T1B

Boots about to get a bit shinier. Uniforms more pressed. And the marching will have a little bit more precision.

They say it made Sparta stronger.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:Boots about to get a bit shinier. Uniforms more pressed. And the marching will have a little bit more precision.

They'll be the same kick ass people as they have always been.


Feel free to go fuck yourself if you think otherwise

you can tell the fukkers that never served.

a militantly heterosexual military wrote the book on neatness order and precision drill.

that will not change.

only difference will prolly be a little splash of color and maybe a few new dance steps added to close order drill.

other difference will be a huge rise in fag bashing.

nice yob to all you fukkers in washington that pushed this through without serving day one in the military yourselves.

Great.

Now they won't kick you out for sucking another guy's dick in the barracks shower.

Your beatdowns will continue.

Carson wrote:Great.

Now they won't kick you out for sucking another guy's dick in the barracks shower.

Your beatdowns will continue.

actually, blowing him in the barracks shower might still get him in hot water. Telling everybody how he blew him in the back of his car outside the local gaybar last night will now be kosher.

Jsc810 wrote:

Lucky Pierre?

smackaholic wrote:nice yob to all you fukkers in washington that pushed this through without serving day one in the military yourselves.

I know you're a nuclear weapons-grade tard, but Christ, try not to try so hard.

smackaholic wrote:you can tell the fukkers that never served.

You mean like John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen?

Oh wait, they all did serve.

I am fairly certain that a considerable majority of congress that voted for it has not served.

I am also fairly sure that a number that a number of those voting for it, know it's not the right thing to do, but, they don't want to piss off the PC police.

Are you guys aware that at least 17 Navy ship COs have been sacked this year over fraternization charges?

And yes, I realize that none were likely homosexual type fraternization, it does show what kinds of problems result with mixed sex crews. Adding openly gay men will worsen things since, not only will they share ships, they'll share sleeping quarters.

smackaholic wrote:Are you guys aware that at least 17 Navy ship COs have been sacked this year over fraternization charges?

Not all were dismissed for fraternization.

Smackie Chan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Are you guys aware that at least 17 Navy ship COs have been sacked this year over fraternization charges?

Not all were dismissed for fraternization.

You're right. The majority were though. There was one case of a female skipper getting sacked because basically she was a miserable cunt who abused the shit out of underlings.

In the good old days, this utter lack of leadership qualities generally got noticed at the division officer level and they were weeded out. Today, military leaders are deathly afraid of looking prejudiced towards women and pass many of them along with good fitreps. I suspect we will see more of the same with the latest protected class.

I always thought MacArthur pioneered homosexuality in the armed forces. Anyway, ha-ha-ha! The fag army, it's naked pyramid city from now on. The US just got a little less intimidating

PSUFAN wrote:They say it made Sparta stronger.

Yeah, they were kinda good and stuff.

The notion of a standing army, in and of itself, is actually pretty gay.
Steeped in "fraternal love", this could have only been thought up by cock-monglers.

"Hey, this well trained and organized militia is a good idea."

"Fuck that! Let's make this a boy's club! Then we can live together...bathe...gaze...WHATEVER! YEEEE-HAWWWW!!!"

smackaholic wrote:I am fairly certain that a considerable majority of congress that voted for it has not served.

I am also fairly sure that a number that a number of those voting for it, know it's not the right thing to do, but, they don't want to piss off the PC police.

Are you guys aware that at least 17 Navy ship COs have been sacked this year over fraternization charges?

And yes, I realize that none were likely homosexual type fraternization, it does show what kinds of problems result with mixed sex crews. Adding openly gay men will worsen things since, not only will they share ships, they'll share sleeping quarters.

It's fairly obvious you have a deep seated "gay rape fantasy" you've been repressing for years.

I wish your psychiatrist the best of luck. Better put a fresh pot of coffee on, this might take a while.

Carson wrote: Now they won't kick you out for sucking another guy's dick in the barracks shower.

Not really. Even if the military certifies that the repeal of 10 USC 654 will not impact readiness, morale/good order and discipline of the force, sodomy is still punishable under the UCMJ.

So they can be fags, they just can't actually fag off with each other. It's a standard Catch 22.

smackaholic wrote:I am fairly certain that a considerable majority of congress that voted for it has not served.

I am also fairly sure that a number that a number of those voting for it, know it's not the right thing to do, but, they don't want to piss off the PC police.

I suspect you aren't very aware of this: http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everyday ... urvey.html

Among the troops, there's more support for the repeal of DADT than there was for integration back when Truman integrated the military by Executive Order. Time and history proved Truman right.

Are you guys aware that at least 17 Navy ship COs have been sacked this year over fraternization charges?

And yes, I realize that none were likely homosexual type fraternization,

Don't be 100% sure about that. Ever hear of the Eddie Mac? A Knox-class frigate out of Mayport back in the day. It had earned the nickname "The Love Boat," apparently because a former CO had been relieved due to fratnerization (of the sexual kind) with a crew member. This was back in the day of single sex crews, and during the period where homosexuality was banned in the armed forces.

Just goes to show ya that homosexuals have always served.

Adding openly gay men will worsen things since, not only will they share ships, they'll share sleeping quarters

Sorry, but I don't see how service members being openly gay will "worsen things" because they'll be "sharing ships" and "sharing sleeping quarters", since gays have been serving for years and sharing ships and sleeping quarters. How will this make things worse?

With any luck, all three.

poptart wrote:

With any luck, all three.

How utterly patriotic of you. May the first North Korean you meet do his duty.

I'm not in favor of any U.S. serviceman ending up in a coffin.

But we have three in front of us in that picture.
It's a done deal.

All other things being equal, I'd prefer those three be three of the fruits.

And more preferably, three of the "I'm queer and I'm HERE fruits."

poptart wrote:I'm not in favor of any U.S. serviceman ending up in a coffin. But we have three in front of us in that picture. It's a done deal. All other things being equal, I'd prefer those three be three of the fruits.

Ah, so you are just exhibiting your sense of Christian charity.

Mace wrote:

Adding openly gay men will worsen things since, not only will they share ships, they'll share sleeping quarters

Sorry, but I don't see how service members being openly gay will "worsen things" because they'll be "sharing ships" and "sharing sleeping quarters", since gays have been serving for years and sharing ships and sleeping quarters. How will this make things worse?

{DISCUSSION POINT}If you take men down to their base nature(especially 20 year olds), which is to seek out females to have sex with, then it goes to follow that gay men in there base nature would seek out males to have homosexual sex with. Adding the opposite sex in situations where sexual intercourse is not permitted adds unneeded sexual tension. Without any members of the opposite sex, there is a common sexual frustration. Not so with the gay male soldier, as he is able to at least partially satisfy his base sexual nature by being in constant contact with those that he could fill his needs with. A common unspoken frustration is not there with the homsexual soldier, and thus resentment.The intellectual ignores all human desires in the viewpoint that any thoughts, desires or feelings can be controlled or rationalized away.{/DISCUSSION POINT}

Or maybe we all need to just try to mind our own sexual business.

Anybody know any fags who said, "Oh, goody! I'm going to enlist tomorrow!!"?

Sergeant: Squad... Camp it ... up!

Oooh get her! Whoops!
I've got your number ducky.
You couldn't afford me, dear. Two three.
I'd scratch your eyes out.

Don't come the brigadier bit with us, dear,
We all know where you've been, you military fairy!

Whoops, don't look now girls,
The major's just minced in
With that dolly colour sergeant,
Two, three, ooh-ho!

BSmack wrote:Ah, so you are just exhibiting your sense of Christian charity

I'm demonstrating that I know what the purpose of the military is.

It's not a social experiment, assclown.

It is SERIOUS fucking business.

That which enhances the ability of the military to carry out it's purpose should be embraced.
That which detracts from it should not.

Take a guess which category fairies runnning free falls under.

poptart wrote:

BSmack wrote:Ah, so you are just exhibiting your sense of Christian charity

I'm demonstrating that I know what the purpose of the military is.

It's not a social experiment, assclown. It is SERIOUS fucking business.

I'm sure someone said that to Truman as well. Turns out he was right. It will also turn out that Obama was correct.

That which enhances the ability of the military to carry out it's purpose should be embraced.
That which detracts from it should not. Take a guess which category fairies runnning free falls under.

It falls in neither category. As mvscal already stated, it is not as if men are going to be blowing each other in the barracks shower stalls now that DADT is soon to be a a thing of the past. At least not with any more regularity than they already have been.

There's a gay guy in our battalion, Jim! There's a gay guy in our battalion when there shouldn't be!!

BSmack wrote: I'm sure someone said that to Truman as well. Turns out he was right. It will also turn out that Obama was correct.

for the umpteenth time, there is a ginormous difference between blacks and gays, or women for that matter.

It falls in neither category. As mvscal already stated, it is not as if men are going to be blowing each other in the barracks shower stalls now that DADT is soon to be a a thing of the past. At least not with any more regularity than they already have been.

go re-read what he said. he said guys blowing one another would still be a violation. he did not say it would not be happening. fortunately, there just aren't that many gays in the population, so, it will be a smaller headache than bringing in women has been. and if you think that hasn't (and continues to be) a major headache, you're a dumbfukk.

smackaholic wrote:for the umpteenth time, there is a ginormous difference between blacks and gays, or women for that matter.

No shit. It is a LOT easier to stand out as a woman or a black man. Yet the millitary adapted for the better. They will again.

go re-read what he said. he said guys blowing one another would still be a violation. he did not say it would not be happening. fortunately, there just aren't that many gays in the population, so, it will be a smaller headache than bringing in women has been. and if you think that hasn't (and continues to be) a major headache, you're a dumbfukk.

And I didn't say it wouldn't be happening. I said it won't be happening with any greater frequency. Learn to read.

BSmack wrote: Yet the millitary adapted for the better. They will again.

I'm sure they will but I'm less sure on why they should have to in the first place. This will cause headaches for unit commanders and NCOs. That is inevitable.

The question I have is what exactly is the upside here. How does this benefit the armed forces? With all the hot air billowing out of DC and from fag lobbyists, you would think there would be lines of dong inhaling sperm burpers snaking around the block in front of every recruiting center in the country today.

Seems like we're going through an awful lot of trouble to placte a completely insignificant percentage of troops or potential troops.

poptart wrote:



With any luck, all three.

Congrats....you're now an honorary member of WBC.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Yet the millitary adapted for the better. They will again.

I'm sure they will but I'm less sure on why they should have to in the first place.

How about because we live in AMERICA. Isn't that enough for you?

No. In fact, it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

alleged military historian wrote: Yet the millitary adapted for the better.

Link?

Women is the military is an added logistical burden. This is absolute fact. Not even arguable. Beyond that, there is the drama that comes with mixing the sexes in such a situation. This is not arguable either for anyone with more than 4 functioning braincells.

anti-american, homophobe, odd number chromosome havin' REAL military historian wetback wrote: I'm sure they will but I'm less sure on why they should have to in the first place.

How about because we live in AMERICA. Isn't that enough for you?

dammit, mv, just read the fukking constitution, you half wit. it's right there in article...uhhhhh ...I mean ammendment #.....uhhhh, i can i get a lawyer troll in here to help me with this. i forgot which section says serving in the military is a right.

I guess it is a good thing we have blacks though. Trouble is, if you look at who's fighting where, you'd think Truman didn't do shit. A whole lotta white farm boys up front getting shot at and the brothers doing their part to see that said honkeys are kept in ammo and chow.

Yeah, I guess this makes me racist on top of anti-(fag, woman, etc).

smackaholic wrote:

alleged military historian wrote: Yet the millitary adapted for the better.

Link? Women is the military is an added logistical burden. This is absolute fact. Not even arguable. Beyond that, there is the drama that comes with mixing the sexes in such a situation. This is not arguable either for anyone with more than 4 functioning braincells.

Having women doubles the available pool of recruits dumbfuck. I think that makes up for any logistical challenges.

How about because we live in AMERICA. Isn't that enough for you?

dammit, mv, just read the fukking constitution, you half wit. it's right there in article...uhhhhh ...I mean ammendment #.....uhhhh, i can i get a lawyer troll in here to help me with this. i forgot which section says serving in the military is a right.

You're not familiar with the equal protection clause?

Shocking.

I guess it is a good thing we have blacks though. Trouble is, if you look at who's fighting where, you'd think Truman didn't do shit. A whole lotta white farm boys up front getting shot at and the brothers doing their part to see that said honkeys are kept in ammo and chow. Yeah, I guess this makes me racist on top of anti-(fag, woman, etc).

I'm not sure if you're a racist. I am certain that you are an unreformed bigot who is hiding his bigotry behind worn out and out dated arguments. The future is now. Fucking deal with it.

BSmack wrote:Having women doubles the available pool of recruits dumbfuck. I think that makes up for any logistical challenges.

If we held them to the same standard, it might help. We don't. We lower the standards because that is the only way the great majority of them get in. Also, we are a nation of over 300 million. During WWII, we had less than half this pool and stood up a force of well over 10 million.....men. And a handful of chicks in the rear doing stuff they are good at. They weren't on ships, other than maybe hospital ships. They weren't anything close to being in forward deployed units.

How about because we live in AMERICA. Isn't that enough for you?

Once again, irrelevant.

You're not familiar with the equal protection clause?

Shocking.

What does the equal clause ammendment have to do with national defense?

Absolutely nothing!!!!! huuu!!!! say it again.

I'm not sure if you're a racist. I am certain that you are an unreformed bigot who is hiding his bigotry behind worn out and out dated arguments. The future is now. Fucking deal with it.

If by unreformed, you mean blinded by PC dumbfukk, then I 'spose I am unreformed. The simple fact is that combat units are overwhelmingly white. Must be because all them generals are unreformed as well.

Or maybe it's cultural.

Maybe it has something to do with apologetic libtard idiots telling young black men that the man's been holdin' them down all their lives?

If someone told me that, I wouldn't be too quick to go over there and play bullet sponge either.

BSmack wrote: You're not familiar with the equal protection clause?

You're a dumbfuck.

No one has any "right" to serve in the military, it's entirely at the discretion of... the military.

And you realize a carved-in-stone requirement for everybody who applies to join the military is...

Signing a deal in which you surrender your Constitutional Rights...


you knew that, right?


So, even though your "equal protection" point was s silly loser before it even left the starting gate, let's just assume it wasn't, and you can apply it to a group of people who have no constitutional rights, and have volunteered to live under what is essentially a prejudiced dictatorship.


I'll be holding my breath waiting.

poptart wrote:With any luck, all three.

You are a fucking piece of crap.