# The Navy's Drag Queen



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

I've always wondered if the Navy didn't use folks for these duties that were already so inclined.

https://www.navytimes.com/off-duty/...ight-meet-the-navys-drag-queen-harpy-daniels/


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

This why when submarines go out with a 120 men they come back with 60 couples.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

View attachment 82055


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

WAY too tall for me. And he wears heels!


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

The part I don't get is that it isn't an all-male environment anymore. There are off-duty sailors in the background who _definitely_ have the right parts.

This leads me to believe that they're not there to watch a chick dance.

I can understand an all-male crew turning out to watch Cher. I can understand them turning out to watch flown-in cheerleaders. If I squint really hard, hold my breath and remember my days Back In The Day, I can even understand them drafting a fellow (low-ranking male) sailor and telling him "you're the chick. Put this on and dance."

I can, if I remember that they're sailors and not infantrymen, even go so far as to understand it becoming a tradition.

But when you have a number of chicks available, some of whom appear to have fine looking curves, I'm not sure I understand choosing this dude.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

In the article I read on NBC News website the sailor in question admits he's been a prancing gay his whole life.
And he's sooooo glad the Navy accepts his "orientation".


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

From the Navy Times:

"Within his first year in the Navy, Kelley was voted to be the president of Strike Fighter Squadron 115′s Coalition of Sailors Against Destructive Decisions, became the public affairs officer for the carrier Reagan’s Gay, Lesbian and Supporting Sailors association, was named VFA-115′s Blue Jacket of the Year and earned his first Navy-Marine Corps Achievement Medal, a Navy release said."


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

For several minutes I have been trying to formulate a coherent, articulable string of thoughts. Seems I can't.

All I can say is we are doomed; drink up.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

I wrote this several years ago for one of Barbara's colleagues:

The Army uses soldiers. Soldiers attend Basic Training, under Drill Sergeants, and AIT. Drill Sergeants are not called DSs. Ever.

The Marines use Marines. Marines are not soldiers. Marines attend Boot Camp, under Drill Instructors. Drill Instructor are called DIs. But you better know the DI you’re referring to as a DI pretty well, and you better be sure he won’t mind. Even if you outrank him. Perhaps especially if you outrank him.

The Navy uses Sailors. Sailors attend Boot Camp, under Recruit Division Commanders, who can be called RDCs. Even to their faces. Go figure. It’s the Navy.

The Air Force uses Airmen, and no one is certain that they’re trained at all.

I've always been slightly suspicious of the Navy. And I like boats.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> I wrote this several years ago for one of Barbara's colleagues:
> 
> The Army uses soldiers. Soldiers attend Basic Training, under Drill Sergeants, and AIT. Drill Sergeants are not called DSs. Ever.
> 
> ...


I never doubted the training of any of the branches, and I've served in two of them.
I was there for a friend's officer candidate graduation. I was brought to tears by the ceremony. It breaks my heart that the Navy has lost its military bearing to such an extent.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't think they've lost anything. I think they're struggling with new paradigms, paradigms that aren't covered by the law, their traditions, the UCMJ, physics or common sense.

While I'm certain they'll figure it out, I'm not at all certain I want to watch the learning process.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> I don't think they've lost anything. I think they're struggling with new paradigms, paradigms that aren't covered by the law, their traditions, the UCMJ, physics or common sense.
> 
> While I'm certain they'll figure it out, I'm not at all certain I want to watch the learning process.


There's more to it than that. Things you don't acknowledge, I think. If I am right, we are in a lot of trouble as a nation and so are those who don't understand.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Denton said:


> There's more to it than that. Things you don't acknowledge, I think. If I am right, *we are in a lot of trouble as a nation* and so are those who don't understand.


THAT'S been known for about 10 years. The entire military has become just a shadow of itself.

From everything I've read, if we were hit this weekend, we would lose.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

inceptor said:


> THAT'S been known for about 10 years. The entire military has become just a shadow of itself.
> 
> From everything I've read, if we were hit this weekend, we would lose.


I didn't read about it in my last year with the AF Reserve. I saw it.

I fear for my nation on so many levels.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Camel923 said:


> This why when submarines go out with a 120 men they come back with 60 couples.


Not that many as our divorce rate was 75%


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

On boats, ie Submarines, we had traditions on our 6 month deployments called half way night celebrations. There was beauty contests. Nothing like this though. Pure comedy. We had skits, movies all day, food, no alcohol, board game and poker competitions, Corn on the COB( someone wins raffle and gets to pour #10 can of cream corn on Chief Of the Boat) Just silly shit to break the mission stress.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

For me, this would fall into the "I do not care" category.

If I were walking by, and the . . . show . . . was going on, I might stop for a minute, maybe smile, maybe raise an eyebrow, maybe shake my head, then go back to work and not give it a second thought.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Well, if we are attacked tonight I guess we can all form a chorus line. What have we done to ourselves? ( Walks off mumbling something about it's to early for a drink )


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

We are doomed!


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

I find this a greater threat to our country then the yahoo in drag: Obesity is a National Security Issue, Lt GEN Mark Phillip Hertling TED Talk,


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Is this a bad time to mention that the first enlisted female just earned a Ranger tab?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Is this a bad time to mention that the first enlisted female just earned a Ranger tab?


Is there a good time?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Is this a bad time to mention that the first enlisted female just earned a Ranger tab?


Although the Army will not admit it, the standards were lowered considerably to allow the first female officers to pass the course. Rangers, and Ranger Instructors speaking on the condition of anonymity admitted as much.
It would not surprise me if that is not the case here as well.
Even so, she is not a Ranger until assigned to a Ranger unit. Many male officers take the Ranger course and get a tab simply so it will look good in their file for future promotions and plum assignments without ever actually serving as a Ranger.

The whole decimation of the US military can be laid square at the feet of Barack Hussien Obama and his social engineers. 
Damn snowflakes today would not have lasted long in US Army Basic Combat Infantry Training, 1967 style. A lot of today's current soldiers would have had a hard time as well.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

One of those two officers was just assigned to the 75th as a company commander.

Folks said the same thing in 1951.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> One of those two officers was just assigned to the 75th as a company commander.
> 
> Folks said the same thing in 1951.


Do you think all this stuff is making the military a better fighting force?


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> Do you think all this stuff is making the military a better fighting force?


No question about it. Yes.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> One of those two officers was just assigned to the 75th as a company commander.
> 
> Folks said the same thing in 1951.


Do you have a link? I'd like to read it for myself.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> No question about it. Yes.


Typical leftist drivel.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Standby for a formal citation, I didn't read it on the net, and don't have a link. I read it in _The Coldest Winter._ Let me find it.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I wonder how long she would have lasted with "my boys" from P Co, 75th Infantry who would be inserted as 4 to 6 man teams to snoop and poop along the Ho Chi Minh trail, or across the DMZ into North Vietnam?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> No question about it. Yes.


How do you figure?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I wonder how long she would have lasted with "my boys" from P Co, 75th Infantry who would be inserted as 4 to 6 man teams to snoop and poop along the Ho Chi Minh trail, or across the DMZ into North Vietnam?


I can tell you how many of the women did in MP companies pulling special weapons security. They were not an asset.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

https://www.army.mil/ranger/


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm never at a loss for words until now!

My father was NAVY pacific theater 1944-45 and was in battles he never talked about.
I suspect he is rolling and fighting mad to get out of his grave!


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

When one of his favorite officers fromWorld War II, Bill McCaffrey, finally got a regiment in Korea, a command expedited by his connection to Almond, the general was furious with his old friend for integrating it. McCaffrey had placed three black soldiers in every squad. "You didn't", Almond said.
"Yes, sir, I did," McCaffreyreplied.
"You of all people should know better than that," Almond shot back-- a reference to their days together with the Ninety-second.
"But General, it's working," McCaffrey insisted.
Almond just shook his head. To him, it was like a betrayal by a member of his family.

Halberstam, David. _The Coldest Winter_. 1st ed. New York, NY: Hyperion, 2007. pg 547.

Edit to add: The 92nd was an all-black unit in World War II, commanded by white officers, which included both Almond and McCaffrey.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> How do you figure?


The same way the Israelis, North Vietnamese and Northern Cheyenne do.


----------



## WhatTheHeck (Aug 1, 2018)

Jammer Six said:


> Is this a bad time to mention that the first enlisted female just earned a Ranger tab?


My wife is a Lt COL in the AFNG.

She has been to a war zone six times (Iraq, Afghanistan).

She is going back out next year.

Do you have a problem with women who can do the job?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> The same way the Israelis, North Vietnamese and Northern Cheyenne do.


Do you see the flaws in your line of reasoning?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> When one of his favorite officers fromWorld War II, Bill McCaffrey, finally got a regiment in Korea, a command expedited by his connection to Almond, the general was furious with his old friend for integrating it. McCaffrey had placed three black soldiers in every squad. "You didn't", Almond said.
> "Yes, sir, I did," McCaffreyreplied.
> "You of all people should know better than that," Almond shot back-- a reference to their days together with the Ninety-second.
> "But General, it's working," McCaffrey insisted.
> ...


Intertaining, but irrelevant.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

WhatTheHeck said:


> My wife is a Lt COL in the AFNG.
> 
> She has been to a war zone six times (Iraq, Afghanistan).
> 
> ...


No, absolutely not. Women are suited for for many combat jobs. 
But i don't believe there are any women who are physically strong enough to be infantry soldiers. They are built differently and do not have the upper body strength.
Or field artillery, which requires a lot of strength. One woman so far has passed the enlisted field artillery course at Fort Sill. One.

This is not a slam against women, those who know me personally know I'm a champion of women in non-traditional roles.

But, with all due respect to your wife, there is a huge difference between an officer (of either sex) in the Air Force and a Marine or Army grunt.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> But i don't believe there are any women who are physically strong enough to be infantry soldiers. They are built differently and do not have the upper body strength.


Earn a Ranger tab and get back to us. Men _with_ the tab say you're wrong.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> Do you see the flaws in your line of reasoning?


Shall we trade?


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

30 years ago they would've but "her" in a rubber room. The world's gone totally insane.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

If being a Ranger, infantry, artillery, fireman, carpenter, (don't even talk about what I saw during _that_ mess) longshoreman or anything else requires lifting 255 lbs. off the ground and carrying it for a quarter mile, then only the women who can do that should be qualified. And only the men who can do that should be qualified.

There shouldn't be a single male who can't make the test wearing a tab. That a man can do more than the test is irrelevant. _If more is required, then put it on the test._

The fact is, the test is a minimum, and I'd rather have a woman beside me who can do more than the test than a man who can barely pass it.

Given a woman who can pass the test, whatever it is, and man who can't, there simply isn't a cogent argument for taking the man.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Annie said:


> 30 years ago they would've but "her" in a rubber room. The world's gone totally insane.


And from the anecdote file, more than thirty years ago, I served with some women overseas who would have made great infantrymen. (My opinion. I was in the infantry at the time.)


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Shall we trade?


Trade what?

I saw what females were able to do in MP units. I'm not talking about line units, but units where the soldiers wore flak vests, helmets and were armed up better than the standard infantryman. The expirement proved that only the expectional female could maintain with the average male, and that was at best.

Of course, this isn't anything new. Anyone who knows the differences between the sexes knows this. The military knows this, and that is why the PT standards are not the same.

Furthermore, I hope there doesn't come a day when a man doesn't feel the overwhelming drive to protect and shield the member of the fairer sex. In civil society, this is a good thing, but on the combat field, this is extra stress and could compromise the mission.

This is nothing new to you, either.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> If being a Ranger, infantry, artillery, fireman, carpenter, (don't even talk about what I saw during _that_ mess) longshoreman or anything else requires lifting 255 lbs. off the ground and carrying it for a quarter mile, then only the women who can do that should be qualified. And only the men who can do that should be qualified.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single male who can't make the test wearing a tab. That a man can do more than the test is irrelevant. _If more is required, then put it on the test._
> 
> ...


There isn't an argument for taking a man who can't meet standards, and I've known some damned good men who washed out of Ranger School. On the other hand, there are damned good reasons for not making exceptions for the very, very few women who can legitimately pass. One of which I already mentioned.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

That doesn't sound like science, let alone an experiment, to me. That sounds like an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Your information on PT tests is, hopefully, in the process of becoming outdated. The test that have been used since before WWII are in the (painful) process of being replaced, specifically to make the fair.

On the front page today, as it happens: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ers-anxious-over-new-pt-test-gear-shortfalls/

From last month: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...raft-of-the-armys-new-fitness-test-standards/

So, Denton, would you, personally, rather have a female infantryman beside you who passed all the tests or a male infantryman who couldn't pass them?

P.S. Sorry, our posts "crossed" each other in the air.

I don't see any reason not to take a woman who passes the test. If your problem with the test is legitimate and related to job performance, it belongs on the test. For all. If it's not, it's the 92nd all over again, and I'm mildly surprised at you.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Jammer Six said:


> And from the anecdote file, more than thirty years ago, I served with some women overseas who would have made great infantrymen. (My opinion. I was in the infantry at the time.)


What if you were shot and she had to carry you off to safety? Could she have done that?


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Annie said:


> What if you were shot and they had to carry you off to safety? Could they have done that?


Yup. I weighed like 100 lbs.

But besides that, if that's a requirement, (and it should be) then no men who fail that tests should pass, and all women who can should pass.

But you don't agree with that, do you?


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I wonder how long she would have lasted with "my boys" from P Co, 75th Infantry who would be inserted as 4 to 6 man teams to snoop and poop along the Ho Chi Minh trail, or across the DMZ into North Vietnam?


I just realized this can be read as a claim you were a LRRP. Well done!


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Jammer Six said:


> And from the anecdote file, more than thirty years ago, I served with some women overseas who would have made great infantrymen. (My opinion. I was in the infantry at the time.)


Damn...

My lovely wife tells me I need to stop saying "more than thirty years ago" and start saying "more than forty years ago".

That happened fast...


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Jammer Six said:


> Yup. I weighed like 100 lbs.
> 
> But besides that, if that's a requirement, (and it is) then no men who fail that tests should pass, and all women who can should pass.
> 
> But you don't agree with that, do you?


100 lbs? How tall are you? What about a guy who isn't the exception? Say 190 lb guy? How many women are actually gonna pass that test?

But yeah, I'll give you this much. I think there are times when certain women have to step up and be great warriors. I'm thinking of St. Joan of Arc, for example. She went to battle because the men weren't being men. But in general no, women don't belong on the battlefield.

Personally, I like men to be men. Red blooded protectors and providers which is a man's excellence. Women have other perfections.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> I just realized this can be read as a claim you were a LRRP. Well done!


Oh, no. There was a company of Rangers attached to my company for administrative purposes. Some were my friends.

How much combat did YOU see?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

OK, ladies, can you make it humpin' 155MM projos in the M109?
No lollygagging around, ya gotta work. Come on, they only weigh about 75 pounds each. The infantry is in trouble, they need fire support.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Or maybe the lady wants to be infantry. After all, that MOS is now open to her also.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

rice paddy daddy said:


> OK, ladies, can you make it humpin' 155MM projos in the M109?
> No lollygagging around, ya gotta work. Come on, they only weigh about 75 pounds each. The infantry is in trouble, they need fire support.


You need to meet some modern longshoremen.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> That doesn't sound like science, let alone an experiment, to me. That sounds like an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
> 
> Your information on PT tests is, hopefully, in the process of becoming outdated. The test that have been used since before WWII are in the (painful) process of being replaced, specifically to make the fair.
> 
> ...


As I said earlier, men naturally protect women. That'll interfere with the mission.

They're going to revamp the PT test? Gonna make it a gender/age-neutral test? That should say something in itself.

My experience as a soldier, and eight years is long enough to be more than a simple experiment, showed me a woman is not built to do 3-5 second rushes with an M-60 and a can of ammo or be the assistant gunner with the two cans of ammo and the spare barrel plus the M-16 and the rest of the individual load. As a matter of fact, a woman with her combat load and ruck won't last long when moving three hundred yards in 3-5 second rushes to secure the target. That's a simple, physical fact that I have seen on the ground. You know this to be true.

Would I prefer to fight aside a man who can't meet standard? Did I suggest that? No. You know I didn't say that, and that assertion is a dishonest one. You know that, too.

Am I suggesting women have no place in the armed service? Certainly not. Several times, I was glad to have a female MP on hand to assist me in domestic disturbances in the one LE duty station I had. Having a female with the right attitude go with you to a domestic disturbance is better than having a Delta Force team. The other jobs? Security/Field jobs? Only two were an asset. Two out of dozens, and one was an officer.

Just the way it is. The _two_ genders aren't the same.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

You haven't mention one single reason not to take a woman who meets standards.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Denton, the dude is just trollin'.
I've had my fun toying with him, but it is 12:35 AM EST and I'm off to bed.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Jammer, here’s one. 

Captured Male soldiers tend not to be raped by the enemy. Equality isn’t offered by everyone . 


Fangfarrier 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> You haven't mention one single reason not to take a woman who meets standards.


I did. You simply refused to internalize it - twice you missed it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> Jammer, here's one.
> 
> Captured Male soldiers tend not to be raped by the enemy. Equality isn't offered by everyone .
> 
> ...


That makes war even harder on the people back at home.

Men being captured is hard enough, but our women being captured....


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Well, if a male American POW doesn't bother you as much as a female would, then no, I can't help you.

In the real world, Jessica Lynch was treated far better than John McCain was.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> I did. You simply refused to internalize it - twice you missed it.


If you say so.

You're right, I have read a single reason. I think we're disagreeing on what a valid reason would be.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Well, if a male American POW doesn't bother you as much as a female would, then no, I can't help you.
> 
> In the real world, Jessica Lynch was treated far better than John McCain was.


McCain? Songbird?

Not even the same thing, even if they were the same sex. Again, you are attempting to muddy the waters.

Well, if you don't feel different about ladies than men, I can't help you.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> If you say so.
> 
> You're right, I have read a single reason. I think we're disagreeing on what a valid reason would be.


Making special accommodations for the very, very few who can legitimately pass the training makes no sense. No; PC crap makes no sense.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> If you say so.
> 
> You're right, I have read a single reason. I think we're disagreeing on what a valid reason would be.


I enjoy our discussions. I wish more would enjoy the discussions.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> Making special accommodations for the very, very few who can legitimately pass the training makes no sense. No; PC crap makes no sense.


Huh? Exactly what "special" accommodations does one make to a two man fighting position?

5% is 5%, (or 30% is 30%, or whatever the real number is) male or female.

There's no muddy water here. There's a male POW who was tortured by our enemy, and a female POW who wasn't. Apples to apples, straight up.

If we had more females serving, we'd probably have more data. (Or at least more anecdotes.) But Lynch is what we have at the moment, unless you're aware of another female POW. I'm not.

From this side, it sounds like you're trying desperately to stay dry, and avoid the water, muddy or not.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Denton said:


> *I enjoy our discussion*s. I wish more would enjoy the discussions.


Has anyone ever mentioned that you're a sick puppy?


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> I enjoy our discussions. I wish more would enjoy the discussions.


As do I.

The risk of valuable discussion is quite simple: it risks relationships.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> As do I.
> 
> The risk of valuable discussion is quite simple: it risks relationships.


I value ours.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Who was it looking for data on female combat POWs?

https://www.army.mil/article/54136/female_pows_prove_women_can_endure_wars_hardships

Fangfarrier

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Wow!

That woman enters the room, I will stand up.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> I value ours.


Well, come on up, then! Bring everyone. We'll sail in the San Juans, we'll find out if any of you get seasick. (I do, so did Lord Nelson.) We'll look for Orcas, count sea lions, try to keep the dog from jumping off the boat and chasing them and solve every single major problem facing the U.S.

Then we'll have lunch.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Jammer Six said:


> Wow!
> 
> That woman enters the room, I will stand up.


Sexist. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

fangfarrier said:


> Sexist.


Heh.

Nope. I'd stand up if John McCain entered the room, too.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Jammer Six said:


> Heh.
> 
> Nope. I'd stand up if John McCain entered the room, too.


I'd run like hell if he did. I've seen the Walking Dead and can guess what comes next!

Fangfarrier

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

I have no problem with women or gays in combat provided the requirements are not lowered to allow it. If they want to lower the physical fitness requirements for women in support positions fine, but in front line combat units they should be held to the same requirements as the men are. I don't care if the guy in the foxhole next to me (or my son, we are in bad shape if my ass is back in combat) is gay or likes a nice 6" pump, as long as they can do the job and maintain military discipline.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Well, come on up, then! Bring everyone. We'll sail in the San Juans, we'll find out if any of you get seasick. (I do, so did Lord Nelson.) We'll look for Orcas, count sea lions, try to keep the dog from jumping off the boat and chasing them and solve every single major problem facing the U.S.
> 
> Then we'll have lunch.


You'll not want to head out on a dive boat with me when the weather is bad and I'm having to beg the boat captain to keep going. I don't even begin to get sick.
My dive buddy gets sick when looking at a pic of a calm sea. He goes, anyway.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

I met my lovely wife on a dive boat in Barkley Sound, in British Columbia. She says I'm the hottest guy she's ever seen below a hundred feet.

We're planning on going back to Vancouver Island, but sailing, not diving. Somewhere along the line, the gear got a lot heavier than it used to be. Bring your tanks if you want, we have a compressor in the basement.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

That reminds me.

Why do you single out McCain? He _certainly_ wasn't the only one to break.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

I have no idea about John McCains captivity or the character of his service before, during, or after his stay in Hanoi. What I have a problem with is the belief that a war hero can never be impugned regardless of their later actions. No ones actions no matter how heroic or honorable at the age of 20 something can give them unassailable integrity perpetually. Now I am not comparing McCain to Hitler, but the one thing they had in common was that old Adolph was a war hero as well.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Jammer Six said:


> That reminds me.
> 
> Why do you single out McCain? He _certainly_ wasn't the only one to break.


Jammer, you're the one that brought up John McCain first!

Sent from my SM-S337TL using Tapatalk


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Yup. In post 82, I switched subjects and didn't tell anyone. I didn't write it very well.

It should have gone more along the lines of "why does everyone act like Senator McCain was the only POW to break?"


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Back on topic.

I think Jammer Six had his own version of Harpy Daniels when he served.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

The Navy should care more about it's Seamen, than Semen.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Well, it is the Navy after all.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

If you're looking for a laff today, here you go. 
National Catholic Register

My New Gender Identity is ?Emperor? ? My Pronoun is ?Your Majesty?
Our demands aren't without precedent.
Angelo Stagnaro
It's taken a great deal for me to come to this point in my life. I had to come to a mutual understanding in my professional and personal relationships with my editors even to consider writing this article.

My parents were probably hardest hit by this news because my true identity, as I've known all along, seems to fly in the face of any and all previous family relationships and, indeed, a negligible socially-constructed historical reality, of a sort.

And, now that I'm able to look at myself in the mirror and be proud of who and what I am, I wish to thank all who have made my transition possible.

I wish to make this article my formal, public declaration―I am trans-royalty. I know that, deep within me, is the soul of an emperor.

Not one of those awful, messy, "off-with-his-head" despotic rulers but a benevolent one whom His peons, that is, His subjects, will love and adore.

We feel it in every royal fiber of Our Grand Illustrious Being.

We feel very good having finally written this statement. Now, there's no going back. This shouldn't cause a problem for the new "gender theorists" as even they recognize an enormous spectrum of human sexuality, most of which has yet to be identified, that my own regal sexuality will easily be respected, celebrated, legitimized, legalized and carry the full force of the law upon the benighted who, if given half a chance, would otherwise disagree with me.

To be clear, no one has the right to disagree with me.

If subjective "feelings" are all it takes to convince a genetic male born with all possible primary and secondary male characteristics―including all the requisite male naughty bits―despite the lack of even the vaguest shred of evidence is, in fact, a woman, then no one in that mindset could ever deny my lordly and regnant bearing and heritage.

The pronoun that best suits me and, therefore, must suit everyone else, is "Your Majesty." And, in a pinch, "Your Highness" will do.

And as to the deference upon which my kingly gender insists, it should cause neither surprise nor hassle as the Gender Nazis have already insisted that if an individual wishes to be called "she" or indeed, "ze," "zie," "zim," "zir," "zism," "zop," "zork," "ziffle" or indeed "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," their wills be done.

In fact, New York City Mayor DeBlasio has made the use of the "wrong" pronouns a finable offence. Perhaps they will insist upon jail time, torture and beheadings in the future if need be.

The requisite pronoun, "Your Majesty," unsurprisingly, is accompanied by a somatic component―one must kneel in Our presence―Our sovereign dignity/gender would be offended otherwise. Thus, all must comply, first and foremost my servants&#8230; er&#8230; subjects&#8230; the Gender Nazis.

But, even if pressed, We are not pressed to defend Our gender. It is incumbent upon all of my subjects, where'ere We cast Our royal gaze, to attend to all of Our Splendiferous and Majestic Desires. Thus, it is imperative that the government pay for all of the trappings of a court befitting a king of my stature.

And I'm really into long capes with ermine trim.

The "transgendered" among us seem to believe they have the right to impose their will upon the unwilling masses. Thus, it follows, like night the day, that We, in Our Sovereign authority armed with the divine right of kings to any and all treatments, likewise, henceforth and forthwith and so forth&#8230; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera&#8230;

Our demands aren't without precedent.

In 1859, San Franciscan rapscallion and ne'er-do-well Joshua Abraham Norton impudently declared himself Emperor Norton I of the United States. Fear not, good people! He is but a mere pretender to Our Throne. However, not only did he claim to be royalty but he was indeed thusly treated. All around him deferred to his faux-august majesty. Admittedly, Norton was freakin' nuts while We are in full control of Our mental faculties - just like every woman who thinks herself a man despite the absence of that crucial Y-chromosome and requisite anatomy.

Norton I was, using the layman's term, a crackpot. But those whose pots were even more cracked, knelt and bowed and scraped their obsequence to Norton, pretender to Our August Throne. Surely, those who recognize any and all fanciful (i.e., not based in any realistic sense) genders will recognize mine. And, as Our very gender identity depends upon Us believing We are Whom We say We are royalty, then any and all dissension/sass talk is a sign of hatred, fear and oppression and egalitarian royalphobia from the gender police.

We'd like to point out here that atheists have often crowed that interior perceptions and sentiments about divine experience can't be taken into seriously consideration in a "rational" conversation. It's odd to think these very same atheists are now on the forefront of insisting that the subjective feelings of some confused individuals can now be taken as Gospel Truth. (Please excuse the pun―We are a gifted royal punster and are amused,)

And, again, though it is beneath Our dignity to have to hammer home Our Royal Point, if it is acceptable for a Caucasian woman, born from a long line of Caucasian progenitors to claim to be a black woman as in the case of Rachel Dolezal, then it is acceptable for me to be king. The same thing goes for a man who can claim to not only be female but also a 6-year-old female child as in the case of 52-year-old Canadian Paul "Stefonknee" Wolscht, then We are in the clear.

How about those who intentionally cut off a fully functioning limb because they "feel" they should be thusly hobbled? Less we forget about the Scottish-born Australian man who calls himself " and took his desire to be "no gender" (we use to call them "eunuchs") to Australia's High Court in 2014 and won. This is perfectly unscientific and irrational as any biologist worth his salt can tell you that all mammals have a gender. Perhaps Norrie has decided to abandon his mammalian status along with his penis.

How about those suffering from species dysphoria―the belief that genetic human beings with whom we can have actual conversations―claim to not be human at all. Instead, they consider themselves all manner of dumb, brutish beasts such as dogs, cats, pigs, cows and the like. They call themselves "transspecies." Furries make the same ridiculous claim. I once met a woman who desperately tried to convince me she was a dragon. She appeared miffed when I told them that one of my duties as king is to rid my kingdom of all dragons―including poseur dragon-wannabes.
There are emaciated anorexics who think themselves too fat, but we don't allow them to have liposuction no matter how many fake rights they claim.

We can't possibly be wrong in the assessment of Our own royal gender―just as men who think they shouldn't have the parts with which they were born or use the bathroom not assigned to them by virtue of the fact they are burdened by the presence of a Y-chromosome.

I personally believe that if someone is born with a male phenome, then they are, of course, male. The same goes for those individuals born with a female phenome. However, as long as these objective, scientific, laws based on empirical observation and evaluated through the lens of logic are held in abeyance, it's time to throw my crown into the ring. I can now expect everyone to celebrate my lordly nobility.

To be clear, no amount of pointing out Our parents' lowly birth is sufficient to sway Us.

In other words, if gender theorists refuse to allow everyone to play by their rules, then they don't get to make rules for the greater percentage of sane and morally and logically consistent in society.

The floodgates are open, folks! Belly up to the bars, boys! The gender theorists are buying!

Sincerely,

His Royal, Exalted, Eminent and Serene Highness, Angelo I
(Lord of All He Surveys)

So as it is written, so shall it be done!


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

I made it to page 5 and got bored.

The feminist want equal rights then give it to them. Matter of fact, institute the draft again so all of our youth have equal rights serving our country. I would give it less than five years and they would remove women from combat arms. Personally as an NCO(ex) and I had a female soldier whining "its to heavy" when we were breaking track I would have them digging a grave and when completed fill it back in.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

What happened to the good ol' days? On our off time we would hit the beach on liberty, get drunk, call home and spend money. Those so inclined would visit the local brothels and discos. Anyone who was gay was sent home with a bad conduct discharge. Not that I necessarily agree with that but the Navy has gone wayyyy overboard by celebrating drag queens in the ranks.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> If being a Ranger, infantry, artillery, fireman, carpenter, (don't even talk about what I saw during _that_ mess) longshoreman or anything else requires lifting 255 lbs. off the ground and carrying it for a quarter mile, then only the women who can do that should be qualified. And only the men who can do that should be qualified.
> 
> There shouldn't be a single male who can't make the test wearing a tab. That a man can do more than the test is irrelevant. _If more is required, then put it on the test._
> 
> ...


I don't know how I missed this the first time around. the part about picking up something heavy and carrying it.

The US Army PT test in the 1960's when training was segregated by sex actually measured useful strength, instead of how many pushups,situps, etc.
The PT test HAD to be passed before you could graduate from Basic Training, if you could not pass it, you were recycled back thru Basic until you could. After training, when assigned to a regular unit, the test had to be passed annually.

One of the events was the 150 yard man carry. You had to pick up another man your own size, and carry him 150 yards in a certain amount of time. That is harder than it sounds. Why was this event deemed important? It simulated picking up a wounded soldier and carrying him to safety.

Yeah, the military sure was different back in the day.


----------



## Tango2X (Jul 7, 2016)

I am a Navy vet-- this is sad!
Just think-- someone in authority thought this was a good idea!
Methinks-- Obama's navy--


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Camel923 said:


> This why when submarines go out with a 120 men they come back with 60 couples.


Not always, we have annulment...


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Or maybe the lady wants to be infantry. After all, that MOS is now open to her also.


Wow. I remember how my parents chased my sibs and me out of the room when this stuff would come on tv. I also remember watching the soldiers coming home late at night we would sometimes sneak a watch on the portable tv if we had the chance.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Most of my female classmates wore the colored bracelets with the name of an MIA soldier. They didn't take them off until they came home. Unless they didn't. I guess they would just take them off.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

csi-tech said:


> Most of my female classmates wore the colored bracelets with the name of an MIA soldier. They didn't take them off until they came home. Unless they didn't. I guess they would just take them off.


Here's one who didn't


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

I hope James Morland had a chance to peek at that bracelet on her wrist from beyond the veil. May his soul rest in peace.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Annie said:


> I hope James Morland had a chance to peek at that bracelet on her wrist from beyond the veil. May his soul rest in peace.


There was a follow up to that, where she attended the funeral, and put the bracelet in the casket.
Very touching.
I really enjoy On The Road segments, there are hundreds on Youtube. Each one is inspirational and makes a person feel good. I highly recommend them.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

We are doomed, I just know it. What is this guys function after hours? Is he a pass-around toy?


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

MisterMills357 said:


> View attachment 99907
> 
> 
> We are doomed, I just know it. What is this guys function after hours? Is he a pass-around toy?


Guy?

Looks like Jaimie Lee Curtis to me.
Does "it" have nads?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mad Trapper said:


> Guy?
> 
> Looks like Jaimie Lee Curtis to me.
> Does "it" have nads?


Yeah but they are probably disabled.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)




----------

