress as well as men.

You know the difference, though? The American Army actually sees combat. So that PT test with easier standards for women? That's gonna be a problem. That EO standard that's weighted heavily against men? That's gonna be a problem. Women in America, whatever they think, are treated like queens in the military when they're not getting raped. And since the vast majority don't get raped...

You end up with a bunch of soldiers unwilling to soldier. So unless there's a massive ******** shift in the way women are treated- as in, no special treatment at all, same PT test, can't run to EO as soon as they think someone's hitting on them- women should never see a blue cord.

Um, France, Canada, and Germany have all seen combat within the last few years, so that comment about America actually seeing combat is ******** bullshit. In fact, it's not just bullshit. It's a ******** insult. As for physical standards, women can handle the same ones as men in France and Germany, two countries with rather exacting standards, so why not America? Drop the lower standards for women. They can ******** handle it just fine. They've already proven it in other countries. If a Canadian women can get into an infantry unit and serve alongside men without any serious problems, so can an American one.  

[Private Sanders]

090Freak090

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

+1

It's not about discrimination, it's about maintaining the brotherly bond amongst a fellow soldier if your have to worry about your fellow soldier liking you in a sexual way it brings out sexual tension which is not what soldiers need. Don't ask Don't Tell basically means that it is no body's business and it should stay that way... Anything that could diminish the trust and/or bond between fellow soldiers can't be tolerated.

They said the same about blacks in the '60s, and yet the bond never broke. If Canada and Europe didn't have any problems when they implemented the policy, why would we? As I said earlier, even AMERICAN Pentagon studies agree that openly gay soldiers won't cause a problem.  

[090Freak090]

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

+1

It's not about discrimination, it's about maintaining the brotherly bond amongst a fellow soldier if your have to worry about your fellow soldier liking you in a sexual way it brings out sexual tension which is not what soldiers need. Don't ask Don't Tell basically means that it is no body's business and it should stay that way... Anything that could diminish the trust and/or bond between fellow soldiers can't be tolerated.

They said the same about blacks in the '60s, and yet the bond never broke. If Canada and Europe didn't have any problems when they implemented the policy, why would we? As I said earlier, even AMERICAN Pentagon studies agree that openly gay soldiers won't cause a problem.

I'm not saying gays shouldn't serve, only that it's no ones business and many people would rather not know... Ignorance is bliss.  

[Private Sanders]

090Freak090

Jackie Flores

090Freak090

ArmasTermin

There is nothing to be gained from open sexual tension within military forces in active combat roles. That's why we don't have women serving alongside them. It's a bad idea. If the US military forces are supporting DADT, one would assume they know what's best for soldiers a lot more than some random assholes in congress.

+1

It's not about discrimination, it's about maintaining the brotherly bond amongst a fellow soldier if your have to worry about your fellow soldier liking you in a sexual way it brings out sexual tension which is not what soldiers need. Don't ask Don't Tell basically means that it is no body's business and it should stay that way... Anything that could diminish the trust and/or bond between fellow soldiers can't be tolerated.

They said the same about blacks in the '60s, and yet the bond never broke. If Canada and Europe didn't have any problems when they implemented the policy, why would we? As I said earlier, even AMERICAN Pentagon studies agree that openly gay soldiers won't cause a problem.

I'm not saying gays shouldn't serve, only that it's no ones business and many people would rather not know... Ignorance is bliss.

I could live with a strong recommendation for gays to only tell fellow soldiers who won't have a problem with it about their sexual orientation. What I can't live with is DADT's policy of discharging anyone found out to be homosexual.  

[Fresnel]

Wasn't the suspension suspended? Or did they overturn the second suspension? xd