USS New Mexico Returns From Deployment, Makes News
USS New Mexico (SSN 779) returned from her maiden deployment today; here's a video of the return:
The homecoming even made the national news! I've always had a commitment to discuss submarine issues that make the national news, so I figured I should comment on this one. The story from The Day has this controversial line: "The deployment was the first for the vessel as well as for 70 percent of the boat's 132-man crew, whose median age was 20". I'm not sure that statistic passes the common sense test; I'm gonna have to throw the bullshit flag on that one. Are they seriously saying, with all the training Submariners receive prior to getting to their first boat, that half of them were still 20 or under? With the propensity of the people in the demographic for potential submariners to at least try some college before joining the Navy? I'll have to see an audit of the crew records to believe that one.
Oh, and an MM2(SS) from the boat proposed to his boyfriend on the pier.
Looks like the boat got port visits in Norway, Scotland, and Spain. About average for what was probably a Northern Run.
posted by Bubblehead at 2:17 PM
95 Comments:
Welcome home. More important. Big trouble in India.
8/13/2013 3:09 PM
And as is typical, the news interest was the same-sex proposal, not anything about the first deployment of the ship or anything. Poor America.
8/13/2013 3:18 PM
At least the homo wasn't dink when he proposed.
8/13/2013 4:10 PM
Well, the pillow biters sure look the part.
Leads to a whole new level of respect for sailors represented by those iconic images of a sailor on the pier with duffel or of the sailor kissing the nurse at the end of WWII.
A sad and disgusting day.
8/13/2013 4:27 PM
Given the definition of "median", it is entirely possible the median age is 20. Kind of a weird way to write the article, and I doubt the reporter knew of which they spoke.
8/13/2013 4:33 PM
Considering recently deceased Seaman Rolando Acosta was 21, it tests the imagination to lend credibility to a median age of 20, but who really expects a retraction by today's journalism profession?
Aluma
8/13/2013 4:50 PM
The photo in the "Courant" was carefully staged (aren't all LBGT events?) If one looks carefully enough, SecNav Mabus's political hand approved writing of this news from behind the scenes.
What a high water mark for subs. In a few years, we will have crew shortages due to recruitment shortfalls.
What will likewise make the news will be the startling advancement of women through the ranks in subs. Hidden of course (until the later administrations must confront the result of the folly) will be recruiting shortfalls. Exactly what Obama promised Putin, IMHO.
8/13/2013 5:01 PM
Probably why they tied-up at pier 32.
8/13/2013 5:35 PM
I was a nuke and reported to my boat at 20 years and two months. Had it not been for my prototype being in the dirt for three months, I would have arrived a month before turning 20 - as a nuke. Nukes used to have the longest pipeline to a boat, not sure if that is still true.
I think a median of 20 is possible, but not likely.
8/13/2013 7:35 PM
Is sodomy still a violation of the UCMJ?
8/13/2013 8:39 PM
Wow, homophobic much?
It's 2013 folks. Grow up and stop the hate.
8/13/2013 9:12 PM
As a 16 year submarine veteran who has served on four different boats and will soon be reporting to my 5th I feel I am qualified to make the following statement. I, and all of my fellow submariners, have been serving alongside gay men for as long as we have had submarines. The only thing that has changed is that these brave sailors no longer have to hide the truth of who they are. They will continue to serve with honor and risk their lives alongside their heterosexual shipmates. People that think this will have an impact on recruitment, performance, morale or anything else are prejudiced, immature, and unable to grasp the realities of society.
8/13/2013 9:22 PM
"In a few years, we will have crew shortages due to recruitment shortfalls."
We've always had crew shortages as identified by <100% fit/fill. Hasn't stopped us from going to sea yet.
8/13/2013 10:03 PM
Bigger news story:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/18-feared-trapped-after-explosion-fire-on-Navy-submarine-INS-Sindhurakshak/Article1-1107807.aspx
8/13/2013 10:11 PM
People that think this will have an impact on recruitment, performance, morale or anything else are prejudiced, immature, and unable to grasp the realities of society.
You sir (and I use the term sarcastically) are either stupid or ignorant. Smoke a pole lately?
8/13/2013 10:29 PM
Wait, who is stupid and/or ignorant?
8/13/2013 11:09 PM
...because clearly it couldn't be you...
8/13/2013 11:10 PM
I served several years on the Jimmy Carter with a few openly gay guys, and it didn't affect morale or our ability to execute the mission. So I'd say this is no big deal, and getting to be less of one. Look at polling of the youth with regard to homosexuality and gay marriage.
8/14/2013 5:40 AM
+1 for being 20 as a Nuke when I reported to my boat.
Went into boot camp 2 weeks after graduating HS.
Thank god I never had to deal with the PC Navy with gays and women on the boat.
8/14/2013 7:06 AM
"You sir (and I use the term sarcastically) are either stupid or ignorant. Smoke a pole lately?"
I'm not the one you were responding to, but I suppose you're right that this will affect recruitment -- idiots and bigots like you will stay out of the Navy.
8/14/2013 8:27 AM
Oh get over yourselves. I know the girl who took the photo - an MC who very recently transferred to Groton - and she had no idea this proposal was going to happen. Don't you think she could've arranged a better photo, or even video, if she had? Please... She's actually kind of befuddled by all the attention the photo received, which underscores the earlier poster's point - this is generational. People her age just don't see what the big deal is about all this. She just thought it was a sweet picture, among many scenes she captured.
No, the photo wasn't staged, and no, gays, wimmins, negroes, beaners, Hindooooos, or whatever other "other" you can dream up aren't going to destroy the Navy either. Only a shitbag sailor would see treating each other professionally as a vice.
The modern Navy gets a lot of stuff wrong. Making the organization and the people in it treat differences with respect ain't one of them.
8/14/2013 10:20 AM
All the self-righteous, non self-critquing comments from the pro-gay crowd -- and the utter dismissal of the possibility they could be in the wrong -- speaks volumes.
Gays don't deserve hatred...but their behavior also does not deserve a free pass from the political zealots of a particular affiliation.
People who unquestionably drink the Kool-Aid of their political party's spew -- of either party -- are the problem.
8/14/2013 1:16 PM
it's not at about politics. It's about who they are as humans. They were BORN that way. Just like you were born whatever way you are. When you refer to their "behavior," do you mean sex? Heterosex can be kind of gross too. Just like we try not to think about our parents doing it, try not think about gay people doing it. It'll help your blood pressure.
8/14/2013 2:21 PM
Anon, it's the MILITARY. You give up a lot of those individuality demands when you signed.
I know for a fact that the "acceptance" of gays is not nearly as widespread as you want to believe. What people say in public vs their true beliefs are not the same.
I have no issue with gays but the military is simply not that place for them. This is politics and politicians ignore sociology and psychology.
What's the first thing that happens to any service member? You get indoctrininated to military customs and standards. They don't want the outlier.
We had and MM chief in the middle of an underway who tried to make everyone laugh. This was early 90s. Was walking in engineroom with TLD on lanyard and in jockstrap and did entire watch that way. Our boat had been to hell and back for months leading up to that and everyone appreciated the shenanigans so we could laugh at ourselves. I was an EM but that chief was the guy who understood how to pick people up when things are going rough. You can't do that with a "hip hip horray" speach in crews mess.
Can only imagine how the PC navy has sucked the life out of an already monotonous life on a boat.
Call those antics immature, call it unprofessional. But, it did serve a purpose. One ship, one screw. Now with two "screws" the equation doesn't balance.
8/14/2013 4:21 PM
Well this kinda dispels the myth; "submarines sail with 150 men and return with 75 couples."
8/14/2013 7:41 PM
American military...where have you gone? We have indeed went down a slippery slope...a slippery anal slope, down a black (or brown if you prefer) hole.
8/14/2013 7:55 PM
They were BORN that way.
Yeah? Well, that's also what kleptomaniacs and pedophiles claim.
8/14/2013 8:02 PM
@ Anom. 8/14/2013 8:02 PM
Unfortunately, you actually believe homosexuality is a disease. You and the rest of the homophobic, bigoted, bottom feeding troglodytes in this thread have sunk all the way to the bottom of the evolutionary scale. You didn't have far to go but you managed to hit the bottom. Congratulations.
FTC(SS) ret.
8/14/2013 8:29 PM
PC navy or not, it is what it is nowadays. However the gays shouldn't get extra benefits like the Pentagon announced today. They get an extra 7 to 10 days of leave to get married. Why? They might have to travel to a place where same sex marriages are recognized. I had to travel when I got married as well, I didn't get extra leave to do it. Everyone should be treated the same when it comes to leave.
STS1/SS
8/14/2013 8:31 PM
FTC(SS) loser...
Actually gays work against nature. Without procreation our species would not evolve nor survive.
You could can actually state that gays cause the human species to devolve.
Simple biology.
Oh yeah, your anger sounds like you have internal issues to resolve.
8/14/2013 8:40 PM
FTC(SS), wow you made all the way to E-7 in a "career." Impressive. Not.
Now get back in the kitchen, your husband is hungry.
8/14/2013 8:45 PM
"I know for a fact that the "acceptance" of gays is not nearly as widespread as you want to believe. What people say in public vs their true beliefs are not the same."
Some people also don't accept at least one of the following: Drinking alcohol, tobacco use, sex out of wedlock, purchasing hookers, going to strip clubs, playing video games, playing soccer, watching tv, looking at porn with weird fetishes, worshipping Jesus, worshipping Mohammed, the list goes on...
Bottom line is it doesn't fucking matter if you or anyone else approves of someone else's behavior on liberty as long as it's within the confines of the law. That includes same sex relationships. Get over it.
8/14/2013 8:53 PM
"Is sodomy still a violation of the UCMJ?"
I think I just feel bad for you because if you want gays arrested for sodomy, you obviously aren't getting any anal or blowjobs from your gf/wife.
8/14/2013 9:03 PM
8:53PM, no matter what the law says, no matter how much you try and lie to yourself.
You are and will always be different from the norms of society. Don't think otherwise.
Otherwise, why do you have to announce your "gay" marriage?
It will never be mainstream or a truly except "norm". Congnitive dissonance much?
How many mother's and father's hope when Jr pops out and says. "oh. I hope he marries another man". That's right. ZERO.
Now get over it.
8/14/2013 9:19 PM
I know...let's ask this man if being gay is a problem in the military.
8/14/2013 9:42 PM
No. It is never a problem having a huge one shoved up my anus. I wish I could fit a car full of clowns up there too. I love the cock!
8/14/2013 9:52 PM
Manning is a case study in how the self esteem of gays is always suspect and can cause issues in a military setting.
Not worth the risk IMO and the first time they get ridiculed or a bad review they can play the discrimination card. More trouble then they are worth to allow in.
8/14/2013 10:15 PM
I have to wonder if current squids are told to stay off these kinds of blogs lest NCIS et al track their IP address.
Nobody could easily report disdain or openly complain about the daily goings-on without wondering if just maybe it would be tracked back to them.
I'd love to know how life is on a boat today vs 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Can you do ANYTHING of fun and not get taken to mast? Even half-way night I'm sure could be considered sexual harassment by someone looking to get off a boat. Cross-dressing? OMG!!!!!!
Something just incredibly wrong about a man getting on a knee and holding the hand of another man asking for him to marry him. I'm sure his dad would be so proud of that photo. Not.
So how does it work now? Any traditions gone by the way side due to PC nation?
Got out in 93 so curious what's changed.
8/15/2013 2:58 AM
"Can you do ANYTHING of fun and not get taken to mast? Even half-way night I'm sure could be considered sexual harassment by someone looking to get off a boat. Cross-dressing? OMG!!!!!!
Something just incredibly wrong about a man getting on a knee and holding the hand of another man asking for him to marry him. I'm sure his dad would be so proud of that photo. Not."
Two people that love each other getting married is incredibly wrong, but cross-dressing is considered normal?
I think some people in this thread have some very deep-seated issues with their sexuality.
8/15/2013 6:11 AM
Active guys either:
1. Are on a boat and don't have time to bother with the paranoid geriatrics who bitch about gays on boats they haven't even laid eyes on in decades, or
2. Are on shore duty and think you're too silly to merit a response.
This blog, which is still excellent, used to be a destination for the excellent comment section. The last couple of years, a certain subset of frustrated retirees with no other outlet have used it as their personal soapbox to bitch about gays and women. Why don't many active guys post here any more? Look in the fucking mirror. No one cares what a nuc who's been a civilian for 15 years, or a failed, withered E7 treading water til retirement has to say about women or gays on board.
8/15/2013 6:19 AM
"I think some people in this thread have some very deep-seated issues with their sexuality."
LOL...and you really can't see just how much the pejorative nature of your comment points the finger at you, can you?
8/15/2013 6:38 AM
One would think the whole Bradley Manning episode would give pause to the gay-huggers...but no, logic and honesty aren't a part of their normal routine.
This isn't about age and wisdom haters. It's about punk-ass know-nothings who couldn't face a real, external enemy if they had to.
Today's military sees America and American values as the enemy. Just look at the dialogue.
8/15/2013 6:43 AM
I guess the term "Boomer Fag" is now OBE
8/15/2013 7:36 AM
On today's submarines, we really can go out to sea with 140 individuals and have 70 couples come back. And with females now, we can have pole smokers and carpet munchers.
GO AMERICA!!! IN GOD WE TRUST, once we pervert him a little.
8/15/2013 8:07 AM
I served in the '70's on a fast attack. I never had any problem with gays...until. Until we went into a yard, and I went TAD on another boat and had to rack out in the room. During transit, I was somewhat rudely awakened by the guy next to me, who had apparently mistaken my butt for his girlfriend. He was wide awake at the time, and knew exactly what he was trying to do.
I didn't take kindly to the ambush and I shoved him away and reported him immediately. When passing him in the passageways (before he was transferred off at our next port), I had to suppress a very strong desire to beat the living $hit out of him.
I hadn't signed up for this nonsense, and it was - to say the least - a most unwelcome distraction from my duties. I felt a strong sense of personal violation based on what he tried to do while I was asleep.
All of you who say there's no problem with gays openly serving suffer from the misconceived presumption that they will all behave themselves honorably at all times, confining their behavior to strictly consensual activities.
Well, to those suffering from that particular delusion I can only say wake up. I happen to know better. In my opinion, based on my own experience, they do NOT belong on a submarine. Period.
Put that in your rope and smoke it.
8/15/2013 8:14 AM
"All of you who say there's no problem with gays openly serving suffer from the misconceived presumption that they will all behave themselves honorably at all times, confining their behavior to strictly consensual activities."
Yea, because straight dudes always confine their behavior to strictly consensual activities...
Rickover must be spinning in his grave over the lack of critical thinking being displayed in this thread.
8/15/2013 8:39 AM
Rickover would never have wanted gays to serve on a submarine. Ever.
The last think he'd have wanted is distraction which is what this is.
8/15/2013 8:47 AM
Nobody talked about how when he got down on one knee in his whites, he got that one knee dirty...I guess it's a good thing that soon after that photo, his knees were matching.
8/15/2013 10:32 AM
Video post of proposal. GO NAVY!
8/15/2013 3:19 PM
I wonder if their dads are proudly sending the video link to all their buddies in the office.... I'm thinking not.
8/15/2013 5:07 PM
Just think of the possibilities of a remake of this one.
8/15/2013 7:50 PM
Well said. Thank you!
8/15/2013 8:27 PM
To someone's earlier serious comment: Yes, article 125 has been revised to exclude consensual sodomy as a crime. Forcible sodomy is still a crime.
I happen to be straight with six kids. I have served with several gay men. I've never seen/heard of any problems from any of them.
I imagine there will be some drama when couples break up underway. Will it be any worse than our current level of drama or just different? I was in the second power school class to let women back in. I was an ET, so we had none, but the MMs and EMs did. There was new drama as couple stuff happened. We lived.
Some of it was funny. What do you do when the assistant class leader (male) is stroking the class leader's (female) hair in quiet study right in front of the door. They were at work during night study in civilian clothes. She eventually made MMCM(SW/AW).
An officer I know hooked up with a young lady at a bar. As he is dressing the next morning, she says, "shouldn't you be wearing whites today?" (Enlisted pending medical separation) They are married now.
8/15/2013 9:49 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again. If 1 in 10 people are gay then a crew of 120 has 12. Get over it.
Nobody I served with was openly gay but on a large part we knew and on four boats there was only one problem but he was a dirt ball, pain in the ass nonqual who was always in trouble.
You're not going to change it. Work with it or leave.
That Damn Good Looking Aganger From Iowa
8/15/2013 10:42 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again. If 1 in 10 people are gay then a crew of 120 has 12. Get over it.
Except that Kinsey was a proven fraud and all that. Time for you to get back to goat ropin' and Brokeback Mountin'.
8/15/2013 10:49 PM
anon 10:42 if you keep repeating incorrect information it just shows you're ignorant.
Not even close to 1 in 10 in the general population and even less in the military.
Are you sure you served on a submarine?
8/16/2013 1:23 AM
The guy wears dolphins - that means he's earned my respect until proven otherwise.
Not sure why any (admittedly, only a few so far) commenters on a submarine blog would express such personal hatred toward someone standing the watch today. Maybe you forgot where you came from, and how much we all owe in equal parts to our predecessors as to our reliefs?
To the crew of NMX: Welcome home. Thanks for your service. Hope you get to enjoy some post deployment stand down.
8/16/2013 5:19 AM
70 years ago the same "people" in this thread that have issues with gays and women would have had the same issues (and probably still do) with people who had a different skin color. Every time you read the word fag or polesmoker, substitute the word n****r and you will understand exactly who these "people" are.
Like someone said earlier, you have sunk all the way to the bottom of the evolutionary scale and you are firmly mired in the muck.
8/16/2013 6:09 AM
6:09AM, comical. You're intolerance of other people's beliefs and opinions make you the bigot.
Now make sure you suck hard when your boyfriend cums. I'm sure your dad would be proud.
8/16/2013 6:31 AM
"Now make sure you suck hard when your boyfriend cums. I'm sure your dad would be proud"
Thanks for making my point. 'preciate it.
8/16/2013 7:04 AM
@6:09 AM Anon:
Funny how those pointing the finger don't ever realize how much that finger points back at them. Conflating choiceless racial origins with those who choose to indulge in homosexual behavior is ridiculous...and stuck in-the-muck "thinking."
Political Kool Aid drinkers of either party are the problem in our society today. George Washington thought political parties should be outlawed, and for all the reasons we're seeing today. IMHO, he had it right.
Litmus test: if you can't name aspects of 'your' political party that are flat-out wrong, you are definitely part of the problem...not the solution.
Just sayin'.
8/16/2013 9:13 AM
"Conflating choiceless racial origins with those who choose to indulge in homosexual behavior is ridiculous...and stuck in-the-muck "thinking.""
Homosexuality is equally choiceless. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
8/16/2013 9:37 AM
George Washington would have loved a huge on shoved up him too! I know I would!
8/16/2013 10:25 AM
@Edwin Ostroot
I sat in your desk at STRATCOM. I recognize the name from some stuff you left behind.
Great start on that massive spreadsheet (though some of the functions were not configured properly when I took over the job)... Though that may have been problems introduced by intermediate people with the job.
8/16/2013 10:49 AM
Homosexuality is equally choiceless. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
Sooooo, letting some dude ass fuck you is choiceless (sic)?
Well, they also say pedophilia is choiceless (sic). And what about murdering psychopaths - choiceless (sic)? Point is, just because someone claims to have been "born" with some depraved desire does not equate it with skin color or sex, and it certainly does not justify acting upon that depravity.
This WILL harm the submarine force, and the military as a whole. Of course it won't be reported as such, but when it becomes obvious, even pole smoking defenders will have to acknowledge it.
8/16/2013 11:36 AM
Bradley Manning's therapist says "gender disorder" led to leaks.
Guess lil' Bradley didn't have any "choices," either.
8/16/2013 12:20 PM
"Well, they also say pedophilia is choiceless (sic). And what about murdering psychopaths - choiceless (sic)? Point is, just because someone claims to have been "born" with some depraved desire does not equate it with skin color or sex, and it certainly does not justify acting upon that depravity."
You are exactly the fucking idiot as described above. You are equating two acts (murder and pedophilia) that have an umwilling victim to an act (homosexual sex) that has two consenting participants. I know you aren't smart enough to understand the difference but there is one. Try to get smarter.
8/16/2013 1:22 PM
And the similarity is that they ALL act upon depraved desires they claim are innate.
But I wouldn't expect to catch on, that dick in your ass probably precludes you from logical thought.
8/16/2013 4:30 PM
@anon 1322:
Consensual? Try re-reading anon's post of 8/15 @0814. That's the point of this whole discussion, yet predictably the gay lovers keep trying to define even an obvious assault as that as"consensual".
Would you agree situations like that are something to be prevented, or do you consider the behavior described as merely an unsuccessful "negotiation" that resulted in "negative consensus"?
It's a straight question. I can't wait to see what you do to it.
8/16/2013 6:35 PM
This thread went full retard like 20 posts ago.
Next time a recruiter tells someone that submariners are the brightest in the Navy, they should refer him to this thread.
8/16/2013 7:00 PM
Thanks for proving the recruiters were right. Great answer. (Really).
8/16/2013 8:02 PM
Imagine what guy must feel like after guy blows his load in boyfriend ass and the cum runs right out.
Yeah, sign me right up for that.
8/16/2013 8:07 PM
@8/15/2013 2:58 AM
I'm unaware of anyone attempting to restrict Bubbleheads... this forum is still one of the best sources for the unofficial story of what happened..
My last deployments were in 2008 and 2010 on a 688. Nothing too crazy happened, and no one was taken to mast. I have heard that a SSGN/SSBN female chop was uncomfortable with the "slop on the chop" concept during halfway night, and so they skipped that portion of their halfway night. I think it comes down to managing expectations for this kind of stuff.
I'm heading to an SSGN next year, so we'll see how things go with dealing with females. Personally, I'm a little wary of the SSGN life primarily because I think we'll have to be a bit more PC and less vulgar. We'll see..
As a member of the "younger" generation, I've never had a problem with the homosexuality piece. Many of my friends in high school were gay (both male and female), and there were quite a few guys on my boat who were gay -- both openly and not-so-openly. It had no effect on the crew, other than the occasional surprise when some new guy tried to play gay chicken and got surprised...
There were never any issues on my boat for questionably PC behavior though. We also had a very poor command climate, if that's supposed to have some effect.
I'm in Groton now, and just heard today about the proposal subsequent to NMX's RTHP. It's somewhat unfortunate that we celebrate people's sexual identities here in America, but I don't think that's an issue with the military; rather, that's an issue we have as a culture here in the United States.
-LT M
8/16/2013 8:27 PM
@all homophobic anonymous commenters:
While I don't want to make any presumptions about all of the anonymous commenters here, I'd be interested in a poll of how many people who post here are actually still serving submariners.
Though I've only been in the Navy a few short (7) years, I feel as though you few outspoken, homophobic people are the minority in the actual Navy.
-LT M
8/16/2013 8:36 PM
LT M: You're an idiot.
That is all.
8/16/2013 8:48 PM
I belive the culture shock is the issue, LT M. We all knew this existed years ago, didn't care much, but the stigma of being associated with homosexual behavior because you volunteered for submarines (100 men go down, 50 couples come up) was too much too handle for a lot of guys. Fist sandwiches get thrown around. Now there is photographic evidence (as some may view it). Fuel for the fire, so to speak. It's an ego buster for these folks in my opinion. Some have the mental capacity to withstand it. Some don't. But to be fair and equal (as everyone wants), you have to be considerate of their feelings and values as much as the feelings for the guys/gals who want to be who they want to be. Thin line to walk.
8/16/2013 9:15 PM
@LT M
The point is: You do want you want to do . Fine with me. I truly could not possibly care less what you do or don't do in your PRIVATE life. Do not demand I agree with your choices (or volunteer me to join in them) so as not to be labelled a homophobe. A bullshit PC term.
You keep whatever it is private, out of my face and off the boat. I'm too busy doing my job to deal with your insecurities too. Far too many gays seem to require unanimous approval and adoration. Sounds like a personal problem to me. Boo hoo, nobody loves me. Spare me the drama, all right? No room for that here. Sorry.
Outspoken? Damn right I am. I'm a qualified US Navy submariner. They don't pay me to be a rubber stamp. If you can't handle that, I suggest you're in way over your head and should retire asap.
Personally, I think you would probably be more comfortable pitching PC agenda in the corporate arena - preferably at an all-female company. Your feebly transparent attempt to silence dialogue here on this blog seems more in line with that crowd than with what we need in the boats.
And please, stop iinsulting our intelligence like you did above. Ain't nobody got time for thst.
Now lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how submariners sometimes disagree. If you can't handle that and you're wearing fish - rip 'em off right now and toss 'em in the shitter. You just don't have what it takes.
That IS all.
8/17/2013 5:38 AM
"...the stigma of being associated with homosexual behavior because you volunteered for submarines (100 men go down, 50 couples come up)..."
ONLY skimmers talk like that. And just how bad is THAT stigma...to be a dumbass fucking skimmer?
8/17/2013 6:48 AM
Talking about real homosexuals in the military, rather than idealized ones:
Judge: Manning's actions were 'imminently dangerous'
8/17/2013 7:32 AM
Uh-oh. Now you've gone and done it. Using real-life examples to support your statements? Have you gone completely mad, sir?
Got pretty quiet in here once the level of specificity went up a notch, wouldn't you say? Like watching cockroaches scurry for cover when the light gets turned on...
8/18/2013 1:14 PM
Really? Do you really want to do a comparison of harm done to this country from a hetero v homo sexxual perspective? Fucktard.
You and your ilk are the ones that need to scurry back under cover. Right back into the primordial soup from which you just recently emerged. Or at least put your white hood on so we don't have to look at you.
8/18/2013 3:28 PM
I am a man damn it! If I want a huge one shoved up me, then I will do it! And if want to suck another person's member, I will do that also! If I want my faced creamed in goo, then so be it...after all....I am a submariner, and now that most of us are out of the closet, I can finally say, as all submariners should say...I LOVE THE COCK!
8/18/2013 5:15 PM
A shining example you set, sir and/or ma'am. Most evolved and so very refined of you. Light years ahead of the rest of us, to be sure.
I rest my case. Thanks for making my point for me.
Remember to stay out of school zones, ok? Thanks.
8/18/2013 6:28 PM
"Got pretty quiet in here once the level of specificity went up a notch, wouldn't you say? Like watching cockroaches scurry for cover when the light gets turned on..."
The thread got quiet because you have a bunch of angry homophobes stuck in the 20th century bantering about how gays, who have served in the American military since 1776, are ruining everything. There's no talking sense into people like that and thankfully most of them aren't part of the Navy anymore, although unfortunately they still get paychecks from it.
That, and there are two new stories so this is old news.
As for Manning and the guy who almost got butt-raped: Congratulations, you found examples of homosexuals committing crimes. It happens. You know what other groups in the U.S. commits crimes at a rate disproportionate to their populations? Blacks. Does that mean we need to ban black people from serving in the military to prevent them from committing theft and murder on other servicemembers? Of course not. Manning's sexuality really doesn't prove anything and I've personally witnessed many supposedly straight men commit what normal people would consider sexual assault while on a submarine.
8/18/2013 7:26 PM
You and your ilk are the ones that need to scurry back under cover. Right back into the primordial soup from which you just recently emerged.
Spoken like a butt-hurt FAGGOT.
8/18/2013 9:22 PM
8/18 5:15 PM:
That is hilarious! That is a true submariner being placed in a "go with the flow" situation when he doesn't want to.
A bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor. If you can't find the humor in that post, I feel sorry for you. That guy is great!
--he might love the cock too much though.
8/19/2013 7:51 AM
If Adam or Eve were gay, we would not be having this problem.
8/21/2013 11:33 AM
Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!!!
8/21/2013 5:55 PM
To the retired bigots: Thank you for your dedicated service. However, it's no longer your Navy. So collect your retirement and stfu. My Navy will not discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.
To the AD bigots: The Navy is not going to discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. It's the 21st century. Get over it. If you disagree with that viewpoint, then you are free to count down the days to your EAOS/resignation, after which I wish you luck finding employment at a private organization that openly discriminates based on gender or sexual orientation.
And that's really all there is to this subject.
8/26/2013 5:11 PM
Ummm, no. There you go again. Instead of providing specific examples that support your view as to how/why gays on submarines are to be considered a mission enhancement (or not), what do you do?
You display the intellectual capacity of a gay jihadist: Believe as you do or else... you call them a bigot. (Btw, that's how bigots argue).
You can't deal in specifics, so you tweak the level of specificity dial to its most broad and general setting. This is how you try to hijack the discussion and reshape it to fit your comfort zone. Do you provide us with any specific examples to support your (miniscule minority) "viewpoint"? No.
You warp the discussion so now it's more like we're discussing whether or not it's really farther to Seattle than it is in a bus.
One more thing. It never was "my" Navy, and it sure as hell isn't "your" Navy. It has always been OUR Navy. Try to do your best so as not to mess that up so badly again, you interminable dink.
Now run along and discuss this with all those who share your views - so you can decide what you believe is the most popular opinion before responding.
Just to show you there's no hard feelings, I'll leave you with a quote from Sir John Gilgud (as Hobson): "I await your next syllable with great eagerness."
On second thought, forget I said that. Unless you can contribute anything that actually resembles something more substantive, just stfu.
Now, where were we before we were so rudely interrupted?
8/26/2013 11:49 PM
We were talking about ensuring all people enjoy the same rights. The world will be a better place when your blood sucking generation of welfare queens stops breaking our back. Go run along and tell your grandchildren of the good old days of discrimination and the golden age of morality while you are draining all their resources.
8/27/2013 10:18 AM
You make my point for me nicely. We were talking mission, you are talking civil rights. Oil and water. You refuse to delve any deeper into the subject, resorting to name calling and finger pointing to try and get your way.
Someone - most likely you - expanded the topic earlier to include "gays in the military since 1776".
To the best of my knowledge there was only one submarine in our inventory at that time, and it had a complement of one. So even if David Bushnell was gay - who would care? Completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Then the race card wad thrown in to further muddy the issue. Now your adding welfare queens to the mix? Typical fag bravo sierra. Can't make your case without resorting to grade school tactics.
You leave me no option but to respond to your remarks on your intellectual level. Ready? Here it comes!
I know you are, but what am I? You big doody head.
8/27/2013 11:43 AM
"You make my point for me nicely."
The only point you have made is that you are a bigot. You did so all by yourself.
First you say:"Typical fag bravo sierra."
Then you say:"Can't make your case without resorting to grade school tactics."
Hilarity ensues.
It's obvious that you aren't capable of delving any deeper. You are in full throated support of the same argument that was made in the 30's/40's about integrating the military. The bigots were rightfully ignored that time and you will be again.
I would be interested to know how the guys on active duty, who oppose gays or women on submarines, explain how they aren't in violation of their oath.
8/27/2013 12:26 PM
That the best you can do? I looked over your post and it boils down to a trite, long-winded version of "I know you are, but what am I?"
Again, you make my point for me. From above, when someone (you?) posted: "As for Manning and the guy who almost got butt-raped: Congratulations, you found examples of homosexuals committing crimes. It happens".
Well duh, genius. That's a given. The question is, which is more important to national security? Mission effectiveness or civil rights for the sake of "inclusion" as the overriding concern? In a military environment in general and, specifically, for submarines?
Since you are obviously incapable of addressing the topic in a straightforward manner, perhaps you can dazzle us with another off-topic treatise on Orwellian group think, lofty-sounding platitudes and any other empty, meaningless tripe you can come up with to avoid answering the question as posed.
Since you don't have any real answer you try to derail the discussion. Tell you what. Since you have no answer for the question, I'll give you a backup one to work on in the meantime, while you formulate a relevant response. (I'm doing this so you'll have some sense of inclusion and can feel like you're really accomplishing something). It's right in your wheelhouse. Ready?
I know you are but what am I?
8/28/2013 8:46 AM
"The question is, which is more important to national security? Mission effectiveness or civil rights for the sake of "inclusion" as the overriding concern? In a military environment in general and, specifically, for submarines?"
There it is again folks, right out of the bigots handbook--"Buh, buh, but the mission. They'll ruin unit cohesion. Nobody will want to work with them. Blah, blah, blah"
Given the choice between definitley violating someones civil rights and maybe affecting mission readiness, I'll take my chances with mission readiness.
8/30/2013 11:06 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home