Discharged DADT Cadet escorts Lady Gaga to VMA's in INDIA WHITES

[futureAFA]

that thinking is exactly the irrationality that I'm talking about. No illegal immigrant comes to the United States with the desire to cause trouble and break laws. They come from the worst situations imaginable and they want to live a good life. I agree that we can't necessarily take them all in but we can at least acknowledge that they are people like us who are just seeking a better life.

I dont really want to change the topic to immigrants, but just to sum up my opinion in a nutshell, there are legal ways to get in the USA. Smuggling narcotics is not one of those ways.

 

[Mongo]

It kind of reminds me of the flag burning aqrgument. While I might or might not agree with her methods, it is great that she lives in a country where she can express her views, isn't it?

 

[BR2011]

HOLY CRAP BATMAN! Are you really saying that military members should be compared to actors in MOVIES wearing costumes?

Have you missed every post that this is NOT ABOUT DADT, but about the UNIFORM?

You have stated you homosexual in a previous post. I am for the repeal of DADT, and for homosexual unions, BUT THIS IS A SERVICE FORUM, currently, that our govts reg. is DADT.

I now politely ask why are you on this forum? Are you here to be informed, to part wisdom, to ask questions? Are you here to be a troll and create angst without understanding the military perception regarding protocol, regulations and law?

Not at all, I was saying that the wearing of a uniform is only an issue in this case because of the context. I compared it to another context in which it isnt an issue to make my point.

I want people to consider these issues without malice toward the people involved. I'm not really trying to argue whether wearing the uniform was right or wrong but the step further that the posts seem to have gone in painting her as a bad person.

 

[BR2011]

It kind of reminds me of the flag burning aqrgument. While I might or might not agree with her methods, it is great that she lives in a country where she can express her views, isn't it?

Exactly my thoughts

 

[scoutpilot]

I disagree PIMA, the fact that she is a homosexual is the underlying thought behind it all. Why else would there be an issue? Actors wear uniforms in movies to promote entertainment and there is never an issue. The thought in everyone's head in this case though is "She's wearing the uniform to promote gay rights!"

Once again, ignorance triumphs when a point is at stake. I would advise you to begin your trek toward officership now by verifying your opinions with facts.

You're right, the uniform is worn in movies. Why? Because the law allows it. As this young lady mentioned, she is well aware that she is not entitled to wear the uniform.

10 U.S.C. Sec. 772, para (f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.

 

[Pima]

I want people to consider these issues without malice toward the people involved. I'm not really trying to argue whether wearing the uniform was right or wrong but the step further that the posts seem to have gone in painting her as a bad person.

What steps? The fact they called her out for knowing she was wrong wearing the uniform. A fact even the C400 cadet in ROTC knows? She was training to be an officer, how can you miss the point that most posters here wore the uniform, are wearing it currently, and are striving to wear it, of course they are going to be vocal when she says I know I pushed the line, one that I couldn't as a cadet!

Did anyone on this site slander her with names because of her sexuality?

Did anyone ever say she was dishonorably discharged?

She was painted as "a bad person" in the military for wearing a uniform for a political statement, end of subject. Show me when anyone said she was "a bad person"

Nobody here called her stupid, a sexual derogative, lazy, thief, etc. SO please show me how she was painted as a bad person, unless you mean wearing the uniform, where she even publicly acknowledged it borderlined the regs. Go back to WAMOM post.

I do not want this thread to be locked, and I truly want to read your opinion, so please explain through post ref #'s how she was painted a bad person. Our military can not become better without understanding every aspect.

 

[Mongo]

Not at all, I was saying that the wearing of a uniform is only an issue in this case because of the context. I compared it to another context in which it isnt an issue to make my point.

I want people to consider these issues without malice toward the people involved. I'm not really trying to argue whether wearing the uniform was right or wrong but the step further that the posts seem to have gone in painting her as a bad person.

Exactly. If this were simply about wearing a uniform, why all the malice towards her and none toward a field grade AF officer or a senior non-commissioned Army officer? If I were the uniform police, I would commence with the more senior ones (and if I was criticizing solely the unauthorized use of a uniform, I would do the same).

 

[AF6872]

"I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Funny a woman who had to use a man's nom de plume while discussing Voltaire's writings to get published said that. If she wants to wear the uniform so be it and on her own head and conscience be the consequences.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Scoutpilot - if you bothered to read the US Code - you would see that the wording is:

who served honorably in time of war

Nothing about going to war. Wearing the Uniform was legal, she knows it. What she was conflicted about was it being 'political'. She knows the law, she considered it and perhaps she even got legal advice. She doesn't want to burn bridges since when the law is repealed she plans to pursure an Army career once again.

Assuming that she was within her legal rights - how was she 'disgraceful'?
Nothing she did disgraced the uniform. If Trace Adkins had some Army veterans on stage who had been discharged - most folks would not think twice about it being legal or illegal.
BR2001 - you make some excellent points. too bad you are being shouted down.

Christcorps - you don't know much about her. get your facts correct please. She resigned the week before her commitment. I commend her for that - in realizing she could not stay two more years and serve 5 given the current law.
I would rather have her do that than come out the day after graduation.

When folks repeatedly claim to be opposed to DADT and then decry any efforts to work on repeal - it comes across as disengenuous. It's easy to say you are opposed to DADT while it's still a law. If you are truly opposed to it one would think you would admire folks who are working hard to make a change.

 

[Pima]

When folks repeatedly claim to be opposed to DADT and then decry any efforts to work on repeal - it comes across as disengenuous. It's easy to say you are opposed to DADT while it's still a law. If you are truly opposed to it one would think you would admire folks who are working hard to make a change.

Sometimes the adage bad press is still good press is false.

Additionally, you can be in the military and oppose DADT because you understand RHIP!

Finally, we all know every military member cannot publicly express their political opinions.

OBTW, I am a HUGE GAY RIGHT supporter, so is Bullet. However, being a supporter of Gay rights doesn't mean that the military must change their perspective when wearing the uniform(reg) to prove we support the movement.

Do people expect that in the corporate world? NO!

I prefer we see sexual orientation the same for heterosexual as homosexual. Would you prefer me to look the other way?

Where is your line? Is it based on homosexuality, sex, race, etc? Or is it based on the fact like the majority of posters that this was an issue about wearing the uniform?

 

[scoutpilot]

JAM, you are incorrect about wartime service. Try to keep your comments slightly less personal and accusatory. If you want have a discussion about what defines wartime service, feel free to PM. This young lady does not meet the criteria.

 

[laxfan]

She resigned the week before her commitment. I commend her for that - in realizing she could not stay two more years and serve 5 given the current law.
I would rather have her do that than come out the day after graduation.

Yes I too comend her for this, she only used $150,000 of our tax dollars on her college education instead of all $350,000.

The fact is that she used the government's money to fund her education under the pretense that she, in turn, would serve her country.

so how do you justify that 150,000 dollars that just went down the drain? I'm fine with people protesting anything, for that is what makes our country so great. Just don't do it at my expense.

just my $0.02

 

[Pima]

When folks repeatedly claim to be opposed to DADT and then decry any efforts to work on repeal - it comes across as disengenuous. It's easy to say you are opposed to DADT while it's still a law. If you are truly opposed to it one would think you would admire folks who are working hard to make a change.

Sometimes the adage bad press is still good press is false.

Additionally, you can be in the military and oppose DADT because you understand RHIP!

Finally, we all know every military member cannot publicly express their political opinions.

 

[sprog]

I'm not old enough to be snoozing in the daytime,

What, pray tell, are the benefits they are entitled to receive after two years of free college?

Mongo is right, they are Veterans for VA purposes. They could, for instance, get service connection for any disability incurred in their time at the SA. Thus, if she had a knee injury or something, she could get compensation benefits as well as treatment for that condition.

 

[futureAFA]

When folks repeatedly claim to be opposed to DADT and then decry any efforts to work on repeal - it comes across as disengenuous. It's easy to say you are opposed to DADT while it's still a law. If you are truly opposed to it one would think you would admire folks who are working hard to make a change.

I want the repeal of it, BUT the fact is she did it in a way that dishonored the men and women overseas. I think it’s dishonorable because she decided to drop out before a commitment to join the Army. Not bad, or dishonorable at all, whats bad is she used the uniform which was intended to be a symbol of pride in America, and a symbol that they are one of the men or women fighting for our rights. She used it in a political effort to show all that was wrong with America, and shame. Illegal or not she definitely didn’t wear the uniform to honor anybody, rather to say “Look guys! I’m lesbian and wearing a uniform! Make a stand! Tell the gov. to repeal DADT!” Honestly I think making a statement should never go to the point of dishonoring soldiers defending her freedom of speech. She could have done things that would make a clear statement without her uniform, which so many people would do anything to be in, and to honorably wear for 20+ years, or to die in.

Working hard to make a change is honorable, BUT it should be done in a different way. People who talk to their Reps, or Senators about it, try and petition it, or have public speeches is honorable, they are fighting for change. Without anybody being dishonored in the process.

Wearing a uniform shows you currently are a member of something, and proud of it. She is neither.

 

[scoutpilot]

Mongo is right, they are Veterans for VA purposes. They could, for instance, get service connection for any disability incurred in their time at the SA. Thus, if she had a knee injury or something, she could get compensation benefits as well as treatment for that condition.

Only if it was service connected though.

 

[Pima]

Illegal or not she definitely didn’t wear the uniform to honor anybody, rather to say “Look guys! I’m lesbian and wearing a uniform! Make a stand! Tell the gov. to repeal DADT!” Honestly I think making a statement should never go to the point of dishonoring soldiers defending her freedom of speech. She could have done things that would make a clear statement without her uniform, which so many people would do anything to be in, and to honorably wear for 20+ years, or to die in.

Beautifully stated!

If anyone can defend her position for wearing the uniform in honor, go for it!

 

[sprog]

Only if it was service connected though.

Right. A former cadet would need to apply for service connection for their disability. If granted, they get a monthly check and are eligible for treatment.

VA does consider them Veterans, regardless of service-connected disability status. I could cite the appropriate provision in 38 CFR, but I'm too lazy (Someone will probably do it for me).

 

[scoutpilot]

Right. A former cadet would need to apply for service connection for their disability. If granted, they get a monthly check and are eligible for treatment.

VA does consider them Veterans, regardless of service-connected disability status. I could cite the appropriate provision in 38 CFR, but I'm too lazy (Someone will probably do it for me).

Yeah, sadly VA does.

 

[Christcorp]

Jam; why don't you go back and quote me, where I "Don't know" anything about her. You have a tendency to not read what others have written, and instead, assign your own meaning to what you want them to have said. I have learned to put up with that. That's fine. But I specifically said that she didn't make it to commitment (The beginning of her 3rd year), so what are you trying to say here. Never mind. It's a rhetorical question. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is the point that I made that there are plenty of individuals at the academies who leave the academy prior to their 3rd year; commitment. They have realized that the military and academy just aren't for them. I respect these people. These people also haven't turned their departure into a political crusade with no concern or respect for the academy/military. She has. And that's why she is being ridiculed. "Rightfully so".

As for her burning bridges; I hope she has. I hope the DADT policy is repealed soon; but I hope she is not allowed back in the military. "Sorry, we're all filled up". She has no respect for the military. She's an opportunist. She has no idea what "Service before Self" even implies. If she did, she wouldn't have turned this into a dog and pony show. No one has a "Right" to be in the military and to serve their country. It's an honor and a privilege. Unfortunately, there are some people out there that are too self centered and only look at how it affects them. They have no idea what "Sacrifice" means.