Navy Ships Held in Philippine Port as Death Investigation Continues

[disneydude]

Lets put it this way. I am against any gay man making unwanted advances against a straight man........Is that clear enough for you?

LOL....but Navy has NOOOOOOOO problem with straight men making unwanted advances toward women. What a double standard.

 

[Wiggen]

I couldn't find any thing on MoveOn or the Democrat Underground. Do you think they might be bias and have an anti-American, anti-military lean ?

Complete dodge of the question yet again. I guess it was me telling you not to cite VDARE or Stormfront that made it difficult for you to respond. Sorry about that.

 

[APACHERAT]

Bull crap! You simply want to believe anything negative about Obama anyone on the Internet claims. Obama has no say in our uniforms, whatever you wish to believe from internet idiots who say otherwise.

I'm sure you were taught what the chain of command is when you went through boot camp. I don't know if you remember how it use to work and how it's suppose to work.

>" There was the White House staffer who called me up and asked me to have CENTCOM move a U.S. drone to Kyrgyzstan, for instance, in an effort to track an alarming outbreak of ethnic violence. When I told him why I couldn’t—the chain of command just doesn’t work that way, and in any case no formal planning or risk assessments had taken place—he quickly grew exasperated.

“You guys”—the Pentagon—“are always stonewalling us on everything. I’m calling you from the White House. The president wants to prevent genocide in Kyrgyzstan. Whatever happened to civilian control of the military?”

“You,” I had to tell him, “are the wrong civilian.”..."<


Read more: Obama vs. the Generals - POLITICO Magazine

 

[Wiggen]

Well the idea of having all Marines wearing girly hats sure didn't come from Marine Corps HQ's.

Neither does spending money on prostitutes, but it happens anyway.

 

[roguenuke]

The Obama White House didn't come out denying that they weren't behind the girly hats until they saw all of the outrage on the internet.

Now it's probably true Obama was unaware of what Valerie Jarrett was up to. Obama as Commander in Chief has been derelict on his duties as CnC.

How could they deny something they didn't know about? And what the heck are you talking about? There is no dereliction there if the person you are referring to had nothing to do with it. You have yet to prove the MC is lying and this "Valerie Jarrett" had anything to do with the "new covers" idea at all. You have shown nothing but internet tripe, as usual. Rumors that you want to believe despite information to the contrary.

And still you have not addressed you trying to claim that Obama and/or the repeal of DADT caused crossdressing in the military, yet me showing you that it had been going on quite a time before that.

 

[Wiggen]

I'm sure you were taught what the chain of command is when you went through boot camp. I don't know if you remember how it use to work and how it's suppose to work.

>" There was the White House staffer who called me up and asked me to have CENTCOM move a U.S. drone to Kyrgyzstan, for instance, in an effort to track an alarming outbreak of ethnic violence. When I told him why I couldn’t—the chain of command just doesn’t work that way, and in any case no formal planning or risk assessments had taken place—he quickly grew exasperated.

“You guys”—the Pentagon—“are always stonewalling us on everything. I’m calling you from the White House. The president wants to prevent genocide in Kyrgyzstan. Whatever happened to civilian control of the military?”

“You,” I had to tell him, “are the wrong civilian.”..."<


Read more: Obama vs. the Generals - POLITICO Magazine

the article also states there's no difference in relationships between Republican Administrations and the military and Democratic ones. I'm guessing you stopped reading before you got to that part.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm sure you were taught what the chain of command is when you went through boot camp. I don't know if you remember how it use to work and how it's suppose to work.

>" There was the White House staffer who called me up and asked me to have CENTCOM move a U.S. drone to Kyrgyzstan, for instance, in an effort to track an alarming outbreak of ethnic violence. When I told him why I couldn’t—the chain of command just doesn’t work that way, and in any case no formal planning or risk assessments had taken place—he quickly grew exasperated.

“You guys”—the Pentagon—“are always stonewalling us on everything. I’m calling you from the White House. The president wants to prevent genocide in Kyrgyzstan. Whatever happened to civilian control of the military?”

“You,” I had to tell him, “are the wrong civilian.”..."<


Read more: Obama vs. the Generals - POLITICO Magazine

Has nothing to do with who controls the uniforms for the military. Who decides on them. Obama is not on that board, for any military branch.

The SecNav asked for both the Navy and Marines to look for a unisex option for covers, since both branches have different covers for each sex/gender when it comes to their uniforms.

Marine Corps pulls uniform survey after

 

[APACHERAT]

How could they deny something they didn't know about? And what the heck are you talking about? There is no dereliction there if the person you are referring to had nothing to do with it. You have yet to prove the MC is lying and this "Valerie Jarrett" had anything to do with the "new covers" idea at all. You have shown nothing but internet tripe, as usual. Rumors that you want to believe despite information to the contrary.

And still you have not addressed you trying to claim that Obama and/or the repeal of DADT caused crossdressing in the military, yet me showing you that it had been going on quite a time before that.

Marine Corps HQ's said they weren't behind it, they said it was a directive from the Secretary of the Navy.

 

[APACHERAT]

Complete dodge of the question yet again. I guess it was me telling you not to cite VDARE or Stormfront that made it difficult for you to respond. Sorry about that.

Here you go Wiggen. -> VDARE.COM Enjoy.

 

[roguenuke]

Marine Corps HQ's said they weren't behind it, they said it was a directive from the Secretary of the Navy.

The SecNav asked them to find a unisex option. They weren't mandated. He asked both branches to look for such an option, which makes sense. They shouldn't be differentiating between us as men and women with the covers. Why can't women wear Dixie Cups? Why can't women wear the male Marine Corps covers?

 

[APACHERAT]

Has nothing to do with who controls the uniforms for the military. Who decides on them. Obama is not on that board, for any military branch.

The SecNav asked for both the Navy and Marines to look for a unisex option for covers, since both branches have different covers for each sex/gender when it comes to their uniforms.

Marine Corps pulls uniform survey after

Again, who's the "SecNav" ???

Is he not a political appointee of Obama who's suppose to be Obama's spoke hole for the Navy ?

 

[roguenuke]

Again, who's the "SecNav" ???

Is he not a political appointee of Obama who's suppose to be Obama's spoke hole for the Navy ?

Ray Mabus. He does not have to go through the President to make suggestions to the military for uniforms.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has asked the Navy and Marine Corps to look at moving to one cover for men and women.

“The secretary believes that when you look at a group of sailors and Marines, you should see a group of sailors and Marines, indistinguishable by uniform,” said Cmdr. Tamra Lawrence, a spokeswoman for Mabus.

Marine Corps pulls uniform survey after

Not anywhere close to the same thing as "Obama wants Marines to wear "girly" cover". The SecNav didn't even suggest what cover should be adopted, only that they should look for a unisex option. The board came up with any options that Marines may have felt were "girly", not the SecNav and definitely not the President.

 

[APACHERAT]

Ray Mabus. He does not have to go through the President to make suggestions to the military for uniforms.



Marine Corps pulls uniform survey after

Not anywhere close to the same thing as "Obama wants Marines to wear "girly" cover". The SecNav didn't even suggest what cover should be adopted, only that they should look for a unisex option. The board came up with any options that Marines may have felt were "girly", not the SecNav and definitely not the President.

unisex like gender friendly crappers on warships ? :lamo

Urinals aren't PC.

The Revolt Against Gender-Neutral Aircraft Carriers

>" A spirited debate is spilling out onto U.S. military websites and forums following the Navy's decision to scrap urinals on aircraft carriers so as to accommodate female sailors. In a push toward "gender-neutral" ships, the Navy's new class of carriers will go without urinals for the first time, the Navy announced last week.

The Navy listed plenty of sensible reasons for the change, which will materialize on all future Gerald R. Ford class carriers beginning in late 2015. But given the length of time sailors are cooped up on carriers (often 6- to 9-month deployments), even slight changes can cause a stir.

"Navy is getting way too politically correct," wrote Steve Mcgaha in a thread on The Navy Times, an independent news source for sailors and their families. "Let's get back to projecting sea power ... and get rid of the NANNY NAVY." Others were worried about the logistical implications. "Great. As if there weren't enough pissed-on toilet seats on Aircraft Carriers," wrote Matt Metz on the same Navy Times thread. "I guess actual warfighting is pretty low on the list in today's big bucks, PC, diversity is our strength ... Navy," wrote Orville Seybert. In perhaps the most novel argument, Navy vet Timothy Ritchie argued that urinals aren't actually gender-specific. "In Europe all gender-neutral bathrooms have urinals. It is a matter of sanitation. And believe it or not even a female can use a properly placed urinal with a bit of practice."..."<

The Revolt Against Gender-Neutral Aircraft Carriers - The Wire

 

[Manc Skipper]

There are always a few dinosaurs left bobbing in the wake of progress. Often known as "conservatives. They hate change.

 

[roguenuke]

unisex like gender friendly crappers on warships ? :lamo

Urinals aren't PC.

The Revolt Against Gender-Neutral Aircraft Carriers

>" A spirited debate is spilling out onto U.S. military websites and forums following the Navy's decision to scrap urinals on aircraft carriers so as to accommodate female sailors. In a push toward "gender-neutral" ships, the Navy's new class of carriers will go without urinals for the first time, the Navy announced last week.

The Navy listed plenty of sensible reasons for the change, which will materialize on all future Gerald R. Ford class carriers beginning in late 2015. But given the length of time sailors are cooped up on carriers (often 6- to 9-month deployments), even slight changes can cause a stir.

"Navy is getting way too politically correct," wrote Steve Mcgaha in a thread on The Navy Times, an independent news source for sailors and their families. "Let's get back to projecting sea power ... and get rid of the NANNY NAVY." Others were worried about the logistical implications. "Great. As if there weren't enough pissed-on toilet seats on Aircraft Carriers," wrote Matt Metz on the same Navy Times thread. "I guess actual warfighting is pretty low on the list in today's big bucks, PC, diversity is our strength ... Navy," wrote Orville Seybert. In perhaps the most novel argument, Navy vet Timothy Ritchie argued that urinals aren't actually gender-specific. "In Europe all gender-neutral bathrooms have urinals. It is a matter of sanitation. And believe it or not even a female can use a properly placed urinal with a bit of practice."..."<

The Revolt Against Gender-Neutral Aircraft Carriers - The Wire

Again, nothing to do with what was said, rather simply a deflection into "I don't want to change".

There is really no extra money involved in having women wear the male cover. In fact, for the Navy, the Dixie Cup is cheaper than the combination cover, which means the Navy would not have to pay so much in uniform allowances.

 

[APACHERAT]

Again, nothing to do with what was said, rather simply a deflection into "I don't want to change".

There is really no extra money involved in having women wear the male cover. In fact, for the Navy, the Dixie Cup is cheaper than the combination cover, which means the Navy would not have to pay so much in uniform allowances.

All of my uniform allowance went for beer, burgers and women.

 

[roguenuke]

All of my uniform allowance went for beer, burgers and women.

And in this day and age, the first one goes directly to the military to pay for your first uniform issue, which includes a different cover for men and women. Then you get more over time. Now, when it comes to Chiefs' uniforms and allowances, men get more due to needing a different cover that actually does cost more than the female cover. Plus, we keep the same cover as we had as E-1 to E-6, only adding a khaki color removable cap (I bought a new one because I still had mine from bootcamp).

 

[APACHERAT]

There are always a few dinosaurs left bobbing in the wake of progress. Often known as "conservatives. They hate change.

Conservatives aren't against change, they just think things out first before making changes.

The other side just keeps changing things with out ever thinking what will be the consequences. Keep initiating changes hoping eventually they'll get something right.

For example removing urinals from warships and not thinking things out.

A urinal on a warship uses 1 pint of water per flush. A gender friendly PC commode uses 3 pints of water per flush. When warships were built, they never thought that women would be part of the ships company. That women would use three times more water when nature called. Navy warships were designers and built with black water holding tanks that were sized to handle the piss and poop on a all male ships company at one pint of water per flush.

 

[roguenuke]

Conservatives aren't against change, they just think things out first before making changes.

The other side just keeps changing things with out ever thinking what will be the consequences. Keep initiating changes hoping eventually they'll get something right.

For example removing urinals from warships and not thinking things out.

A urinal on a warship uses 1 pint of water per flush. A gender friendly PC commode uses 3 pints of water per flush. When warships were built, they never thought that women would be part of the ships company. That women would use three times more water when nature called. Navy warships were designers and built with black water holding tanks that were sized to handle the piss and poop on a all male ships company at one pint of water per flush.

Yea, no. Conservatives are against change, which is one of the main reasons that the claim that people become more conservative as they grow older is somewhat true and why what groups support changes with time, because as people grow older, they tend to be less willing to change or want things to change.

 

[APACHERAT]

Yea, no. Conservatives are against change, which is one of the main reasons that the claim that people become more conservative as they grow older is somewhat true and why what groups support changes with time, because as people grow older, they tend to be less willing to change or want things to change.

I want change in the White House and in the Senate. How about you ?

Hows that "hope & change we can believe in" working out ? :lamo
Six years of change and failures.


Liberal progressives wanted change of not securing our borders or enforcing our immigration laws. How's that change working out ?

Back in 1990 the libs wanted change, they said the A-10 Warthog was an obsolete Cold War relic and should be sent to the bone yard. Again the left got it wrong.

 

[roguenuke]

I want change in the White House and in the Senate. How about you ?

Hows that "hope & change we can believe in" working out ? :lamo
Six years of change and failures.


Liberal progressives wanted change of not securing our borders or enforcing our immigration laws. How's that change working out ?

Back in 1990 the libs wanted change, they said the A-10 Warthog was an obsolete Cold War relic and should be sent to the bone yard. Again the left got it wrong.

You mean you want a Republican in there (or at least a conservative) who will help you get what you want, things changed back most likely to the way you think they should be. Everyone wants their perfect candidate in that position of power, but the odds of that happening for anyone are pretty small. You seem to fear progress, particularly in the military. You complain about any and every little change they make.

 

[APACHERAT]

You mean you want a Republican in there (or at least a conservative) who will help you get what you want, things changed back most likely to the way you think they should be. Everyone wants their perfect candidate in that position of power, but the odds of that happening for anyone are pretty small. You seem to fear progress, particularly in the military. You complain about any and every little change they make.

The GOP wont run a conservative. They haven't in the past seven presidential elections.

 

[roguenuke]

The GOP wont run a conservative. They haven't in the past seven presidential elections.

Which is why I added the caveat that you wanted a "conservative".

But you have yet to address the original point. What about the crossdressers onboard the ships before Obama, before the "progressive destruction of the military"?

 

[APACHERAT]

Which is why I added the caveat that you wanted a "conservative".

But you have yet to address the original point. What about the crossdressers onboard the ships before Obama, before the "progressive destruction of the military"?

I never heard of any cross dressers serving on any ships except on Carnival cruise ships.

 

[roguenuke]

I never heard of any cross dressers serving on any ships except on Carnival cruise ships.

I showed you some. Those guys were dressed as women in those photos.

Of course, in reality, lots of crossdressers have served in the military for many hundreds of years. Many simply kept their proclivities hidden.