Lively’s Bizarre Definition of ‘Freedom’ »« ‘Ex-Gays’: ‘End Homosexuality and Prevent Bullying’

Rios: Women, Gays Will Undermine Syria Effort

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association apparently thinks women and gay people can’t aim a Tomahawk missile. On her radio show she actually claimed that the “homosexual takeover” of the military and the presence of women means that our Navy ships won’t be effective in bombing Libya.

It’s getting more exaggerated. This is the nature of John Kerry, he always does this; he’s not to be trusted. This is the reason why I think we have to be concerned about going into Syria because the people that we’re looking at to lead us are untrustworthy people. There’s a second reason and that is military readiness. When I looked at those battleships going into the Mediterranean, supposedly getting ready for battle in Syria, I couldn’t help think about all the stories I’ve read about how women now are in the ranks of the Navy, getting pregnant at exponential numbers; when I think about the folding in and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the homosexual takeover of so much of our military I’m not sure how effective those naval ships will be.

Gee Sandy, do gay people have worse aim than straight people?

Comments

  1. eric says

    when I think about the folding in and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the homosexual takeover of so much of our military I’m not sure how effective those naval ships will be.

    Not that the screed needs to be shot down, but…US military cruise missiles and their guidance systems are built by private contractors – General Dynamics, Raytheon, et cetera. Who have employed women for decades and openly gay people of both sexes for probably decades. All the ordinance we’ve been using in our wars, Sandy, for at least the past 10 years? Brought to you in part by womens and teh gey.

  2. Chiroptera says

    Rios has a point. Women just don’t have the physical strength to pick up a cruise missile and carry it all the way to the target to detonate it.

  3. hunter says

    Not to mention that gays have been aiming and firing that ordnance for as long as it’s existed. They just couldn’t admit they were gay.

    Maybe it’s just that to the right-wing mind, being honest impairs your effectiveness.

  4. Randomfactor says

    Maybe she’s right. Any future ground forces in Syria should be made up of exclusively heterosexual male evangelical Christians.

    After they’ve been there a while we might let other units support them, but first they have to demonstrate their awesomeness.

    And I expect Rios to be embedded to fully document the situation.

  5. steve84 says

    Two easy solutions to this “problem”:

    1.) Mandatory birth control implants for every woman who deploys
    OR
    2.) Recruit only lesbians

  6. tmscott says

    Hey eric@1,
    “All the ordinance we’ve been using in our wars, Sandy, for at least the past 10 years? Brought to you in part by womens and teh gey.

    Let’s not forget all the “Rosies” that built B17s during WWII.

    Tom

  7. Doug Little says

    getting pregnant at exponential numbers

    Ha Ha Ha… She has no idea what exponential means. Oh and where’s you evidence for that anyway Sandy?

  8. Doug Little says

    Random @4

    Any future ground forces in Syria should be made up of exclusively heterosexual male evangelical Christians.

    Yeah and we will be able to save money on arming them because they will have the power of the prayer to smite enemies.

  9. Reginald Selkirk says

    Obama has insisted there will be “no boots on the ground” – so I assume he’s sending in Seal Team Six barefoot.

  10. Larry says

    Evidently, the Navy brass hasn’t heard about these problems yet. May be she should brief the Admirals in the Pentagon and present her proof about the pregnancy issues and gay ship’s thing. I’m sure they will give her all the respect and attention she deserves.

  11. Reginald Selkirk says

    steve84 #5: 1.) Mandatory birth control implants for every woman who deploys

    Great idea. If we had mandatory castration for every man who deploys, that would go a long way towards clearing up the problem of rape in the military as well.

  12. steve84 says

    In the 90s there were actually a few ships known as “love boats” because a significant amount of women came home pregnant. And there was an article in Stars and Stripes a while ago that the Navy does have something of a problem with unplanned pregnancies (in general, not deployed). But this isn’t really the military’s fault this time. It’s an outgrowth of the American obsession with abstinence-only “education”. The teen pregnancy rate in America is astronomical compared to other western countries. When you take the same group and put them in the military, it’s really not surprising that they aren’t responsible about sex.

    I wasn’t really serious about the forced contraception thing (though it’s a nice concept in some sci-fi universes where the implants can be turned on and off as needed), but increased education about contraception would help. You’d just expect that 18+ year olds would know this stuff already.

  13. eric says

    @13: the muslims.

    @15: if it can be turned on and off, it isn’t really forced, is it?

    In any event, the first order of business would be determining whether there’s actually a problem that needs to be fixed; to my mind, the answer is no. Pregnancy among the workforce (or spouses of the workforce) should not be classified as a “problem.” Its life. It’s what a lot of people work for. You organizationally assume its impact the same way you organizationally assume weddings and honeymoons are going to happen, the same way you assume your employees may (gasp! horror! woe to the employer’s schedule!) take vacation. If you see it as a problem rather than a reason you have happy productive workers in the first place, then you’re probably viewing your workers as cogs in a machine rather than living breathing humans deserving of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You know, the stuff the military was built to defend.

  14. steve84 says

    Then call it “mandatory”

    The problem isn’t pregnancies, but *unplanned* ones, which can mean that the children are unwanted or the parents aren’t prepared to care for them. And single people becoming pregnant is more of an issue in the military than in normal jobs. Not just for the military as an institution, but also for the women becoming pregnant. The Navy isn’t even discouraging people from having families, it would prefer them to plan their children around shore tours.

  15. John Pieret says

    When I looked at those battleships going into the Mediterranean …

    Um, the US Navy does not presently have any commissioned battleships. Normally that kind of error would be a small thing but for someone professing such expertise in naval readiness …

  16. grumpyoldfart says

    She doesn’t have to worry about the Americans missing their targets. When the Americans go on a killing spree the body count can reach the tens of thousands in next to no time – and they’re prepared to keep shooting for years and years and years.

  17. says

    John Pieret “Um, the US Navy does not presently have any commissioned battleships. Normally that kind of error would be a small thing but for someone professing such expertise in naval readiness …”
    Oh no! The Gays have their own off-the-books navy!

  18. colnago80 says

    Re John Pieret @ #19

    I doubt that Rios knows the difference between a battleship and a gunboat.

  19. vmanis1 says

    I would assume that the only variety of naval ship Ms Rios knows about is the frigate.

    (Acknowledgement: Bel Kaufman’s Up the Down Staircase, where the danger of teaching Emily Dickinson’s `There is no frigate like a book’ in an inner-city English class is explained.)

  20. davideriksen says

    @MO @22

    * In military lingo, “LadServNav-VarRole”.

    As an Army grunt, I must object. The modern army prefers backronyms to that sort of nonsense (I say this having spent 3 years at NavStaGL). Our part of the military would use the term SINGLES*.

    *Serving In the Navy, Girls and Ladies Equally Succeed.

  21. says

    davideriksen, you must’ve missed the memo from ComPacUSCentMilLingAcroComEast* and the publication update to ACP249 US-Supp(M) International Standard US National Lingo and Handshake Procedures, or JANAP146(C) Field [and Stream] Acronym Formatting III: Formatting with a Vengeance. I can see you missing the ACP update, but JANAPFSAF3 should be common knowledge.
     

    * Commander Pacific US Central Military Lingo and Acronym Command (Eastern).

  22. timberwoof says

    Modusoperandi, I see your TPS Report didn’t have the correct TPS Report Cover Sheet attached to it. Did you get the memo on that? I’ll email you the memo. And in future, if you could please submit your TPS Reports with the proper TPS Report Cover Sheets, that would be great.

  23. says

    timberwoof, I followed procedure. The 709-format TPS report and 740-format TPS Report Cover Sheet have been simplified by the PUSPSTTCSSRC (Pentagon and US Postal Service TPS and TPS Cover Sheet Submission Reform Committee, or, informally, “Puspisticserc”) and superceded by the new 718 TPS and TPS Report Cover Sheet Combination Report Form. Your confusion may be due to the fact that, as per SOP, we are temporarily using the 616 POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant) Usage Report, the 228B Report Modifaction and Reporting Report and the 709 Triplicate Leave Request Form (with “Leave Request” scratched out and replaced with “Report Reporting Printing Error or Errors on have ensured that the second carbon copy was removed and disposed of by shredding, burning, pulping or other awesome way of getting rid of things) until the supply chain catches up with a sufficient supply of 718s for units and stations that require them, have been duly authorized them by USCentFormCom (open Mon-Fri, drive-tru available at S Washington Blvd location only, after 4pm phone Pentagon switchboard [703-545-6700], ask for “Wendy”. No fatties), have personnel qual’d on the requisite courses at Fort Logjam (or at their own home unit or next higher command via the [Unit Number Redacted]th “The Filing Dutchman” Mobile Administration Division or designated sub-unit [excluding the 1st "the Fighting Sub-Unit" Anti-Submarine Helicopter and Peter Lorre Fan Club Squadron]) and that have submitted the correct request forms requesting the forms.

  24. says

    Correction. That should read:
    “…and the 709 Triplicate Leave Request Form (with “Leave Request” scratched out and replaced with “Report Reporting Printing Error or Errors on Form), “Triplicate” replaced with “Biplicate”, and having ensured that…” (corrections in italic)

  25. lorn says

    Technically any ship designed to fight can be called a ‘battleship’ and it is used in the popular press as a synonym for ‘warship’. This goes back to the days of sail when the biggest warships were termed ships of the line and further specified by how many cannon they carried. It served to differentiate them from merchant vessels which often carried a few cannon for defense against pirates and competitors.

    Of course nobody in, or around, the navy would call anything but a large ship, heavily armored, with really big rifles as a main battery, a battleship. Doing otherwise gets you a dope slap.

    I wish the homophobes would get their story straight. One day gays are going to take over the military because they are super soldiers and inhumanly cruel to boot, according to that story the SS was full of the gay, the next day, the same people are rattling on about how they can’t shoot straight or operate military equipment.

    This is what happens when the GOP and fundis fail to coordinate their message. Oh for the days when Carl Rove kept everyone on message.

  26. Thumper; Immorally Inferior Sergeant Major in the Grand Gynarchy Mangina Corps (GGMC) says

    I’ve read about how women now are in the ranks of the Navy, getting pregnant at exponential numbers

    *headesk**headesk**headesk*

    doG knows why this bit jumped out at me from amongst all the stupid, but it did.

  27. says

    @30:

    Fuck me. I simply stand in awe of such profligate pedagogical prodigagious proficiency in the use of the almostenglish which is currently in use by the gummint.

    Sandy shoulda called them ships, “Dreadnoughts”; at least her nomenclatural faux pas would be in line with her self-imposed antique sexually repressive views.

    “Yeah and we will be able to save money on arming them because they will have the power of the prayer to smite enemies.”

    Jawbone, Ass, Smiting; Type MA-1a.

  28. dingojack says

    iangould (#33) – I thought we doubters were the ones who were supposed to think all brown people are alike….
    :) Dingo

  29. caseloweraz says

    Rios: “When I looked at those battleships going into the Mediterranean, supposedly getting ready for battle in Syria, I couldn’t help think about all the stories I’ve read about how women now are in the ranks of the Navy, getting pregnant at exponential numbers…”

    That could be a problem, all right. If women aboard a ship on station off Syria began getting pregnant in exponential numbers, the resulting mass imbalance could cause the ship to list to port* and throw the systems that aim the weapons out of alignment.

    *It would never list to starboard because that would submerge the right side.

    /sarc

  30. caseloweraz says

    Rios: “…when I think about the folding in and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the homosexual takeover of so much of our military I’m not sure how effective those naval ships will be.”

    Just the other day we were told that gay gangs were responsible for half the murders in U.S. cities. Now suddenly they’re the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

  31. roggg says

    Good god, exponential numbers! We’ll be overrun! We are on the eve of some very dark times indeed…

  32. John Pieret says

    lorn @ 32:

    Technically any ship designed to fight can be called a ‘battleship’ and it is used in the popular press as a synonym for ‘warship’. …

    Of course nobody in, or around, the navy would call anything but a large ship, heavily armored, with really big rifles as a main battery, a battleship. Doing otherwise gets you a dope slap.

    Which is why I said it normally would be a small thing … and dope slaped her for it.

  33. longstreet63 says

    @32 “Of course nobody in, or around, the navy would call anything but a large ship, heavily armored, with really big rifles as a main battery, a battleship. Doing otherwise gets you a dope slap”

    What, not even a battlecruiser?
    (yes, the last one was scrapped in the 1970′s, but the description is accurate.) What counts as a battleship was always a bit dicey, which is why the switched to saying ‘capital ships’, i.e. “the ones we don’t care to lose” be it a BB, a CV, or an SSBN.
    Almost all naval classification is pragmatically flexible, and mostly seems to revolve around the rank of the commanding officer it rates. Historically, it was even less precise.
    Today, frigates and destroyers are functional classifications, with no connections to the original functional classifications.

    @35: “Sandy shoulda called them ships, “Dreadnoughts”; at least her nomenclatural faux pas would be in line with her self-imposed antique sexually repressive views.”

    Technically, our last battleships were ‘Superdreadnoughts’. Which probably opens a whole can of psychsexual worms…

    I’m sorry. I have an obsession with naval history and that entails a lot of trivia. thank you for bearing with me while i get a grip.

  34. eric says

    @38:

    Just the other day we were told that gay gangs were responsible for half the murders in U.S. cities. Now suddenly they’re the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

    Another fun contradiction: “the muslims will outbreed us! We need more fine young americans having babies” and “oh noes, these fine young military americans are having babies! Exponentially!”

  35. dogmeat says

    Is it sad that I’ve been out of the military for more than twenty years and MO’s comments @ 28, 30, & 31 made sense?

  36. dogmeat says

    Technically any ship designed to fight can be called a ‘battleship’ and it is used in the popular press as a synonym for ‘warship’. This goes back to the days of sail when the biggest warships were termed ships of the line and further specified by how many cannon they carried. It served to differentiate them from merchant vessels which often carried a few cannon for defense against pirates and competitors.

    Actually, not quite accurate. Ships-of-the-line of battle, IE Battleships, were limited to the larger warships of the age, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd raters primarily, though some 4th rate ships might qualify, especially in second and third tier navies. Smaller ships, 5th and 6th rate Frigates for example, were distinctly warships but were not ships of the line and would not have been referred to as “battleships.” Smaller, unrated ships, sloops, brigs, etc., were also still warships, but not ships of the line.

    In the modern era, battleships referred specifically to the main, heavy gun, dreadnought class warships and beyond. Battlecruisers and smaller ships were found to be unable to survive a main battery duel between two forces of battleships. They had specific duties within such an engagement, but were in no way referred to as battleships. Aircraft carriers, which I assume Rios is actually referencing, were auxiliaries initially and then became centerpieces of the fleets, but were still not referred to as battleships. In our current forces we have those nuclear or fleet carriers, cruisers (sometimes referred to as battlecruisers), destroyers, and frigates, but nothing that anyone who even pretended to know what they were talking about would refer to as a “battleship.”

  37. John Pieret says

    dogmeat @ 44:

    Is it sad that I’ve been out of the military for more than twenty years and MO’s comments @ 28, 30, & 31 made sense?

    I’ve been out of the military for 40 [mumble] years but I’m pretty sure Modus was quoting verbatim from the manuals we had back then.

  38. says

    dogmeat & John Pieret, bureaucracy never changes. I’m sure there’s some Mesopotamian plate somewhere with a big “rejected” chiseled over the text, because the original scribe used the wrong chisel*.

    * That there’s probably a perfectly good reason why only certain kinds of chisels were authorized is another post entirely.

Leave a Reply