Posted for your information and comment:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...eal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-study-reveals?lite#
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...eal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-study-reveals?lite#
Study: "No Negative Impact" Ref. DADT Repeal
- Thread starter Marauder06
- Start date
I have seen zero changes, of course the mighty one weekend a month 2 weeks a year of the National Guard was never going to be the toughest testing ground.
Reed
Reed
Hidden agendas?
Well, first you have Miranda Leitsinger, who authored the article, who is a full blown LGBT advocate, so that in itself tells you something right there.
Next, we have the Palm Center (Wrongly categorized in the article an an "Independent Think Tank") which covered the supposed survey, is an organization that specializes in LGBT support for "Sexual Minorities." Not to mention, this survey only runs the span of 6 whole months.
And to top it off, even as the article was written, within it, you have this little tidbit:
Four Marines accused of beating man in possible gay hate crime
Couple that with the current economy, I don't think you can realistically throw in un skewed retention and recruitment stats either.
I never take any of these cheer leading reports at face value or what they translate to in real life. Are beatings rampant and discrimination widespread still? I don't think so, but at the same time, I see and interpret media bias like these as just another form of "Feel Good Propaganda" intended to have everyone reading it to fall in line with the "New Normal" just because, unlike people like me, who do some additional digging, peeling away the layers of the onion, most people don't.
They read and digest these kinds of articles and never give them a second thought, because they either choose not to, or just don't take the time to cross reference and check the facts behind it.
And don't for a second think that this journalist and many others out there don't take advantage of it for that very reason.
Well, first you have Miranda Leitsinger, who authored the article, who is a full blown LGBT advocate, so that in itself tells you something right there.
Next, we have the Palm Center (Wrongly categorized in the article an an "Independent Think Tank") which covered the supposed survey, is an organization that specializes in LGBT support for "Sexual Minorities." Not to mention, this survey only runs the span of 6 whole months.
And to top it off, even as the article was written, within it, you have this little tidbit:
Four Marines accused of beating man in possible gay hate crime
Couple that with the current economy, I don't think you can realistically throw in un skewed retention and recruitment stats either.
I never take any of these cheer leading reports at face value or what they translate to in real life. Are beatings rampant and discrimination widespread still? I don't think so, but at the same time, I see and interpret media bias like these as just another form of "Feel Good Propaganda" intended to have everyone reading it to fall in line with the "New Normal" just because, unlike people like me, who do some additional digging, peeling away the layers of the onion, most people don't.
They read and digest these kinds of articles and never give them a second thought, because they either choose not to, or just don't take the time to cross reference and check the facts behind it.
And don't for a second think that this journalist and many others out there don't take advantage of it for that very reason.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that nobody cares about the DADT repeal. Except for a few jokes about it being a "Post September 20th world", there has been little to say that anyone has really been negatively affected by it.
While I agree with what's going on in the world currently is more important, I take issue with your assessment of "No one gives a shit anymore." I give a shit.
The way you come off in these last 2 posts you would think your opinion is the only one that counts.
And you know why? Because they could....(Over a thousand) without fear of retribution, reprimand, silenced or having to resign. Ever see anyone active duty voice any kind of open opposition to the President and his policies? Or what happens to them when and if they do?
The other thing that fucking torques my screws is those that did serve and voiced their opposition got blown off by someone who didn't and never has.
List of Signatures
As to my opinion and my opposition, I paid my dues to voice it. So did many others. It's the NEW NORMAL being force fed from so many different angles, I lost count. Most of it stemming from hollywood and beamed into the main stream.
Do I have a problem with those who are gay? No. Whatever they're preferences are by consenting adults is fine by me. Whatever you do behind close doors, so be it. Gay and want to serve? Fine as well. But to wave it in the face of those who think otherwise and shove their agendas down the throats as normal behavior and requires acceptance by everyone across the board or else, you're considered a bigot, homophobic, whatever is what I take issue with. That and the very fact the needs and preferences of the few outweighed and overtakes the needs and beliefs of others.
Just like the biased fucking report that started this thread.
And yeah, I still give a fucking shit. So what?
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,424
How is a personal relationship an agenda? I don't consider my wife and I holding hands "pushing an agenda", and I also don't consider a gay soldier having a personal relationship "pushing an agenda".. I think banging fat chicks is personally reprehensible, but if a teammate does it I don't care. Just like I wouldn't care if he likes to blow dudes. It's gross but none of my goddamned business. If he wants to serve his nation proudly WHO tHE FUCK ARE YOU To tell him otherwise? Oh it's okay behind closed doors, but you just have to lie about it and live in shame...what honor is there in that?DADT was a stupid cowardly law designed to not deal with an issue. To me it seems as if you are trying to impart your personal morality on those of differing view points, which is exactly what you decry above
The "Agenda" has been one of this administration and the LGBT community. Yeah, I have personal morals, norms and beliefs......just like anyone else. It's just my opinion, my beliefs and principles I'm voicing and imparting. If others don't share the same, fine. I'm good with that.
You obviously don't agree, fine as well. A post was made on this board, asking for discussion. Trying to silence my POV with a WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU is uncalled for. I happen to be one of many. Get use to it. That's my nice version.
You obviously don't agree, fine as well. A post was made on this board, asking for discussion. Trying to silence my POV with a WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU is uncalled for. I happen to be one of many. Get use to it. That's my nice version.
Gay assaults have just been pushed into the overall rise in sexual assault numbers; that way the average idiot thinks it's guys (all white) assaulting women.
Other then that, no serious ramifications.
Other then that, no serious ramifications.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,424
My who the fuck are you wasn't only directed at you, I have a habit of singularizing.
I think it is important that this occur. There is no such thing (in my experience) as a smooth transition to a new page, a do-over, a "start-from-scratch", a "no-hard-feelings, let's-pretend-it-never-happened" kind of deal. Those who stood or stand in the way must experience push-back. It's part of the deal.
The harder they resist, the greater the push back must and should be. On the other hand, the sooner they stand down, the sooner the push-back will go away. Continued resistance could even result in such nasty push-back as "affirmative action" applied against new generations of heterosexuals who never had anything to do with the original discrimination. For the sake of all the younger hetero kids, let's hope that does not happen. Let's get this integration/acceptance thing out of the way, and the sooner the better. Let's take our personal feelings against this policy, if any, and put them in the closet, in a dark age, in a cave, where they belong.
Those who lack the leadership skills to execute the policy, and keep the "antis" in check, need to be run out of the service, along with the antis themselves. From there, outside of the service, they can continue their futile efforts if they want. It won't matter, but that's okay. Better they do it on their own time where they can safely be ignored.
Just my opinion.
Regarding the study, there may indeed be some real bias. However, bias alone is not reason to attack the study. Sound reasoning dictates the study should be attacked on it's merits, on the facts. It is not important who said what but, rather, what was said.
If I ever saw a contrary study from a group with opposite politics, I certainly could not say "Yeah, well, that's Rush Limbaugh and we all know that he's a piece of shit so his study must be invalid and ignored." I'd actually have to take his facts apart.
If I ever saw a contrary study from a group with opposite politics, I certainly could not say "Yeah, well, that's Rush Limbaugh and we all know that he's a piece of shit so his study must be invalid and ignored." I'd actually have to take his facts apart.
