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

[MakeItHappen]

This is a thread hijack,

Sorry , but thread was jacked at post#3

 

[scoutpilot]

Sorry , but thread was jacked at post#3

More like post #7.

 

[Mongo]

But when you keep trotting out the same banners over and over and over again, as though they are new and original, you're going to be called on it.

"Calling on" is superficial. Responding is not. Again, how do you respond to my belief that the present actual rendition of DADT and the ideals and goals of the WP honor code are incompatable?

 

[Just_A_Mom]

You seem totally unwilling to believe, despite the fact that it has been spelled out to you, that she knew she was wrong for wearing the uniform and does nothing but discredit the US Military Academy in so doing, or that any of us object to her actions for the unprofessional smear tactic they were and not to her choice in sexual partners.

Obviously you did not click on the link and bother to listen to her own words. Feel free to do so.

I fail to see how she discredits the USMA in wearing her uniform. Au contraire, my friend. She is very articulate and well spoken, even if you don't share her view point. She is using the leadership skills that she has developed to effect a change.

I'd explain to you why the Army does not consider her a veteran of wartime service, but you find yourself to be the expert on all subject involving the U.S. Army so I'm sure you can figure that out yourself. As far as the Army is concerned, she never left training status. She is no different than a private who is honorably discharged from basic training.

There is no fact in this statement. How many basic training flunk outs have Airborne wings? hmmmm none.

Is she a great kid? Sure! Was it hard for her to admit she was a homosexual? Sure! However, nobody is debating these issues.

now go backward and re-read all the posts made so far, very carefully. There is plenty of debate about her character and worthiness as a person.

Heck, Scoutpilot thinks she premeditated this way back when she was 17 and a senior in high school. If she pulled that off - I say that's pretty amazing to have survived two years at West Point and being in the top of her class if she never had any intention of accepting a commission. Imagine being a high school senior and saying to yourself - I am going to apply and attend West Point for two years just to make a point. haha.

Christcorps has repeatedly declared his lack of respect for her not staying in the closet. He thinks its okay if she is gay as long as he doesn't know about it and she is a bad person for not hiding it.

Next week the Senate is scheduled to vote on DADT. If the vote repeals the law and the military commences to stop discharging openly gay service members; we can start a pool on the odds that she will be back their next fall as a member of Class of 2013.

 

[Mongo]

A guy who was in Vietnam for one day, forty years ago, and who now has type 2 diabetes (due to being overweight, smoking, and other age-related or genetic factors) can get service connection for the condition based on presumptive exposure to AO. This is even if the disorder didn't develop until decades after separation, and actual exposure to AO doesn't need to be verified.

I'm not suggesting that the regulations didn't serve a valuable purpose years ago, when AO-related cancers would likely have appeared (Adm. Zumwalt's son comes to mind). However, there are a few disabilities added to 38 CFR 3.309 (type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, and soon to include ischemic heart disease) that are at pandemic levels in the adult (over 60) male population in this country, and which have very little to do with herbicide exposure forty years ago. My point, is that the regulations are generous.

We, as a nation, must support our veterans who have been willing to give their lives for our country. Can you think of a better way to ensure that no deserving individual is left behind than the present system? Would you not also agree that it is better to err on the side of perhaps including an undeserving than to omit a deserving?

A bad example.

 

[scoutpilot]

There is no fact in this statement. How many basic training flunk outs have Airborne wings? hmmmm none.

Facepalm. You do realize that the point was that, as far as the Army is concerned, she never left a training status, just as an enlistee who went to BCT and then left the military. Pointing out a school she attended does nothing to disprove that. If you want to find statements about the Army that are rarely rooted in fact or firsthand knowledge, you don't need to look much farther than much of what you write.

Christcorp is exactly right. She discredits the Academy by making it look as though she was victimized or rooted out. Why else use the image of the institution?

Heck, Scoutpilot thinks she premeditated this way back when she was 17 and a senior in high school.

I do? You know things about me even I didn't know!

 

[Pima]

Quote:
Is she a great kid? Sure! Was it hard for her to admit she was a homosexual? Sure! However, nobody is debating these issues.
now go backward and re-read all the posts made so far, very carefully. There is plenty of debate about her character and worthiness as a person.

Heck, Scoutpilot thinks she premeditated this way back when she was 17 and a senior in high school. If she pulled that off - I say that's pretty amazing to have survived two years at West Point and being in the top of her class if she never had any intention of accepting a commission. Imagine being a high school senior and saying to yourself - I am going to apply and attend West Point for two years just to make a point. haha.

Christcorps has repeatedly declared his lack of respect for her not staying in the closet. He thinks its okay if she is gay as long as he doesn't know about it and she is a bad person for not hiding it.

UM...re-read my question. Is she a great kid? Sure! Was it hard for her to admit she was a homosexual? Sure! However, nobody is debating these issues.

Re-read your answer. Scoutpilot thinks she premeditated this way back when she was 17 and a senior in high school.

Am I missing a beat...did he say she was not a great kid, or it was hard to openly admit her sexuality?

Apples with apples, not oranges.


Next CC issue

Christcorps has repeatedly declared his lack of respect for her not staying in the closet. He thinks its okay if she is gay as long as he doesn't know about it and she is a bad person for not hiding it.

Is that not the reg in the military regarding DADT? Did he say she was a bad person, or did you infer it because you oppose his position? Not one military member who is gay that enters the military does not understand the DADT policy. She knew it, she had an option of following the regs or leaving. She chose to leave. CC never criticized her for being gay, or even leaving, he criticized that she is now claiming victim due to DADT. Yet, both of those answers had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with your response to Great Kid, or how hard it was to admit openly her sexuality.

Apples to apples. If you want to argue their posts, then don't use or manipulate my posts as a default/deflector.

Off topic, but why did you create a post about me calling Katie Miller "SHE" and you have yet to say her name? A tad hypocritical wouldn't you say?

 

[sprog]

We, as a nation, must support our veterans who have been willing to give their lives for our country. Can you think of a better way to ensure that no deserving individual is left behind than the present system? Would you not also agree that it is better to err on the side of perhaps including an undeserving than to omit a deserving?

A bad example.

I can, yes. Make AO-related claims just like every other claim for direct service connection under 38 CFR 3.03. The Vet would need to show that he has a current disability, that there was AO exposure in-service (or something else in-service causing the disease), and would need a medical nexus opinion stating that it is at least as likely as not that his specific condition is related to service (including AO exposure). This is how Vets (all Vets, not just VN Vets) get SC for most conditions in the VA system (e.g. a Vet claims service connection for hearing loss due to combat noise, he has to provide a nexus opinion linking his hearing loss to noise exposure in service). It weeds out the undeserving and gives benefits to the deserving. Under this system, there is no way a 65 year-old, 350 lb. smoker, with one day of service in RVN in 1973 (after spraying operations had ended), gets SC for type 2 diabetes that was diagnosed in 2010.

"A bad example"=your opinion. Obviously, I disagree.

Interesting side: I try to remember to capitalize the "V" in "Veteran" (or "Vet"), as when Shinseki came to VA, he mandated that it is always to be capitalized. If you guys get stuff from VA, you'll notice this. Four stars trump Strunk and White, I guess (HA!). I believe he did the same with the "S" in "Soldier" when he was Chief of Staff of the Army. Fun fact.

 

[Pima]

Next week the Senate is scheduled to vote on DADT. If the vote repeals the law and the military commences to stop discharging openly gay service members; we can start a pool on the odds that she will be back their next fall as a member of Class of 2013.

This much must be said, this did bring the issue to the forefront since Reid has been twittering with her (Lady Gaga) since Sunday night and the vote he is calling for is a direct result.

However, that opens a new issue, how will the vote go, especially when Gate's survey has yet to be completed? Can anyone say PUBLICITY STUNT re: Reid...a Senator trailing in every poll? Maybe, it will be passed, maybe it won't! If it does or doesn't get passed there will be fall out. Imagine the morale of the military members...you asked for my opinion, and didn't even wait to hear it! Thanks!

I hope it does pass, I hope she gets back in, but I hope she will understand that it will be an uphill battle like Shannon Faulkner. If she does get back in, she needs to understand she is now officially the poster child and it carries a lot of weight! Again, she can easily become a Shannon Faulkner or a Jeannie Flynn, she can help or she can hurt her cause.

 

[sprog]

I can, yes. Make AO-related claims just like every other claim for direct service connection under 38 CFR 3.03.

I meant 38 CFR 3.303, in case anyone cares.

 

[Christcorp]

Yes, JAM is changing the meaning of most of the posters here. You can make all the "Stay in the closet" type remarks that you want. You're wrong, and you know it. I don't care if it's her sexual preference, use of drugs, tatoos, or whatever. There are policies/rules in place. The policy says: "We won't ask if you're in the closet, and you don't tell us you're in the closet or if you are, don't come out". She did. She's wrong. She disrespects the rules/policies/and cadets/military members who do follow the rules/policies. She has earned absolutely no respect from me. GOT IT??? Now, go change ALL my words and posts again, to mean what it is you WANT it to mean.

 

[Mongo]

I can, yes. Make AO-related claims just like every other claim for direct service connection under 38 CFR 3.03. The Vet would need to show that he has a current disability, that there was AO exposure in-service (or something else in-service causing the disease), and would need a medical nexus opinion stating that it is at least as likely as not that his specific condition is related to service (including AO exposure). This is how Vets (all Vets, not just VN Vets) get SC for most conditions in the VA system (e.g. a Vet claims service connection for hearing loss due to combat noise, he has to provide a nexus opinion linking his hearing loss to noise exposure in service). It weeds out the undeserving and gives benefits to the deserving. Under this system, there is no way a 65 year-old, 350 lb. smoker, with one day of service in RVN in 1973 (after spraying operations had ended), gets SC for type 2 diabetes that was diagnosed in 2010.

LOL.

Most navigable rivers in the Delta were sprayed heavily. Then the rainy season came. The AO moved into the rivers, into the silt. The entire delta flooded. And everything slowly dumped out to sea. It permeated the entire area. Soldiers drank out of the river, ate food from the river and rice paddies, bathed, and washed their clothes in the river. There are still areas in Vietnam today with elevated levels of dioxin, attrituable to AO. So how are you going to prove a location was dioxin free? And what does the end date of spraying in 1970 have to do with anything?

A bad example.

 

[Pima]

Not being antagonistic, but here is my question to JAM and BR...

Do you agree she knew the DADT when she raised her hand on I-DAY?

Okay, so if she fully knew the DADT, she actually did not have to resign. She could have reported those cadets that asked her re: her sexuality for violating DADT! She could have kept it quiet, so explain to me now her position.

It is clear in the military regs...DON'T ASK AND DON'T TELL!

She had an option. If she thought when she entered it would be an easy path to hide it, she was wrong. We understand that youthful decision....however, the military does not see an 18 yr old as a child, they see them as an adult. There is no room for victim here. She made an adult decision according to the law. Nobody coerced her, it was free and voluntary.

Again, Katie Miller made her own personal choice, one she could not live within the parameters. She elected to announce her sexual preference and leave, the USMA did not push her out. It was her own free volition to leave. Was it a hard decision, I bet it was, but it was her decision and her choice.

These are again Katie Miller's words: "It was a big decision to wear the uniform," Miller said. "You're not supposed to be in uniform at anything that could be perceived as a political event."

I don't think anyone here really gives a rats arse about her sexual preference, it was and is not about being gay. It is about stating publicly she knew that the uniform is not to be worn in public for political reasons. Please don't mix the two issues.

Don't make this about DADT, because it isn't. It is about wearing the uniform. Even she stated publicly that she understood it was about the uniform. Please, obviously you know her mindset, explain to us, who are not in her mind the rationale of this statement, because many of us don't get how you can say you know it is/was wrong, but do it anyway. It seems as if you are asking others to ignore her own words, or at least look the other way.

The secondary issue is if she is a vet or not. Splitting hairs okay, she is a vet during war time, but that doesn't mean to military members, VFW or AL that she is a war vet. Please, anyone who tries to elevate her to that status dishonors IMHO our true war vets.

 

[sprog]

LOL.

Most navigable rivers in the Delta were sprayed heavily. Then the rainy season came. The AO moved into the rivers, into the silt. The entire delta flooded. And everything slowly dumped out to sea. It permeated the entire area. Soldiers drank out of the river, ate food from the river and rice paddies, bathed, and washed their clothes in the river. There are still areas in Vietnam today with elevated levels of dioxin, attrituable to AO. So how are you going to prove a location was dioxin free? And what does the end date of spraying in 1970 have to do with anything?

A bad example.

My problem isn't so much with the presumption of exposure as it is with the presumption of causation for certain disorders. Although, for a Vet who served in VN after spraying had stopped (hence the 1973 example), I'm a little less willing to believe there was a ton of exposure (also, even if the Delta was sprayed, not all troops served in that area, yet they still get the presumptions of exposure). Keep in mind that a guy who transited through the airport, for one day, gets the same presumption of exposure as a guy who spent a year bathing in AO in the Mekong.

Nonetheless, I'd be willing to agree that it serves legal expediency to concede some level of AO exposure for VN Vets as a whole. However, that doesn't mean that I support that this exposure should be presumed to have caused certain disabilites. I don't believe that the medical evidence used to support the presumption of causation for certain disabilities is particularly strong, but VA is generous. Really, the decision to add certain disorders to the presumptive list is a mostly political one. My objections are with type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, ischemic heart disease, lung cancers (for smokers) if these conditions are diagnosed decades after service (the majority of medical literature links these conditions to age and lifestyle choices). To root out fraud, I think there should be a requirement for Vets claiming that their disorders are related to AO, to provide a medical opinion supporting their contention of causation. I'd be perfectly willing to concede that they were exposed, as long as they had service in VN. A causal nexus opinion is required for the vast majority of non-AO claims, and it protects deserving Vets and the taxpayer.

When Secretary Shinseki added ischemic heart disease to the presumptive AO-related disorder list, a cost analysis projected that it would cost the taxpayer $40 billion over the next decade. All VN vets are in their 50s/60s. If they have heart disease, I'm willing to bet they would have gotten it regardless of if they set foot in Vietnam or not.

And it's a good example that has been adequately defended. Just because you disagree, it doesn't make my opinion less worthwhile. If you please then, I'd appreciate it if you'd lose some of the condescension in your remarks. I respect your service in Vietnam, and my position would ensure that deserving Veterans get benefits, while ruling out those who are trying to game the system. The VA benefits system pays you more the sicker you are. Thus, as with any benefits system, it is susceptible to fraud (check out the SSA disability system). I'm an attorney with a specialty in Veterans disability law, and my opinion is formed by hundreds upon hundreds of cases that I have handled dealing with claims for benefits. There is plenty of fraud, and there are plenty of deserving guys. I think my suggestion would help to deal with both. You disagree, and I can respect that, but you won't change my mind.

 

[Mongo]

And it's a good example that has been adequately defended. Just because you disagree, doesn't make my opinion less worthwhile. If you please then, I'd appreciate it if you'd lose the condescension in your remarks.

From the forum rules:

This is a patriotic website where we love our country and hold the members of the Armed Forces in the highest esteem.

There is a time and place for everything. I don't think this forum is the right one for implying fraud, etc etc of our military veterans.

 

[Christcorp]

From the forum rules:


There is a time and place for everything. I don't think this forum is the right one for implying fraud, etc etc of our military veterans.

That's the greatest thing about free speech. I can verbally say that I don't consider this ex-cadet a military veteran. And I don't have to care if anyone else or even the "Letter of the Law" agrees with me. I would never tell her: "Thank you for serving our country". (I don't believe she has served her country). And because I don't consider her a veteran, it's not possible for me to imply that fraud or anything similar was conducted by a military veteran.

 

[sprog]

From the forum rules:


There is a time and place for everything. I don't think this forum is the right one for implying fraud, etc etc of our military veterans.

There are 26 million Veterans in this country. Not everyone is Audie Murphy, and not everyone is honest. Shocker.

I'm a Veteran too, Mongo. This is my position.

This thread went way into the hijack-land about 75 posts ago. I apologize for contributing to the tangents.

I'm done here.

 

[Pima]

Thank you sprog!

This thread is not about VA benefits, Yes, it was thrown in the mix, but I appreciate you calling the ball by saying it doesn't belong here.

I really do appreciate your intentions.

 

[dpt135]

This whole thread is making me dizzy!

 

[temp]

New poster here and I want to provide some perspective as a service academy alumni, as an active duty service member, and as a gay service member. Yes, you heard correctly.

First, I'll caveat, if anyone wants to move this to a new thread, a PM conversation, or remove it from this altogether, so be it, I'll go along with it. I'm here to inform on some conceptions (from my POV) regarding DADT and its affect on a homosexual service member. Will I take your comments personally? Well ya, in some sense. If this was the 1950s and you were advocating that allowing blacks in the military was horrendous, what black man would not be offended? A black man can't hide his skin, but let's leave that to a technicality. Will I try to answer respectfully and with an attempt to back up my statement, yes I will.

Here's what I want to address. CC, I'll say many of these come from you. Not attacking you or even trying to single you out per se, but addressing these outspoken statements.

Claim: Member can tell anyone asking its none of their business, law forbids you asking me that, etc. Sure, could answer that way. But most will look at you and wonder what are you hiding. If you were straight, why didn't you just say you were, why answer that its none of your business? Translation: member is not heterosexual. Some will leave it at that. Others will begin their own personal investigation. Let me tell you, some of those have led to real investigations which led to a member being booted. Simply not telling your orientation doesn't fly most of the time. It will require LYING to ensure no suspicions are thrown out. If asked what my love life is like, I say its non-existent. I even have to flirt to pass off as straight. I do have to actively lie to keep others from knowing about my orientation. Argue if you will, I am telling you what I have to do to ensure I do not get investigated.

Claim: Person knew about the rule and should have chosen not to commit if they could not handle staying quiet. Now, I have my own thoughts about the right or wrong of this assumption/statement (I think it's wrong). BUT, my situation is similar to many, but, of course, not all. I didn't figure out my orientation until AFTER I committed. I was in a big predicament. Shut up and stay in or get booted after realizing who I was. Be accused of taking a free education because I "obviously" used the service knowing I would leave. Be forced to repay my commitment because I "obviously" used the service. I didn't join to get a free education. I joined to serve, continue to, and love doing it. It pains my heart dearly that I have to hide such an integral part of me in order to do what I love. It's not like many civilian professional positions where you can strictly separate professional from personal. The military doesn't work that way as many in the service or previously in the service on here know. People become suspicious, concerned, worry, or a number of things if you seem like you're hiding something. Again, I figured it out after I had a choice to leave. Can't change that. I hide my orientation, but I have a hole in my heart having to do that.

Side-note. I can't claim a dependent like I would like to. I can't be based together. I can't announce to the world my love for my partner or risk estrangement or removal from service. I must hide my partner. I must make distant relationships and friends with colleagues. I have to time visits so no one suspects while my best friends can go see their girlfriends/boyfriends/fiancees without a second look. Could you, those who are married or in serious relationships, hide your wedding ring everyday. Deny your soul-mate's existence. Perpetually live away from each other. Sanitize your home of their existence. Deny letting them live with you. I can go on, but you get my point.

I'm trying to convey some keys here. Not all of us joined knowing our orientation was not the legal one. We must live with a part of us always covered, lied for and hidden. The theory of the law and the practical application don't apply most of the time. People are not black and white. Neither will the law be applied like that for something like this. Gays and lesbians are normal people trying to live a happy life. Most of you know that and don't dispute it. I only wish you will read this and learn something more about a fellow service member or a future fellow veteran. DADT hurts me. It hurts you. I can't establish a complete relationship of trust with you if I can't be honest. We are among you and continue to support you and are comrades in arms.

DADT is going to repealed, now or later. It will be a tough road and a rocky one. But its the right road, I hope everyone agrees with that. I support you and all you've done and/or will do. And I hope you will support me, too.

As for this young lady. Was wearing the uniform wrong (IMO)? Ya. Was her decision leaving USMA or being an activist make her a person of opportunity, a lime light seeker, or any other negative connotations. I don't think so. I still respect her for being honest with herself, for understanding what was right for her (leaving), and not wasting any tax payer money once she understood that she could not abide by the laws and regulations upon her. Many others left for similar reasons under different presumptions (military life, academics, standards, discipline), but, like her, figured out after two years that they could not continue.