(10-13-2009 11:11 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Don't believe the USCG excitement hype. Most of our work is also moving papers, painting, and cleaning. The only thing more exciting than the rest of the services is because you are placed into a leadership billet right after you get on the job training. The truth is that hurricanes, immigrants, and drug busts don't happen everyday and that's where our excitement lies. If the AF isn't more exciting than us that is sad.

My co-worker's daughters ex-boyfriend is currently on Coast Guard buoy cleaning duty out of Duluth, MN. Winter is coming with no chance of a warm sea breeze, tell him again about the glamorous Coasties.......

I believe but am not sure that he is on the Alder

Believe me, I was stationed in Kodiak for my first six months, where I started in December. I wanted to cry every time I saw those waves coming upon us. Once I got into Boatswain's school I got out and requested Puerto Rico, they gave me Florida, and I haven't left since.

(10-12-2009 02:22 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  With the new USCG, USMC, and USN plan there are provisions for new marketing within all of those branches. We really need new people in the Coast Guard (immediately). We have a girl that's been out of boot for 2 weeks training on-the-job for lead gunner, when she has never touched a weapon, due to the fact that we have a lack in manpower. That adds to the stress of those non-rates because they also have to run all of these details and deal with the fact that they are on the front trigger when they can't even drink yet. Now that can be a good thing because we can say that the new guys will be experts and supervisors by the time they are 20, but we are still undermanned. I can't wait until our new campaign comes out.

But as far as advancing our fleet, we need to make sure that we can refurbish and/or build some ships. Some of the berthings are actually cots held up by chains. We need more funding.

I was listening to WGN (radio 720 out of Chicago) yesterday. There was a man who worked for the Coast Guard who got kicked out because he was gay. Not because he was unqualified(worked for the Navy for 4 years), but because some people are homophobes. Maybe if you guys(yes, I am talking to you and many of you on this board) would stop being so scared, the positions might just be filled(much like the Army positions of Arabic speakers vacated because they were gay. Now not having enough for the immediate/vital need for them).

I have nothing against gay people in the military. Just don't make that your personal exhibition for all to see.

(10-13-2009 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-12-2009 02:22 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  With the new USCG, USMC, and USN plan there are provisions for new marketing within all of those branches. We really need new people in the Coast Guard (immediately). We have a girl that's been out of boot for 2 weeks training on-the-job for lead gunner, when she has never touched a weapon, due to the fact that we have a lack in manpower. That adds to the stress of those non-rates because they also have to run all of these details and deal with the fact that they are on the front trigger when they can't even drink yet. Now that can be a good thing because we can say that the new guys will be experts and supervisors by the time they are 20, but we are still undermanned. I can't wait until our new campaign comes out.

But as far as advancing our fleet, we need to make sure that we can refurbish and/or build some ships. Some of the berthings are actually cots held up by chains. We need more funding.

I was listening to WGN (radio 720 out of Chicago) yesterday. There was a man who worked for the Coast Guard who got kicked out because he was gay. Not because he was unqualified(worked for the Navy for 4 years), but because some people are homophobes. Maybe if you guys(yes, I am talking to you and many of you on this board) would stop being so scared, the positions might just be filled(much like the Army positions of Arabic speakers vacated because they were gay. Now not having enough for the immediate/vital need for them).

I have to ask...Are the majority of Arabic speakers gay? Why is the army having a hard time finding heterosexuals to learn Arabic?

Why is my black president taking my green presidents?

(10-13-2009 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I was listening to WGN (radio 720 out of Chicago) yesterday. There was a man who worked for the Coast Guard who got kicked out because he was gay. Not because he was unqualified(worked for the Navy for 4 years), but because some people are homophobes. Maybe if you guys(yes, I am talking to you and many of you on this board) would stop being so scared, the positions might just be filled(much like the Army positions of Arabic speakers vacated because they were gay. Now not having enough for the immediate/vital need for them).

...... if you remember, back in January 2009 a certain Democrat, a man by the name of Barack Obama, was elected to the office of the President of the United States.

In this elected position, he also is appointed the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. The US Armed Forces consist of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and (for ease of explanation to the simple minded) in time of war, the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine.

As a result of this Commander in Chief title, the President could quite quickly eliminate the DADT policy. President Barack Obama has not signed any executive orders, or signed and legislation, that would repeal DADT.

So you are in full understanding, your President has not eliminated the DADT policy.

Your man, and not as you so bizarrely claim this small time political backwater message board, is directly responsible for ALL service members kicked out of the US Armed Forces. It is his law to repeal, and he has not.

Any service member processing discharge paperwork for a gay or lesbian soldier is doing so with the express written permission of the US Government. The same US Government headed by a certain Democratic Presidential official and a certain Democratic Congress.

Seems like your vote for Obama because of his promises to support your gay and lesbian community needs hasn't born much fruit, has it? How long are you going to support a President who doesn't have your best needs at heart?

(10-13-2009 04:21 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  ...... if you remember, back in January 2009 a certain Democrat, a man by the name of Barack Obama, was elected to the office of the President of the United States.

In this elected position, he also is appointed the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. The US Armed Forces consist of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and (for ease of explanation to the simple minded) in time of war, the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine.

As a result of this Commander in Chief title, the President could quite quickly eliminate the DADT policy. President Barack Obama has not signed any executive orders, or signed and legislation, that would repeal DADT.

So you are in full understanding, your President has not eliminated the DADT policy.

Your man, and not as you so bizarrely claim this small time political backwater message board, is directly responsible for ALL service members kicked out of the US Armed Forces. It is his law to repeal, and he has not.

False. The legislation was passed by Congress, and can only be repealed by Congress. Obama can propose and encourage a change in the legislation, but is not under any lawful means of repealing the law on his own. Granted, being the figurehead of the dominant party in both houses carries a lot of weight, it still not the president who makes the first move.

(10-13-2009 01:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I was listening to WGN (radio 720 out of Chicago) yesterday. There was a man who worked for the Coast Guard who got kicked out because he was gay. Not because he was unqualified(worked for the Navy for 4 years), but because some people are homophobes. Maybe if you guys(yes, I am talking to you and many of you on this board) would stop being so scared, the positions might just be filled(much like the Army positions of Arabic speakers vacated because they were gay. Now not having enough for the immediate/vital need for them).

Military service IS NOT A RIGHT. People need to stop confusing it with voting or free speech. The government has the right to decide those who are considered eligible to serve in the nation's armed forces. If they feel that women, blacks, the elderly, or the queers should not serve, then it is fully within their power to legislate as so (same reason women are not SEALS, and aren't part of the draft). Additionally, the introduction of women into the military has produced many of the same problems that allowing fags to openly join the military. Unit cohesion. Anyone who has ever been on a deployment on a ship knows the issues about integrated crews (questions, check the fan room). Additionally, it is the same reasoning that the military does its best to avoid family members from serving under the same command, or each others command (clearly there have been rare exceptions).

Additionally, less than 13,000 individuals have been dismissed by DADT. The military is not "hurting" because fags can't openly serve.

(10-13-2009 11:09 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(10-13-2009 04:21 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  ...... if you remember, back in January 2009 a certain Democrat, a man by the name of Barack Obama, was elected to the office of the President of the United States.

In this elected position, he also is appointed the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. The US Armed Forces consist of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and (for ease of explanation to the simple minded) in time of war, the Coast Guard and the Merchant Marine.

As a result of this Commander in Chief title, the President could quite quickly eliminate the DADT policy. President Barack Obama has not signed any executive orders, or signed and legislation, that would repeal DADT.

So you are in full understanding, your President has not eliminated the DADT policy.

Your man, and not as you so bizarrely claim this small time political backwater message board, is directly responsible for ALL service members kicked out of the US Armed Forces. It is his law to repeal, and he has not.

False. The legislation was passed by Congress, and can only be repealed by Congress. Obama can propose and encourage a change in the legislation, but is not under any lawful means of repealing the law on his own. Granted, being the figurehead of the dominant party in both houses carries a lot of weight, it still not the president who makes the first move.

Right, which is why I said executive order or signed legislation.