How many of you thing "dont ask dont tell" should go away for good?
 

I do. People, its 2010 and not 1910. Wake up America !

It doesn't matter what any of the inbred redneck right wing clowns on GFY think - DADT will be just another shameful chapter in our history very soon.

don't ask don't tell, sounds about right for the millitary

How true, there Slut! We will all of course remember that it was that inbred redneck William (Slcik Willie) Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat who came up with the idea of DADT! It is also to be remembered that is is that Illinois Democrat, Barack H. Obama who keeps in place.

Barack H.Obama is not only the President of The United States but also the Commander-In-Chief. He could change the policy with the stroke of a pen but refuses to do so.

Let the responsibility remain where it lies.

Crazy Sally....ahh Crazy Sally what am I gunna do with you... you REALLY don't realize that us thinking people on the left are VERY CRITICAL OF OUR LEADERS?

You righty robots follow your retarded White Supremacist Politicians LOCK STEP.

Therein lies the difference between you and I.

Slutboat wrote:

"It doesn't matter what any of the inbred redneck right wing clowns on GFY think"

"Crazy Sally....ahh Crazy Sally what am I gunna do with you... you REALLY don't realize that us thinking people on the left are VERY CRITICAL OF OUR LEADERS?

You righty robots follow your retarded White Supremacist Politicians LOCK STEP.

Therein lies the difference between you and I."

Sally Rand wrote:

"How true, there Slut! We will all of course remember that it was that inbred redneck William (Slcik Willie) Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat who came up with the idea of DADT! It is also to be remembered that is is that Illinois Democrat, Barack H. Obama who keeps in place.

Barack H.Obama is not only the President of The United States but also the Commander-In-Chief. He could change the policy with the stroke of a pen but refuses to do so.

Let the responsibility remain where it lies."

Sally Rand further writes:

Could we, Dear Slutboat, perhaps hear some of that criticism of YOUR DEAR LEADERS, what with the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT AND DISBARRED FOR LIFE EX-ATTORNEY Bill Clinton who INVENTED DADT and the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT "HOPE AND CHANGE" guy BARACK H.OBAMA who REFUSES to CHANGE it?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...903545,00.html

The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. "Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute," argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion," her 12-page filing added.


"But Obama also has some ammunition that Clinton never had: a new Gallup poll finds that most conservatives ? 58% ? now support openly gay people serving in uniform (nationally, 69% support the change; when Clinton assumed office, a Gallup poll found 53% of those polled opposed lifting the ban). Perhaps even more surprising, 58% of self-described Republicans, and 60% of weekly churchgoers, also support gay men and women serving openly in uniform. "While the Administration to date has not taken action on the issue," the polling firm reported last Friday, "the Gallup Poll data indicate that the public-opinion environment favors such a move."

Let's hear some of that critcism of your OWN DEAR LEADRS of which you so loudly speak, mkay? Speak, Brother Slutboat!

Let us HEAR your GOSPEL!

Honestly, it seems like most people think it's a god-awful policy, but ffs people remember the types of people that go into the military. A lot of them are not exactly the most tolerant people. I would be more afraid for gays having to interact with such people if their orientation is known vs. if it is unknown. Yea clearly with some people it's a little obvious anyways, but still.

As much as we want to think society has gotten a lot more mature about the differences between people, we really haven't. Somewhat more mature with race (yea 50 years ago even, a black man as president?), a little with sexual orientation (the fact that legalized gay marriage is brought up as a possibility these days), and not at all with religion (maybe even steps backwards looking at stigma towards muslins etc.).

Full Gospel coming later in a new thread, for now please let this small tidbit suffice:

FUCK YOU CLINTON FOR COMPROMISING WITH THE RIGHT AND ALLOWING DADT TO EVER BE IMPLEMENTED.

OBAMA FUCKED UP NOT SHUTTING DOWN GITMO.

AND ABSOLUTELY OBAMA IS FUCKING UP BY BOMBING MORE CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FUCK YOU OBAMA FOR NOT PROSECUTING THE BUSH/CHENEY CRIME FAMILY.

They didn't have DADT when I was in the Navy
Personally I don't think it's anyone's business unless you're a flamer and get in arguments over your uniform and insist on sequins
Of course when I was in , there was only 3 religions they put on your dog tags

You are such a fucking idiot
Before DADT, if they found out you were gay, they gave you the boot, what Clinton did allowed Gays to serve in the military as long as they didn't make a scene about it, one of the good things he did
But just like NAFTA, it's time is over and needs to be rethought

What you and I think does not matter, it is what our commanders think that counts. We are in the middle of two wars, we have bigger things on the plate than this.

Do a little research before you mouth off. Clinton wanted to let gays serve but the political climate wasn't ready for that so DADT was a compromise. He never should have compromised - he should have held firm and pushed for legislation to let gays serve openly.

It would have never got thru you moron. You have to pick your battles

So you think in the social climate of the country at that time, once gays would have been approved to serve in the military, there would have been no issues whatsoever. Gays and straights would have coexisted openly in close quarters in perfect harmony, no mistreatment, no malicious behaviors or thoughts, nothing? Give me a fucking break. Regardless of what Clinton wanted, change is reached through tiny steps, not one huge ass leap. The fact is that even now with the stigma against gays having been reduced over the years, it would still be a giant leap to have them serve normally and openly in the military, and not because of anything negative about them, but for their protection, and I think people in favor of doing that deep inside know that to be the case. Supposedly one of the most progressive states won't even let them marry still.

I think it should be left up to the military to determine what their standards for service are.

Let the military leaders decide, they are the ones that have to live with the decision.

Even if it does...if caught...they still can receive a Court Martial for engaging in homosexual activity...as Sodomy is a violation of the UCMJ.

As do I...and they are currently investigating the feasibility of dropping DADT and unless I am mistaken their report is scheduled to be made in December.

hahaha OMG you are such a blind hypocrite you don't even hear your own bullshit when you say it. OF COURSE it wouldn't have gone through, thats why no one really faults Clinton, he tried to open things up and DADT was the best he could get.

"Originally Posted by Slutboat View Post
Full Gospel coming later in a new thread, for now please let this small tidbit suffice:

FUCK YOU CLINTON FOR COMPROMISING WITH THE RIGHT AND ALLOWING DADT TO EVER BE IMPLEMENTED.

OBAMA FUCKED UP NOT SHUTTING DOWN GITMO.

AND ABSOLUTELY OBAMA IS FUCKING UP BY BOMBING MORE CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FUCK YOU OBAMA FOR NOT PROSECUTING THE BUSH/CHENEY CRIME FAMILY."

Well, now, Slutboat, that is a very good start and I thank you for it!

When will you call for the impeachment of The Poser?

I would remind you all of the Baron von Stueben, one of George Washington's elite:

"Baron von Steuben

There is probably no character in American history more miscast than Baron von Steuben. Since he was from Germany and since he taught the manual of arms and orders of march to the American army during the revolution, it is assumed that he was a precise martinet, a perfect Prussian. He was the opposite, very much a dreamer who overindulged his appetites. Though a master of his trade, he won the hearts of the men he led, especially the younger officers who formed his "military family."

Alone of all the men mentioned in these pages, Steuben was accused of engaging in homosexual acts. In 1777 a friend of Steuben's wrote to his former employer, the Prince of Hechingen:

It has come to me from different sources that M. de Steuben is accused of having taken familiarities with young boys which the laws forbid and punish severely. I have even been informed that that is the reason why M. de Steuben was obliged to leave Hechingen and that the clergy of your country intend to prosecute him by law as soon as he may establish himself anywhere.

The reply of the prince, for whom Steuben served as court chamberlain, has not been found. Steuben's inability to find a position in Germany prompted him to go to France, and there he caught the enthusiasm, as did L'Enfant, for the American Revolution. Innuendo as to his sexuality evidently followed him to America. An article written in 1796, two years after his death, mentions an abominable rumor which accused Steuben of a crime the suspicion of which, at another more exalted court of that time (as formerly among the Greeks) would hardly have aroused such attention.

The "more exalted court at that time" was that of Frederick the Great, who was certainly Steuben's ideal. We can't be certain that the crime of seducing young boys would have been so readily countenanced at Frederick's court. While consensual sexual relations between men was not an issue in Germany in the late 18th century (Isabel V. Hull, Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany 1700-1815 p258,) seduction of boys, as the letter quoted above demonstrates, was. The question then is exactly what crime was the American eulogist referring to: consensual homosexual relations among adults or the man-boy relations which were celebrated by the Greeks?

To approach an answer to that question, we first must try to understand why Steuben came to America. In Europe he was as much a courtier as a professional soldier. His war record makes clear his intentions as a soldier. The question is then did he consciously set about creating a court of handsome men in America, as his idol Frederick the Great had done in Berlin? According to Griswold's Republican Court (p 139) one of the select troops that greeted President-elect Washington included "Captain Harsin's New York Grenadiers, composed, in imitation of the guard of the great Frederick, of only the tallest and finest-looking young men of the city, dressed in blue coats with red facings and gold lace broideries, cocked hats with white feathers, and white waistcoats and breeches, and black spatterdashes, buttoned close from the shoe to the knee." Perhaps Steuben had something to do with the outfit.

Needless to say, he was surrounded by younger men during the war. He became the "military father" to many younger soldiers, including L'Enfant. One, Pierre Duponceau, a young French officer, described the type of play this "father" allowed:

Once, with the baron?s permission, his aides invited a number of the young officers to dine at our quarters, on condition that none should be admitted that had on a whole pair of breeches... Instead of wine we had some kind of spirits, with which we made ?salamanders?, that is to say, after filling our glasses, we set the liquor on fire and drank it up, flame and all.

Yet this reminiscence was in an 1854 biography of the baron, and we might presume that readers then recognized this as the typical behavior of young army officers, not young homosexuals. The biography has other reminiscences of Duponceau including his pursuit of young girls in Boston. After the war Steuben perpetuated his military family. He was an important force in the creation of the Society of the Cincinnati. He contemplated land settling schemes both in the US and in the Spanish Mississippi. The latter had military overtones and he planned to enlist old associates. But on a more personal and emotional level, for all his brilliance as an officer, he seemed to cultivate his weaknesses, whether it be the need for a translator or a younger roommate to do things for him. A case can be made that he needed to surround himself with sons, not to seduce them, but to actually fulfill the functions of sons to an aging father.

Steuben was certainly not against the traditional family. Two of the young officers he subsequently boarded with General John Armstrong and Colonel William North subsequently had wives and many children. Steuben eventually made North and Colonel Benjamin Walker his sons by adoption. The fact that he gave two men this honor again argues that his project was brotherhood not homosexual love. Kapp, the author of the 1854 biography, thinks that a third man, James Fairlie, would have shared in the inheritance but that he offended Steuben when he traded 200 acres the Baron gave him for some of Col. North's china.

Kapp's biography quotes and prints in full letters that show a degree of affection not common in letters between men in the late 18th century. For example, North writes to Steuben, I shall go to New York, kiss you and Ben; go to Boston, comfort my old mother, & return here to drudge in getting my living. In a letter to Walker, Steuben tries to entice him with the prospect of a pretty girl and then writes of his own affection for him: I want to see you here, in the course of next week. I board at Mrs. Clark's in Front Street. You will find there a young widow, & a lady from New York with a beautiful waist, a reason the more for you to hasten your departure. I expect you with the impatience of a lover for his mistress, or to speak without figures, with all the sentiments of true friendship. Walker writes to Steuben complaining of ennui in Gen. Washington's camp, and jokes that he may have to seek some neighbor's daughter pour passer le temps. Then he regrets that there is so little sociability among officers. Finally he laments, When shall I have the pleasure to embrace you? You express a wish to have my picture. If it was a miniature you meant, we have a miniature painter here in New York, as superior to Peale as light to darkness.

Toward the end of his life he evidently had one secretary, John W. Mulligan, Jr., of whom I have found one contemporary description. Elihu H. Smith wrote of him "young Mr. John Mulligan, my host's son, a very amiable & agreable young gentleman, had returned from the country, & I was induced to sit longer, on his account." When Steuben died, Mulligan, who was there, wrote: "Oh, my god, my parent died! O, Col. Walker, our friend, my all." Below I provide a link to more on Mulligan including a letter Steuben wrote to comfort him after an emotional crisis.

Given that Steuben likely engaged in homosexual acts in Europe and that he inspired passionate devotion in men in America, it would not be surprising if gossips and his enemies used his reputation for homosexuality against him. However, he seems to have maintained a standing in New York society. He was on Mrs. Jay's invitation list for 1787 and 1788. During and after the war, Steuben was involved in a number of controversies. Given the context of the time, we should not expect direct accusations of sodomy. We should look at the language and tactics of opponents. A cursory examination of Rufus King's correspondence show an intense dislike of Steuben, but I am not familiar enough with King to know if others inspired the same disdain.

By Bob Arnebeck"

http://bobarnebeck.com/baron.html

Actually, you bringing up this point allows me to post what I was going to. situations like this are somewhat parallel to the path in the US from slavery to (relatively) equal treatment of black people. How long did this take? Over 100 years. Did it go from slavery to "hey, you're all equal and a normal part of society" all of a sudden? Fuck no it didn't...slavery was abolished and immediately followed by segregation. Is segregation horrible by today's standards? Of course. Was it a necessary step on the path from slavery to equal treatment given the social climate of the times? Yes.

Same with DADT. The people that have always opposed DADT are either people that never wanted gays in the military in the first place, or people that want gays in the military but are too naive to believe that society and more importantly the military society was ready for it. They weren't, and arguably in a country where gay marriage is still a hot button issue and the controversy surrounding sexual orientations of public figures (when in an equal treatment setting it wouldn't matter) leads me to believe that given the military is always a step behind the progressive side of this country as evidenced by that policy you pointed out considering homosexual activity essentially a crime within the military, they may still not be ready for the step beyond DADT.

Can't have them faggots in the military you know!

Do you even read the Bull Shit you write?

It is not policy...it is military law and is applicable not only to homosexual activity but heterosexual activity as well. This is also civilian law in some states.

um ok ? lol

so true :2 cents:

I don't think he does.