Almalieque wrote:
Depending on what you are defining.. There's a Soldier that I work with that I would bet plays for the wrong team and he's not being open about anything.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue
Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow
Depending on what you are defining.. There's a Soldier that I work with that I would bet plays for the wrong team and he's not being open about anything.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2228Almalieque,
Posted: Jan 29 2012 at 11:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That wasn't my intent. Your response appeared to have not placed any thought in my response, so I decided to repeat myself. If you're actually willing to take a moment and consider what I'm saying, then I have no problem trying to explain it in another way. People have admitted to not actually reading what I write, so it doesn't make sense for me to put any additional effort.
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Depending on what you are defining.. There's a Soldier that I work with that I would bet plays for the wrong team and he's not being open about anything.
Don't know.. I walked pass him googly eying some half naked stereotypical gay looking dude in the computer lab. When his boss (as a gay joke) sat on his lap, he didn't even react.. just sat there and continued to talk as if it were normal..
I could be wrong, but if I had to guess, I would say that he has sugar in his tank.
Almalieque wrote:
ugly wrote:
Repeating your "point" word for word doesn't help change my opinion on your answer being no. Expadning might, but I doubt it.
That wasn't my intent. Your response appeared to have not placed any thought in my response, so I decided to repeat myself. If you're actually willing to take a moment and consider what I'm saying, then I have no problem trying to explain it in another way. People have admitted to not actually reading what I write, so it doesn't make sense for me to put any additional effort.
As I said, it depends on how you look at it. Fire power did not, will not and can not be affected by the change, so therefore, of course it hasn't changed.
Women have become more open, because lesbians are more socially accepted and there were pretty obvious from the start anyway.
I have not seen any men come out as part of the reason why DADT was put in place from the beginning. So, you can take that however you want.
On the other end, given the above statement, the military has gotten much weaker in defending the needs and wants of the military as opposed to political agendas for elections.
So, the ability of the military to function as a fighting force wont be affected until more men become open. As long as they stay closeted, it will be no change like before, except not getting kicked out when found out. It will most surely take a downfall then overtime move it's way back up. That's true for anything. If the military went Co-Ed, it would have severe problems at first, then over time, it will be Star ship Troopers.
That, right there, is some amazing logic.
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Depending on what you are defining.. There's a Soldier that I work with that I would bet plays for the wrong team and he's not being open about anything.
Don't know.. I walked pass him googly eying some half naked stereotypical gay looking dude in the computer lab. When his boss (as a gay joke) sat on his lap, he didn't even react.. just sat there and continued to talk as if it were normal..
I could be wrong, but if I had to guess, I would say that he has sugar in his tank.
You do realise that not every straight guy flips out when another straight guy sits on their lap, right?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Depending on what you are defining.. There's a Soldier that I work with that I would bet plays for the wrong team and he's not being open about anything.
Don't know.. I walked pass him googly eying some half naked stereotypical gay looking dude in the computer lab. When his boss (as a gay joke) sat on his lap, he didn't even react.. just sat there and continued to talk as if it were normal..
I could be wrong, but if I had to guess, I would say that he has sugar in his tank.
You do realise that not every straight guy flips out when another straight guy sits on their lap, right?
Who said anything about flipping out?
It's part of a running joke. The average guy would go along with it and ask for more and do something back.. that's why it's called a "gay joke". There is a percentage of men that would move out of the way. There's a minority that would flip out. "Positive" or "negative", there's some sort of reaction. Not, saying or doing anything is suspect.
Why? Maybe he wasn't interested in your juvenile joke? Maybe he doesn't have a sense of humour?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Almalieque wrote:
On the other end, given the above statement, the military has gotten much weaker in defending the needs and wants of the military as opposed to political agendas for elections.
Quote:
So, the ability of the military to function as a fighting force wont be affected until more men become open. As long as they stay closeted, it will be no change like before, except not getting kicked out when found out. It will most surely take a downfall then overtime move it's way back up.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Just reading the euphemisms that Alma uses to tell you that someone is a homosexual is disgusting. "Playing for the wrong team," "Has sugar in his tank." Could you be any more immature?
It does lend some credence to the "you're gay and you won't admit it" theories. Especially since he apparently spends so much time analyzing ways to convince people that someone's not gay.
It does lend some credence to the "you're gay and you won't admit it" theories. Especially since he apparently spends so much time analyzing ways to convince people that someone's not gay.
#2236Almalieque,
Posted: Jan 29 2012 at 3:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 1. It wasn't my joke,.. I already stated that EO complaints will increase with that type of behavior.
I think they are just indicative of his strongly hostile attitude towards gays.
For future reference Almalieque: "He bats for the same team" is the usual euphemism. "has sugar in his tank" is just plain offensive, indicating that there is something wrong with how he works as a person.
Shame on you. If someone thinks or behaves in a way you disagree with strongly, but they aren't actively harming anyone else, or themselves, shouldn't you live and let live?
Obviously you feel harm from just being around gays in the military.
For future reference Almalieque: "He bats for the same team" is the usual euphemism. "has sugar in his tank" is just plain offensive, indicating that there is something wrong with how he works as a person.
Shame on you. If someone thinks or behaves in a way you disagree with strongly, but they aren't actively harming anyone else, or themselves, shouldn't you live and let live?
Obviously you feel harm from just being around gays in the military.
Ugly wrote:
The military has always been on the hook to political agendas. Always. Having gottenm hit by it again, make sit no weaker than any other political agenda that has affected it. Actually, this one was pretty small in comparison to others that have hit it.
Continuing making the "same mistake" doesn't weaker you? Really?
So I guess making less mistakes doesn't make you stroner either? So.... what makes you stronger? No change? Ugly wrote:
The ability of the military as a fighting force is not certain to be affected.
That makes no sense. If the people of the military are unhappy, then the their performance is at stake. That's really the bottom line.
Ugly wrote:
Other nations that have allowed homosexuals to serve haven't been affected. History actually points to there being no serious problems and the small one there were, were negligible and overcome fairly quickly.
That's why I wrote "So, the ability of the military to function as a fighting force wont be affected until more men become open. As long as they stay closeted, it will be no change like before, except not getting kicked out when found out. It will most surely take a downfall then overtime move it's way back up. That's true for anything. If the military went Co-Ed, it would have severe problems at first, then over time, it will be Star ship Troopers."
People will overcome any comfort issue over time. That doesn't make it right. I was talking with a friend today and she was saying how sad it is that people are used to getting rocketed because it happens so much.
Almalieque wrote:
2. If he weren't interested in that joke, then he would have taken some form of offense. He didn't take offense, because it didn't bother him.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
That makes no sense.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Belkira wrote:
Just reading the euphemisms that Alma uses to tell you that someone is a homosexual is disgusting. "Playing for the wrong team," "Has sugar in his tank." Could you be any more immature?
Read Below
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
The wrong team??
Tool
Belkira wrote:
It does lend some credence to the "you're gay and you won't admit it" theories.
Please explain your theory.
Belkira wrote:
Especially since he apparently spends so much time analyzing ways to convince people that someone's not gay.
?
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
2. If he weren't interested in that joke, then he would have taken some form of offense. He didn't take offense, because it didn't bother him.
Shame on you, Ugly. The proper heterosexual response is to throw them off you and jump up and down, frantically pawing at your pants to try to brush all the gay atoms off.
Oh, and for your info, I can totally see how just treating someone like a soldier isn't contradictory with DADT. My point is that people with other personality traits such as religiousness, atheism, progressiveness, conservatism, femaleness, different cultural or racial backgrounds etc don't have to hide those traits if and when they ever come up. Even if it's rare or it never comes up. Which is not fair when ****** have to lie about or hide those traits if and when they ever come up. Even if it's rare or it never comes up.
And I threw femaleness in there because there was a long period in western history when desperate or interested women joined military forces even when it was totally illegal for them to do so. They went to great lengths to hide their gender, but even so it was wither obvious from the get go what they were, or they were usually eventually sussed out. But in almost ALL cases, fellow soldiers and commanding officers turned a blind eye, and documented them and referred to them by their male pseudonyms. It only got awkward when they distinguished themselves in battle, and really had to be awarded a medal, and a public medal ceremony couldnt' be avoided. Lots of discreet warnings and straight faces by civilian politicians, who didn't always understand why women were illegally welcomed/tolerated in the military. (Most military were glad that there were other volunteers who made up numbers to be shot at, most civilians were revolted at the idea of women being put in harm's way.) Now women get to openly join the military, even if they are rightfully treated like any other soldier.
And I threw femaleness in there because there was a long period in western history when desperate or interested women joined military forces even when it was totally illegal for them to do so. They went to great lengths to hide their gender, but even so it was wither obvious from the get go what they were, or they were usually eventually sussed out. But in almost ALL cases, fellow soldiers and commanding officers turned a blind eye, and documented them and referred to them by their male pseudonyms. It only got awkward when they distinguished themselves in battle, and really had to be awarded a medal, and a public medal ceremony couldnt' be avoided. Lots of discreet warnings and straight faces by civilian politicians, who didn't always understand why women were illegally welcomed/tolerated in the military. (Most military were glad that there were other volunteers who made up numbers to be shot at, most civilians were revolted at the idea of women being put in harm's way.) Now women get to openly join the military, even if they are rightfully treated like any other soldier.
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think they are just indicative of his strongly hostile attitude towards gays.
For future reference Almalieque: "He bats for the same team" is the usual euphemism. "has sugar in his tank" is just plain offensive, indicating that there is something wrong with how he works as a person.
Shame on you. If someone thinks or behaves in a way you disagree with strongly, but they aren't actively harming anyone else, or themselves, shouldn't you live and let live?
Obviously you feel harm from just being around gays in the military.
For future reference Almalieque: "He bats for the same team" is the usual euphemism. "has sugar in his tank" is just plain offensive, indicating that there is something wrong with how he works as a person.
Shame on you. If someone thinks or behaves in a way you disagree with strongly, but they aren't actively harming anyone else, or themselves, shouldn't you live and let live?
Obviously you feel harm from just being around gays in the military.
If that offends you, then you don't want to hear the "that's more wrong than two ........".. But, according to you all, the military was all for the repeal...This is the military environment.. It will eventually change, but your ignorance is astounding.
You too...are a tool.
Alma apparently can't tell the difference between someone who is comfortable with their sexuality and can take a gay joke or two. Then again the guy could be a huge puffer. I think Alma is just upset that the guy won't admit or deny it, because I am willing to bet Alma has a crush on this guy. Don't ya, ya big lug...gushing over the unit fairy.
On another note, why the @#%^ does it concern you if he is open about it or not? I thought you wanted DADT to be reinstated, I mean if that is the case why do you care if he smokes **** behind the barracks, considering under DADT he wouldn't be able to tell you and keep his job anyway.
Edited, Jan 29th 2012 5:07pm by rdmcandie
On another note, why the @#%^ does it concern you if he is open about it or not? I thought you wanted DADT to be reinstated, I mean if that is the case why do you care if he smokes **** behind the barracks, considering under DADT he wouldn't be able to tell you and keep his job anyway.
Edited, Jan 29th 2012 5:07pm by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
2. If he weren't interested in that joke, then he would have taken some form of offense. He didn't take offense, because it didn't bother him.
What was his motive? Was he sitting on you while making a sexual pass at you?
I thought it was a joke? If it was a joke it was a joke. If it was a sexual pass it was a sexual pass. This is why made up stories are fun, so many angles to pick them apart. You jealous that he wasn't staring at you Alma?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
2. If he weren't interested in that joke, then he would have taken some form of offense. He didn't take offense, because it didn't bother him.
Shame on you, Ugly. The proper heterosexual response is to throw them off you and jump up and down, frantically pawing at your pants to try to brush all the gay atoms off.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Arip wrote:
Oh, and for your info, I can totally see how just treating someone like a soldier isn't contradictory with DADT. My point is that people with other personality traits such as religiousness, atheism, progressiveness, conservatism, femaleness, different cultural or racial backgrounds etc don't have to hide those traits if and when they ever come up. Even if it's rare or it never comes up. Which is not fair when ****** have to lie about or hide those traits if and when they ever come up. Even if it's rare or it never comes up.
To reference post 206, you're acting like homosexuals are special and the only ones that have to "pretend" to be something that they aren't, etc.
Arip wrote:
And I threw femaleness in there because there was a long period in western history when desperate or interested women joined military forces even when it was totally illegal for them to do so. They went to great lengths to hide their gender, but even so it was wither obvious from the get go what they were, or they were usually eventually sussed out. But in almost ALL cases, fellow soldiers and commanding officers turned a blind eye, and documented them and referred to them by their male pseudonyms. It only got awkward when they distinguished themselves in battle, and really had to be awarded a medal, and a public medal ceremony couldnt' be avoided. Lots of discreet warnings and straight faces by civilian politicians, who didn't always understand why women were illegally welcomed/tolerated in the military. (Most military were glad that there were other volunteers who made up numbers to be shot at, most civilians were revolted at the idea of women being put in harm's way.) Now women get to openly join the military, even if they are rightfully treated like any other soldier.
Except they aren't treated the same as men... Hmmmm.. Nice try though..
Friar Bijou wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
2. If he weren't interested in that joke, then he would have taken some form of offense. He didn't take offense, because it didn't bother him.
Shame on you, Ugly. The proper heterosexual response is to throw them off you and jump up and down, frantically pawing at your pants to try to brush all the gay atoms off.
Oh, my bad. I forgot that the military has a different protocol.
You're supposed to jump on the guy like a live grenade.
Edited, Jan 29th 2012 5:26pm by Eske
If I ever have a child, I'm going to show it this thread every time it misbehaves.
Recent Visitors: 67
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (67)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC