If DADT repealed, 40% of Marines will leave the Corps. 23% from all services will leave...
Mike
Gay survey
While the Pentagon working group concluded the negative impact on the
force would be "low" if gays serve openly, its survey results present
a different story.
Republicans likely will cite some of these numbers in arguing in the
Senate, where a vote on repeal is pending, that now is not the time to
end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, as two wars are being fought.
The most striking number is that nearly 60 percent of combat soldiers
and Marines believe open gays will hurt unit readiness.
There are other similar findings, reports special correspondent Mr.
Scarborough.
Of respondents who said they served under a leader they believed to be
gay, 46 percent said it had a "mostly negative" effect on the unit's
performance. Only 8 percent termed it "mostly positive."
Of all troops asked how repeal will affect their future, 23 percent
said they will either leave the military sooner than planned or think
about leaving. For Marines, the percentage was nearly 40 percent.
If the figures are accurate, repeal would result in a surge of troop
departures and leave the military scrambling to fill the ranks.
A quarter of those surveyed also said they would shower at a different
time if someone they believed to be gay were using the facility.
Gay-rights advocates cite the survey's most publicized result: Seventy
percent of all troops - support and combat - say repeal will have a
positive, mixed or no effect on the force.
Gay training
The Pentagon working group on open gays in the military sets out an
ambitious training program to ensure that troops treat their
colleagues, gay or straight, with dignity.
The group, led by Army Gen. Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel
Jeh Johnson, appears to shy away from what some might call
"sensitively training."
The report's implementation plan states that "service members are not
expected to change their personal religious or moral beliefs; however,
they are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect,
consistent with the core values that already exist within each
service."
But objections to homosexuality are not grounds to request a transfer,
reports special correspondent Rowan Scarborough.
Says the report: Service "members do not have the right to refuse duty
or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another's sexual
orientation. Service members remain obligated to follow orders that
involve interaction with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an
unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or
religious beliefs."
And it states that "harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is
unacceptable. All service members are to treat one another with
dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation."
Schiffner
No that just means the wimps, pussys and losers leave...good riddance.
Oh and if you don't like my opinion...piss off.
Eunometic
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/1/inside-the-ring-843880...
>
> Gay survey
>
> While the Pentagon working group concluded the negative impact on the
> force would be "low" if gays serve openly, its survey results present
> a different story.
Two impacts:
1 Prisoners are arse raped.
2 Gay buddies taking care of each other rather than the team. Don't
say it isn't going to happen.
150flivver
BS. 1. Rapes happen in an all heterosexual force--it's a crime and
should be (and is) prosecuted. 2. If the team dies so do you. You
survive in combat by watching over your buddy and he/she you--doesn't
matter what their sexual orientation.
Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying they don't
like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just suck it up
and continue to serve. Everyone serving is always "thinking about
leaving" and some will and some won't. Many didn't like serving
alongside blacks when the forces were integrated at first but they
learned to live with it and it's worked out.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying they don't
> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just suck it up
> and continue to serve. Everyone serving is always "thinking about
> leaving" and some will and some won't. Many didn't like serving
> alongside blacks when the forces were integrated at first but they
> learned to live with it and it's worked out.
Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around them. The
appropriate example is women in the military. That is still causing
problems.
Andrew Swallow
Schiffner
> On Dec 3, 7:10 am, Mike <yard22...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/1/inside-the-ring-843880...
>
> > Gay survey
>
> > While the Pentagon working group concluded the negative impact on the
> > force would be "low" if gays serve openly, its survey results present
> > a different story.
>
> Two impacts:
>
> 1 Prisoners are arse raped.
happens anyway...straw man.
> 2 Gay buddies taking care of each other rather than the team. Don't
> say it isn't going to happen.
heh shows what you know...you obviously don't know much about how
soldiers, cops etc look out for each other regardless of preferences
etc.
Schiffner
Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem. Oh and
the worthless buttheads who've never served with women. I don't have
think...I've done the issue and frankly all the whinners are little
non-functioning bitches. 8^) Let's see you throw around starter motors
for an M-1A2 all day like a bag of chips.
Mark Borgerson
am.sw...@btopenworld.com says...
I've never found that the gay people with whom I worked were any more
likely to sexually harass coworkers than were straight people.
The subject line ignores the fact that a large percentage of the
military leaves every year when their enlistment is up. The key
is whether recruiting can cover a short-term drop in reenlistment
rates. The simple percentage number also don't address the
fact that there may be more losses amongst more senior enlisted
in whom the service has invested more training.
However, I don't see that there would be that much of a dropout
rate amongst those with 15+ years in the service. First, they
wouldn't be living with the gay personnel as often as the
junior personnel. Second, I doubt that the problems would outweigh
the advantages of half-pay retirment at the 20-year point.
Mark Borgerson
David E. Powell
vaughn
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.276571bdd...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> However, I don't see that there would be that much of a dropout
> rate amongst those with 15+ years in the service. First, they
> wouldn't be living with the gay personnel as often as the
> junior personnel. Second, I doubt that the problems would outweigh
> the advantages of half-pay retirment at the 20-year point.
In the civilian world, DADT was mostly "repealed" decades ago. In my
experience, even today few gays choose to advertise their lifestyles in their
workplace. Meaning, their lifestyle is a non-issue except in their own private
lives.
It will be much the same in the military. There are plenty of gays in the
military today, they won't be "coming out"' just because DADT goes away. Life
will go on as usual. This too shall pass.
Vaughn
William Black
> On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>
>>
>>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying they don't
>>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just suck it up
>>> and continue to serve. Everyone serving is always "thinking about
>>> leaving" and some will and some won't. Many didn't like serving
>>> alongside blacks when the forces were integrated at first but they
>>> learned to live with it and it's worked out.
>>
>> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around them. The
>> appropriate example is women in the military. That is still causing
>> problems.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
The problem with women in combat isn't the women, it's that the men get
upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
The Israeli Army tried it in 1948 and found unit moral dropped like
stone when the girls start taking hits...
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
Kerryn Offord
If gays could openly serve.. You have just increased the potential
recruit pool..
Jack G.
> On 12/6/2010 6:54 AM, Mark Borgerson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > am.swal...@btopenworld.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
How many gays are there in the general population? The recruit pool
would not rise because the percentage is to small.
Daryl Hunt
Since it won't go down, there is no justification of giving
prejudicial treatment to one group over another. Gays are the
only group that it's still legal to do this in the Military. Per
Capita, Muslims are more problematic than Gays yet it's illegal
to give prejudicial treatment to Muslims.
Once again, this needs to be put right. Much the same way Women,
Blacks and others are not supposed to receive prejudicial
treatment either by decree.
vaughn
"Jack G." <jfgr...@live.com> wrote in message
news:36fb1f71-d087-456c...@n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>How many gays are there in the general population?
Nobody knows for sure. Different studies have yielded different numbers. For
one thing, it depends on definition. Gayness is not an "all or nothing" thing.
Anyhow, the range is probably somewhere between 3 and 8 percent of the
population. I
>The recruit pool would not rise because the percentage is to small.
Wrong. In terms of the recruit pool, I would call either of the numbers I
mentioned above "significant".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
Vaughn
Kerryn Offord
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html
Annual no. of births (thousands), 2008 4399
Or.. 4,399,000..
Let's assume 50-50 male-female and only males are in the pool.
3% of 2,200,000 = 66,000
8% = 176,000
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm
The army in 2006 wanted 80,000..
Navy 36,656
Marines 32,301
Air force 30,750
Totally... 179,707
I'd say the gays add significantly to the pool (The number of gays
actually wanting to serve is another matter...)
Andrew Chaplin
@news.eternal-september.org:
If one can take the CF in Kandahar as an example, we seem to have got past
that.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Schiffner
> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote:
> >> {snip}
>
> >>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying they don't
> >>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just suck it up
> >>> and continue to serve. Everyone serving is always "thinking about
> >>> leaving" and some will and some won't. Many didn't like serving
> >>> alongside blacks when the forces were integrated at first but they
> >>> learned to live with it and it's worked out.
>
> >> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around them. The
> >> appropriate example is women in the military. That is still causing
> >> problems.
>
> >> Andrew Swallow
>
> > Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>
> The problem with women in combat isn't the women, it's that the men get
> upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
Never bothered me...and medics rarely get to shoot back. We tend to be
busy.
> The Israeli Army tried it in 1948 and found unit moral dropped like
> stone when the girls start taking hits...
and they don't drop like stones these days. It's this thing called
TRAINING...you should try it some time.
Schiffner
<golf clap> Now where is the damn like button?
Well said
Schiffner
wrote:
> No.
You you aren't homosexual or no you aren't straight?
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Jack G. wrote:
> >
> > How many gays are there in the general population? The recruit pool
> > would not rise because the percentage is to small.
>
> Since it won't go down, there is no justification of giving
> prejudicial treatment to one group over another. Gays are the
> only group that it's still legal to do this in the Military.
Don't you mean the _preferential_ treatment provided homos under DADT?
(Ignoring the sodomy, adultery/fornication, and 'conduct unbecoming'
articles of the UCMJ, if you are queer. No other group can avoid
prosecution for these crimes, if they are accused.)
Actually, I'm all for rolling back Clinton's cruel and unusual DADT
executive order - to the time when these poor devils were 4-F:
mentally/emotionally unqualified for military service.
> Per Capita, Muslims are more problematic than Gays yet it's illegal
> to give prejudicial treatment to Muslims.
>
> Once again, this needs to be put right. Much the same way Women,
> Blacks and others are not supposed to receive prejudicial
> treatment either by decree.
Yet you would permit preferential treatment - unavailable to any of
those groups - for queers.
I'm very glad my time in the service preceeded all of this 'politically
correct' BS. I was long gone when Slick Willy came along.
Daryl Hunt
> dh...@nospami70west.com says...
> Jack G. wrote:
>>>
>>> How many gays are there in the general population? The recruit pool
>>> would not rise because the percentage is to small.
>>
>> Since it won't go down, there is no justification of giving
>> prejudicial treatment to one group over another. Gays are the
>> only group that it's still legal to do this in the Military.
>
> Don't you mean the _preferential_ treatment provided homos under DADT?
> (Ignoring the sodomy, adultery/fornication, and 'conduct unbecoming'
> articles of the UCMJ, if you are queer. No other group can avoid
> prosecution for these crimes, if they are accused.)
I said it right. The coin with Preferential treatment is a two
sided coin. You can't give preferential treatment without giving
someone else prejudicial treatment.
>
> Actually, I'm all for rolling back Clinton's cruel and unusual DADT
> executive order - to the time when these poor devils were 4-F:
> mentally/emotionally unqualified for military service.
Then there would be a tremendous savings, maybe. The problem in
the AF, it takes hundreds if not millions to train the
individual. I that individual is seperated for being gay then
the cost of training is a wash.
>
>> Per Capita, Muslims are more problematic than Gays yet it's illegal
>> to give prejudicial treatment to Muslims.
>>
>> Once again, this needs to be put right. Much the same way Women,
>> Blacks and others are not supposed to receive prejudicial
>> treatment either by decree.
>
> Yet you would permit preferential treatment - unavailable to any of
> those groups - for queers.
Just preclaiming to be Muslim is not a reason to do forced
seperation. Being a Gay that is either open or discovered is
automatic seperation from the military.
>
> I'm very glad my time in the service preceeded all of this 'politically
> correct' BS. I was long gone when Slick Willy came along.
So was I but it was still stupid to watch that much money wasted
over people that didn't bring it to work with them and did a good
job.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> How many gays are there in the general population?
All scientific studies (rather than polls by organizations with an
agenda) say somewhere between one and three percent of American adults
are full or part-time homosexuals - and that hasn't changed appreciably
in more than 50 years, despite intense 'gay is good' brainwashing and
propaganda, beginning with pre-school 'education'.
It is true that today, many post-baby-boomers are much more willing to
excuse others of this lifestyle choice, (and the jury is still out on
whether or not a propensity for homosexuality is a naturally-occuring
birth defect) - but queers represent a smaller segment of the American
population than the morbidly obese. (Also a mostly naturally-occuring
genetic condition - though few would call 700-pound people 'normal' -
yet gays constantly whine for their disability to be considered so.)
> The recruit pool would not rise because the percentage is to small.
We did just fine without them until Clinton came along.
Daryl Hunt
They were still there but hidden in their closets. You weren't
aware of them therefore they didn't exist. They did.
David E. Powell
> On 12/6/2010 11:29 AM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
True that. Surely there were gay people in the military going way
back. If women post as men in the Revolution to join up (a couple
documented cases I believe) then it would be easier for gay people to
serve who look pretty much like the person next to them in the ranks..
Daryl Hunt
We can always shut our eyes, cover our ears and scream "Neener,
Neener" a the top our lungs.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Perhaps - but like a highly-functional (and well-hidden) alcoholic,
it may only become a problem if the facts surface into the open.
I once worked with a lieutenant maintenance officer. She was bright,
pretty, hard-working, outstandingly capable, and well-spoken.
She was the girl you hoped your daughters would someday grow up to be.
We all wondered why she hadn't been snapped up by her Mr. Right already!
By the time she made Captain, she came back from a trip home, wearing an
engagement ring; everyone was glad to see it - but when anyone asked
"Who is the lucky guy?" - her response was always "Oh, you don't know
him; he's not from around here".
Everyone assumed it was some guy from her hometown.
That is, until an intelligent, handsome SSgt load toad (from the same
squadron) took a discharge overseas - and the new civilian married the
young captain almost immediately.
AFAIK, they lived happily ever after; their very well-concealed
courtship had never become an issue while both were in the USAF.
No harm; no foul.
150flivver
If she had been a Marine, she quite probably would have been bought up
on charges of fraternization and conduct unbecoming an officer. I
remember a case similar where a male officer informed his commander he
was marrying a just discharged enlisted female. He had to face those
charges but I don't how the case ended. The USAF has often looked the
other way.
Schiffner
> dh...@nospami70west.com says...
> Jack G. wrote:
>
>
>
> > > How many gays are there in the general population? The recruit pool
> > > would not rise because the percentage is to small.
>
> > Since it won't go down, there is no justification of giving
> > prejudicial treatment to one group over another. Gays are the
> > only group that it's still legal to do this in the Military.
>
> Don't you mean the _preferential_ treatment provided homos under DADT?
> (Ignoring the sodomy, adultery/fornication, and 'conduct unbecoming'
> articles of the UCMJ, if you are queer. No other group can avoid
> prosecution for these crimes, if they are accused.)
heh, you are very mistaken. BTST...one of my CSM's brought his 25y/o
girlfriend to BN WHILE his divorce was barely underway...pissed away
his retirement for a piece of ass.
> Actually, I'm all for rolling back Clinton's cruel and unusual DADT
> executive order - to the time when these poor devils were 4-F:
> mentally/emotionally unqualified for military service.
Funny that's what I think of republicant's and democraps...unfit.
> > Per Capita, Muslims are more problematic than Gays yet it's illegal
> > to give prejudicial treatment to Muslims.
>
> > Once again, this needs to be put right. Much the same way Women,
> > Blacks and others are not supposed to receive prejudicial
> > treatment either by decree.
>
> Yet you would permit preferential treatment - unavailable to any of
> those groups - for queers.
Uh FF free clue...queers have sex with children, animals and corpses
not to mention inanimate objects. I suggest you get an education you
ignorat turd. Homosexuals are normal...those other ones I mentioned
are "queer". You need to read a dictionary and not the fucking
bathroom wall.
> I'm very glad my time in the service preceeded all of this 'politically
> correct' BS. I was long gone when Slick Willy came along.
Even better if nobody gave a damn who you were sleeping with or
married to...Me I married my best friend/sister.
Schiffner
That only works IF you are an 'E6' and your brand new (still smells
like mothballs in storage) second lieutenant has a map in his hands
and says "I can get us there" btdt and those sweet kids are more
dangerous than a poorly designed unstable nuke.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> > That is, until an intelligent, handsome SSgt load toad (from the same
> > squadron) took a discharge overseas - and the new civilian married the
> > young captain almost immediately.
> >
> > AFAIK, they lived happily ever after; their very well-concealed
> > courtship had never become an issue while both were in the USAF.
> >
> > No harm; no foul.
>
> If she had been a Marine, she quite probably would have been bought up
> on charges of fraternization and conduct unbecoming an officer.
While fraternization can cause immense problems that richly deserve
action under the UCMJ, do you really think the USMC is dumb enough to
expensively destroy a happy couple (after the fact) when there is no
available evidence that fraternization ever occurred? (Knowing it had
to - and legally proving it did - are two different things.)
I think even the USMC has better things to do.
Dan
In the 1970s my boss, a TSgt married our OIC, a 1Lt. She, the 1Lt,
was transferred to another section in our squadron. Both remained in the
service. Around the same time an airman married a lieutenant, both were
in the SP. If memory serves the airman was asked to separate. I met
both, he was the greater loss. If his wife ever made captain I would be
surprised.
The hospital at Hahn, 1980, had a nurse married to a tech. Small
hospital, both remained in.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> The hospital at Hahn, 1980, had a nurse married to a tech. Small
> hospital, both remained in.
One of my daughters was born there, during Salty Rooster (1978). IIRC,
there were ten beds. I loved that place (Hahn).
BTW - that daughter produced our first grandson nine months ago!!
frank
Usually one gets out of service problem is done away with.
frank
Later is was more common but still a bit weird, which club to go to,
all that. Mostly did the job and lived off base and treated work as a
job. 1630 its over until 0730. Definitely in different squadrons and
all that.
Funny, was common at Norton, a MAC base for gays to marry, then move
in in a house as both couples, then swap out for real relationships.
Command was clueless. People will figure out ways around anything.
John Doe
> On Dec 5, 8:18�am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal... btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>>
>>
>>
>> > Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying
>> > they don't like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals
>> > will just suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving
>> > is always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
>> > won't. � Many didn't like serving alongside blacks when the
>> > forces were integrated at first but they learned to live with
>> > it and it's worked out.
>>
>> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around them.
>> �The appropriate example is women in the military. �That is
>> still causing problems.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem. Oh
> and the worthless buttheads who've never served with women. I
> don't have think...I've done the issue and frankly all the
> whinners are little non-functioning bitches. 8^) Let's see you
> throw around starter motors for an M-1A2 all day like a bag of
> chips.
Let's see you learn how to speak English, and stop pretending to
be an American or to have served in any country's military.
--
See also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Schiffner <stevenkeith2 hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
> Subject: Re: If DADT repealed, 40% of Marines will leave the Corps. 23% from all services will leave...
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 08:14:20 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <4bcc1bfb-489b-4aeb-89f4-c6e2fb0b7ee5 u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
> References: <e8feaddf-b6aa-4d5d-a1ba-563cae666a7e r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <ac830dcf-639d-42c0-86ee-e0ff176ecaea y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <21c2e1d8-463d-4a97-93a8-1c43cbf8e3fd d24g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <jrmdnS15B_vAMGbRnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d bt.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.217.148.170
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1291565660 22880 127.0.0.1 (5 Dec 2010 16:14:20 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:14:20 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.217.148.170; posting-account=AhFyzQkAAADLl_3B6D21kNK_GImnafUY
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; AskTB5.5),gzip(gfe)
>
John Doe
> On Dec 5, 12:15ÿpm, William Black <blackuse... gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal... btopenworld.com>
>> > ÿwrote:
>> >> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>>
>> >>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying
>> >>> they don'
> t
>> >>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just
>> >>> suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving is
>> >>> always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
>> >>> won't. ÿ Many didn't like serving alongside blacks when the
>> >>> forces were integrated at first but they learned to live
>> >>> with it and it's worked out.
>>
>> >> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around
>> >> them. ÿThe appropriate example is women in the military.
>> >> ÿThat is still causing problems.
>>
>> >> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> > Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>>
>> The problem with women in combat isn't the women, ÿit's that
>> the men get upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
>
> Never bothered me...
He wasn't talking about your fantasy land, fuckhead.
--
> and medics rarely get to shoot back. We tend to be
> busy.
>
>> The Israeli Army tried it in 1948 and found unit moral dropped like
>> stone when the girls start taking hits...
>
> and they don't drop like stones these days. It's this thing called
> TRAINING...you should try it some time.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Schiffner <stevenkeith2 hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
> Subject: Re: If DADT repealed, 40% of Marines will leave the Corps. 23% from all services will leave...
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:10:21 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <e7bbc030-367d-451e-8b58-e05bfb7b584e r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> References: <e8feaddf-b6aa-4d5d-a1ba-563cae666a7e r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <ac830dcf-639d-42c0-86ee-e0ff176ecaea y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <21c2e1d8-463d-4a97-93a8-1c43cbf8e3fd d24g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <jrmdnS15B_vAMGbRnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d bt.com> <4bcc1bfb-489b-4aeb-89f4-c6e2fb0b7ee5 u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <idgobr$k9f$2 news.eternal-september.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.217.148.170
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1291648222 7520 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2010 15:10:22 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:10:22 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.217.148.170; posting-account=AhFyzQkAAADLl_3B6D21kNK_GImnafUY
John Doe
> On Dec 5, 5:35ÿam, Eunometic <eunome... yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 7:10ÿam, Mike <yard22... yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/1/inside-the-ring-
>> >843880...
>>
>> > Gay survey
>>
>> > While the Pentagon working group concluded the negative
>> > impact on the force would be "low" if gays serve openly, its
>> > survey results present a different story.
>>
>> Two impacts:
>>
>> 1 Prisoners are arse raped.
>
> happens anyway...
In your homosexual rape fantasies...
--
>
>> 2 Gay buddies taking care of each other rather than the team. ÿDon't
>> say it isn't going to happen.
>
> heh shows what you know...you obviously don't know much about how
> soldiers, cops etc look out for each other regardless of preferences
> etc.
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Schiffner <stevenkeith2 hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,us.military.army
> Subject: Re: If DADT repealed, 40% of Marines will leave the Corps. 23% from all services will leave...
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 08:11:50 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 23
> Message-ID: <c7665ff9-24cc-46f2-b971-71817f444a0f r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
> References: <e8feaddf-b6aa-4d5d-a1ba-563cae666a7e r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <ac830dcf-639d-42c0-86ee-e0ff176ecaea y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.217.148.170
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1291565510 21502 127.0.0.1 (5 Dec 2010 16:11:50 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:11:50 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.217.148.170; posting-account=AhFyzQkAAADLl_3B6D21kNK_GImnafUY
Daryl Hunt
>>> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal... btopenworld.com>
>>>>> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>>>
>>>>>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying
>>>>>> they don'
>> t
>>>>>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just
>>>>>> suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving is
>>>>>> always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
>>>>>> forces were integrated at first but they learned to live
>>>>>> with it and it's worked out.
>>>
>>>>> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around
>>>>> ĸThat is still causing problems.
>>>
>>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>
>>>> Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>>>
>>> the men get upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
>>
>> Never bothered me...
Schiff, you are crossposting to a real din of garbage.
us.military.army went to hell long ago with these characters.
Xposting back to him will just draw them into here. We already
have enough fruitcakes.
Actually, it gets me upset when anyone is blown to bits. If it
didn't then there would be something wrong with me. But if it's
my job and things like that happen, then I will still do my job.
And I hope you will as well.
John Doe
> On 12/20/2010 10:49 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> Schiffner<stevenkeith2 hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 5, 12:15�pm, William Black<blackuse... gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...
>>>>> btopenworld.com> �wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>>>>
>>>>>>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and
>>>>>>> saying they don'
>>> t
>>>>>>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just
>>>>>>> suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving is
>>>>>>> always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
>>>>>>> won't. � Many didn't like serving alongside blacks when
>>>>>>> the forces were integrated at first but they learned to
>>>>>>> live with it and it's worked out.
>>>>
>>>>>> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around
>>>>>> them. �The appropriate example is women in the military.
>>>>>> �That is still causing problems.
>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>>
>>>>> Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with women in combat isn't the women, �it's that
>>>> the men get upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
>>>
>>> Never bothered me...
>
> Schiff, you are crossposting to a real din of garbage.
> us.military.army went to hell long ago with these characters.
> Xposting back to him will just draw them into here. We already
> have enough fruitcakes.
Usually, you should follow the original poster. Besides, I am
posting from these groups. And in case you haven't noticed, over
the last many years, most UseNet groups have slowed to a crawl or
have much less traffic.
There is no such thing as freedom of speech in the military, and
anyone who has been there should know that. Anyone who wants to be
an individual should stay out of the military, or maybe your
memory is so short (Alzheimers?) that you forgot the recent
commercials about "AN ARMY OF ONE".
This last recession has hit men three times as hard as women. Men
spend more time in jail for rape than for murder. And now, people
who have no clue about what serving in the military is like, are
imposing their "progressive" political ideals on our military as
if it is supposed to reflect civilian life.
I am pissed because allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the
military is going to cause havoc for our military. To be clear, I
am not talking about old geezers who fantasize about being in the
military. This shit happened before I would've thought, and I
believe it is a very bad sign.
If you have any children, start praying for them (assuming you
give a shit).
--
>
> Actually, it gets me upset when anyone is blown to bits. If it
> didn't then there would be something wrong with me. But if it's
> my job and things like that happen, then I will still do my job.
> And I hope you will as well.
>
>
>>
>> He wasn't talking about your fantasy land, fuckhead.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe04.iad.POSTED!07292e74!not-for-mail
> From: Daryl Hunt <dhunt i70westnospam.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval
> Subject: Re: If DADT repealed, 40% of Marines will leave the Corps. 23% from all services will leave...
> References: <e8feaddf-b6aa-4d5d-a1ba-563cae666a7e r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <ac830dcf-639d-42c0-86ee-e0ff176ecaea y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <21c2e1d8-463d-4a97-93a8-1c43cbf8e3fd d24g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <jrmdnS15B_vAMGbRnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d bt.com> <4bcc1bfb-489b-4aeb-89f4-c6e2fb0b7ee5 u25g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <idgobr$k9f$2 news.eternal-september.org> <e7bbc030-367d-451e-8b58-e05bfb7b584e r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <4d103fdd$0$1186$c3e8da3$aae71a0a news.astraweb.com>
> In-Reply-To: <4d103fdd$0$1186$c3e8da3$aae71a0a news.astraweb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 51
> Message-ID: <zjXPo.17303$YC1.14489 newsfe04.iad>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse teranews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:55:43 UTC
> Organization: TeraNews.com
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:55:40 -0700
>
Daryl Hunt
> Daryl Hunt<dhunt i70westnospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2010 10:49 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>> Schiffner<stevenkeith2 hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...
>>>>>>> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and
>>>>>>>> saying they don'
>>>> t
>>>>>>>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just
>>>>>>>> suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving is
>>>>>>>> always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
>>>>>>>> the forces were integrated at first but they learned to
>>>>>>>> live with it and it's worked out.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around
>>>>>>> �That is still causing problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>>>
>>>>>> Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>>>>>
I do have children and I do care so they don't need to see your
posts. Bitbucket time.
John Doe
> Dweezil Dwarftosser <f4... yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Don't you mean the _preferential_ treatment provided homos
>> under DADT? (Ignoring the sodomy, adultery/fornication, and
>> 'conduct unbecoming' articles of the UCMJ, if you are queer.
>> ĸNo other group can avoid prosecution for these crimes, if they
>> are accused.)
>
> heh, you are very mistaken. BTST...one of my CSM's brought his
> 25y/o girlfriend to BN WHILE his divorce was barely
> underway...pissed away his retirement for a piece of ass.
>
>> Actually, I'm all for rolling back Clinton's cruel and unusual
>> DADT executive order - to the time when these poor devils were
>> 4-F: mentally/emotionally unqualified for military service.
>
> Funny that's what I think of republicant's and
> democraps...unfit.
>
>> > Per Capita, Muslims are more problematic than Gays yet it's
>> > illegal to give prejudicial treatment to Muslims.
>>
>> > Once again, this needs to be put right. ĸMuch the same way
>> > Women, Blacks and others are not supposed to receive
>> > prejudicial treatment either by decree.
>>
>> Yet you would permit preferential treatment - unavailable to
>> any of those groups - for queers.
>
> Uh FF free clue...queers have sex with children, animals and
> corpses not to mention inanimate objects. I suggest you get an
> education you ignorat turd. Homosexuals are normal...those other
> ones I mentioned are "queer". You need to read a dictionary and
> not the fucking bathroom wall.
>
>> I'm very glad my time in the service preceeded all of this
>> 'politically correct' BS. ĸI was long gone when Slick Willy
>> came along.
>
> Even better if nobody gave a damn who you were sleeping with
That is why Don't Ask Don't Tell worked. Most service members do
not want to hear about you sucking your boyfriend off. What part
of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" don't you understand, you fucking
ignorant moron?
--
> or married to...Me I married my best friend/sister.
See also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!c17g2000prm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Schiffner <stevenkeith2 hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval
> Subject: Re: If DADT repealed, 40% of Marines will leave the Corps. 23% from all services will leave...
> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:37:52 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 50
> Message-ID: <064602b7-8f3f-4c1e-9190-60ce209c37bc c17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
> References: <e8feaddf-b6aa-4d5d-a1ba-563cae666a7e r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <ac830dcf-639d-42c0-86ee-e0ff176ecaea y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <21c2e1d8-463d-4a97-93a8-1c43cbf8e3fd d24g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <jrmdnS15B_vAMGbRnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d bt.com> <MPG.276571bdda0e7e85989d3f news.eternal-september.org> <idgrpc$qgf$2 news.eternal-september.org> <36fb1f71-d087-456c-bb7e-4dba0561b0ef n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <idhct6$2l9$1 news.eternal-september.org> <MPG.2766f0a15ad8016b9896a0 news.flex.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.217.148.170
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1291739872 27116 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2010 16:37:52 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:37:52 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: c17g2000prm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.217.148.170; posting-account=AhFyzQkAAADLl_3B6D21kNK_GImnafUY
John Doe
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>> dh...@nospami70west.com says...
>>> Jack G. wrote:
>>>> How many gays are there in the general population? The
>>>> recruit pool would not rise because the percentage is to
>>>> small.
Unemployed homosexual men will greatly benefit from long-term
insurance against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
The Army will have to make a minor change to their commercials,
from "AN ARMY OF ONE" to "AN ARMY OF HOMO".
>>> Since it won't go down, there is no justification of giving
>>> prejudicial treatment to one group over another. Gays are the
>>> only group that it's still legal to do this in the Military.
>>
>> Don't you mean the _preferential_ treatment provided homos
>> under DADT? (Ignoring the sodomy, adultery/fornication, and
>> 'conduct unbecoming' articles of the UCMJ, if you are queer.
>> No other group can avoid prosecution for these crimes, if they
>> are accused.) Actually, I'm all for rolling back Clinton's
>> cruel and unusual DADT executive order - to the time when these
>> poor devils were 4-F: mentally/emotionally unqualified for
>> military service.
>
> Then there would be a tremendous savings, maybe. The problem in
> the AF, it takes hundreds if not millions to train the
> individual. I that individual is seperated for being gay then
> the cost of training is a wash.
Long-term treatment of AIDS costs more than that.
>>> Per Capita, Muslims are more problematic than Gays yet it's
>>> illegal to give prejudicial treatment to Muslims.
>>>
>>> Once again, this needs to be put right. Much the same way
>>> Women, Blacks and others are not supposed to receive
>>> prejudicial treatment either by decree.
>>
>> Yet you would permit preferential treatment - unavailable to
>> any of those groups - for queers.
>
> Just preclaiming to be Muslim is not a reason to do forced
> seperation. Being a Gay that is either open or discovered is
> automatic seperation from the military.
By "discovered" I guess you mean being caught sucking the guy in
the bunk next to you, or having a dildo in your ditty bag.
>> I'm very glad my time in the service preceeded all of this
>> 'politically correct' BS. I was long gone when Slick Willy
>> came along.
>
> So was I but it was still stupid to watch that much money wasted
> over people that didn't bring it to work with them and did a
> good job.
I thought that was the idea behind Don't Ask Don't Tell. In any
case... Aggressive homosexuals will continue pushing the envelope,
and our gullible public will continue believing lamebrain ignorant
ideas like freedom of speech in our military.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> I thought that was the idea behind Don't Ask Don't Tell. In any
> case... Aggressive homosexuals will continue pushing the envelope,
> and our gullible public will continue believing lamebrain ignorant
> ideas like freedom of speech in our military.
Half of all laws result in the opposite effect from that which was
intended. The opposite of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is "Interrogate Confess".
Andrew Swallow
Jim Yanik
news:BrGdnTu08vK6C4_Q...@bt.com:
If you screen at enlistment,then the job is much easier.
That was the "ask" part,right on the enlistment form.
anyone who lies to enlist is not the sort you want in service.
DADT was just BJClinton's way of EVADING the Congressional finding that
homosexuality is harmful to the military.
now homos are a Protected Class in the military.
That means that the commanders will take their complaints seriously while
downplaying hetero harassment,because that is what the Top brass have said
without saying. "Success" has been COMMANDED FROM ABOVE and "thou shall not
fail" is the way commanders will read this new policy. To make charges
against homos now is to harm your own career,because commanders are
committed to "making this work" by all means,and thus don't want to hear
heteros complaints,as they make it appear the program is NOT "working". And
they will come down VERY hard on heteros who had a homo complain about
them,whether the complain is legitimate,some imagined slight(homosexuals
ARE very sensitive...),or outright retribution or coercion(predatory
homos). To the leadership,YOU are "not a team player",and thus a world of
caca will fall on you. You can expect to be assigned the worst duties,be
sent to the most remote bases with the worst weather,and forget about
promotions. Anyone with a shred of common sense recognizes this is how the
military works,and to a great deal,also in large civilian businesses. Smart
hetero troops will keep "off the radar",not make any complaints,while homos
will make complaints for any imagined slight or "offense",for "payback",or
to get their way.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Schiffner
> Schiffner <stevenkeith2 hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal... btopenworld.com>
> >> >> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>
> >> >>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying
> >> >>> they don'
> > t
> >> >>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just
> >> >>> suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving is
> >> >>> always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
> >> >>> forces were integrated at first but they learned to live
> >> >>> with it and it's worked out.
>
> >> >> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around
> >> >> That is still causing problems.
>
> >> >> Andrew Swallow
>
> >> > Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>
> >> the men get upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
>
> > Never bothered me...
>
> He wasn't talking about your fantasy land, fuckhead.
> --
hey nameless cowardly fucktard who hides behind a munged addy adn a
fake name...who asked a chickenshit coward like you? I"ve BTDT...
Schiffner
> On 12/20/2010 10:49 PM, John Doe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Schiffner<stevenkeith2 hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 05/12/10 16:14, Schiffner wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 5, 8:18 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal... btopenworld.com>
> >>>>> On 05/12/2010 13:48, 150flivver wrote: {snip}
>
> >>>>>> Many if not most of those responding to a survey and saying
> >>>>>> they don'
> >> t
> >>>>>> like the idea of serving alongside homosexuals will just
> >>>>>> suck it up and continue to serve. Everyone serving is
> >>>>>> always "thinking about leaving" and some will and some
> >>>>>> forces were integrated at first but they learned to live
> >>>>>> with it and it's worked out.
>
> >>>>> Blacks do not normally sexually harass the people around
> >>>>> ÿThat is still causing problems.
>
> >>>>> Andrew Swallow
>
> >>>> Only for asshats and shitheds who think women are a problem.
>
> >>> the men get upset when they see them getting blown to bits.
>
> >> Never bothered me...
>
> Schiff, you are crossposting to a real din of garbage.
> us.military.army went to hell long ago with these characters.
> Xposting back to him will just draw them into here. We already
> have enough fruitcakes.
>
> Actually, it gets me upset when anyone is blown to bits. If it
> didn't then there would be something wrong with me. But if it's
> my job and things like that happen, then I will still do my job.
> And I hope you will as well.
>
I gathered that...usenet as a whole has gone to hell. I did my years,
NG, AR, RA in that order. Only places I haven't had the pleasure of
going was europe (landing in paris doesn't really count) and south
america. But I've been to all the other fun places...
Schiffner
a top posting coward who doesn't understand the fact that if the
person next to you is pulling their weight (and yours when you are
wounded) is a soldier and that's all that matters. Man you are one
stupid cowardly pile of pogey bait.
oh and fyi retard...adding free.usenet shows what a stupid cunt you
are.
Schiffner
gee you are as stupid as you post....he speaks american NOT english. I
would posit from your ignorance adn nasty attitude that you've either
never served or never served more than one term as you obviously
weren't able to adapt to the military.
Schiffner
> Schiffner <stevenkeith2 hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 7:10 am, Mike <yard22... yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/1/inside-the-ring-
> >> >843880...
>
> >> > Gay survey
>
> >> > While the Pentagon working group concluded the negative
> >> > impact on the force would be "low" if gays serve openly, its
> >> > survey results present a different story.
>
> >> Two impacts:
>
> >> 1 Prisoners are arse raped.
>
> > happens anyway...
>
> In your homosexual rape fantasies...
> --
>
>
>
> >> say it isn't going to happen.
>
> > heh shows what you know...you obviously don't know much about how
> > soldiers, cops etc look out for each other regardless of preferences
> > etc.
>
> see also Google Groups
not...man you prove me correct more and more and your childish posting
of peoples headers whilst hiding like the cowardly KKK hood wearing
neo-nazi catholic you act like. sheesh...the scum just roll out of the
wood work. Go worship at that altar to that piece of shit Beck that
you have. Your kind aren't wanted in america or the military. I regret
definding YOUR freedom and YOUR rights as you don't deserve any of
them.