varusword75 wrote:
Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT.
lulz.
Try reading again for comprehension.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Repeals DADT
Senate Repeals DADTFollow
lulz.
Try reading again for comprehension.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Thanks Shaow. :3
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,
I'm right. That's all you had to say.
Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT. So if officers in the military wanted to be hard ****s they could ask every single person under their command about their sexual orientation and dismiss anyone who says they are *****.
That this is just a minor technicality makes no difference.
I'm right. That's all you had to say.
Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT. So if officers in the military wanted to be hard ****s they could ask every single person under their command about their sexual orientation and dismiss anyone who says they are *****.
That this is just a minor technicality makes no difference.
Bahaha, totally wrong. DADT is still the law until they finish writing up the new guidelines. If an officer asked about orientation right now the officer would be let go.
Edit: Dang, what Joph said.
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 1:26pm by LockeColeMA
I'm constantly amused by the conservative desire to find a simple silver bullet for all their problems. And invariably a silver bullet that defies all logic but they tell themselves that they know better and their bullet really does kill monsters that scare them. You completely throw out any notion that the people actually involved in it have a clue and insert your own hopes and dreams in the form of authoritative statements that completely contradict those uppity "experts".
Global Warming? "I bet those scientists never heard of the Medieval Ice Age!"
Obama's Presidency? "I bet he doesn't have a birth certificate!"
DADT Repeal? "Instead of allowing gays to serve, this will just make it so no gays can serve at all!"
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 12:37pm by Jophiel
Global Warming? "I bet those scientists never heard of the Medieval Ice Age!"
Obama's Presidency? "I bet he doesn't have a birth certificate!"
DADT Repeal? "Instead of allowing gays to serve, this will just make it so no gays can serve at all!"
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 12:37pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Well at least they moved on from "It was God".
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
varusword75 wrote:
And as I understand it homosexual acts are against the UCMJ, which is the law for the military.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Technically, the army only defines "unnatural carnal copulation" to mean **** or oral sex.
Though I'm trusting about.com as my source.
Oh, and SURPRISE, the army has it's own definition of statutory rape. You're totally allowed to do a 16 year old girl, as long as you only put it in her ****** and it isn't by force.
Wow. I REALLY hope the military takes a look at this article when editing out DADT.
Because, really, what % of the military has violated it when on leave if it includes blow jobs? C'mon, it's probably huge.
Frankly, the rule should be something like--No sexual activity while deployed and not on leave. No raping people. No sticking it in kids.
Oh, and they aren't fucking around about no kids under 16 though. 12-16 years, among other things, is 20 years in prison. Under 12 is life, no parole. So I'll give them some credit on the statutory rape thing.
[EDIT]
With a technical reading of that, women can receive all the oral sex they want. And you are perfectly free to use your tongue on the guy--just not the mouth.
This article is horribly written (even ignoring how stupid the mandates are).
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:41pm by idiggory
Though I'm trusting about.com as my source.
Oh, and SURPRISE, the army has it's own definition of statutory rape. You're totally allowed to do a 16 year old girl, as long as you only put it in her ****** and it isn't by force.
Wow. I REALLY hope the military takes a look at this article when editing out DADT.
Because, really, what % of the military has violated it when on leave if it includes blow jobs? C'mon, it's probably huge.
Frankly, the rule should be something like--No sexual activity while deployed and not on leave. No raping people. No sticking it in kids.
Oh, and they aren't fucking around about no kids under 16 though. 12-16 years, among other things, is 20 years in prison. Under 12 is life, no parole. So I'll give them some credit on the statutory rape thing.
[EDIT]
Quote:
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or **** the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or **** of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
With a technical reading of that, women can receive all the oral sex they want. And you are perfectly free to use your tongue on the guy--just not the mouth.
This article is horribly written (even ignoring how stupid the mandates are).
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:41pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
varusword75 wrote:
The real question you should be asking yourself is what gives your party the right to change every law they don't like
Majority votes. Super-majority votes in the case of the Senate.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The irony here of course being that the Constitution is in place to protect the rights of the minorities.
You're a very, very confused man, Varus. Try spending some time off the buckle of the Bible belt and maybe you'll come to realize that your abhorrently twisted view of reality is at best laughable and at worst capable of causing physical sickness and disgust.
You're a very, very confused man, Varus. Try spending some time off the buckle of the Bible belt and maybe you'll come to realize that your abhorrently twisted view of reality is at best laughable and at worst capable of causing physical sickness and disgust.
varus, you so silly. :P
But I don't give a rat's *** about tradition. That's one of the worst defenses you could give about a retarded law. Traditions are nice, but they should be left to parades and sh*t. Laws should evolve as the times do.
Though I notice no one ever uses tradition to defend the ones they don't like. Like hosting a Ramadan feast at the White House, which was first done by Jefferson (I'm pretty sure--too lazy to fact check?)
[EDIT]
Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:48pm by idiggory
But I don't give a rat's *** about tradition. That's one of the worst defenses you could give about a retarded law. Traditions are nice, but they should be left to parades and sh*t. Laws should evolve as the times do.
Though I notice no one ever uses tradition to defend the ones they don't like. Like hosting a Ramadan feast at the White House, which was first done by Jefferson (I'm pretty sure--too lazy to fact check?)
[EDIT]
Quote:
You're a very, very confused man, Varus. Try spending some time off the buckle of the Bible belt and maybe you'll come to realize that your abhorrently twisted view of reality is at best laughable and at worst capable of causing physical sickness and disgust.
Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 3:48pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...
Speaking of super-majorities, I'm sure you're all breathless to hear that the START treaty passed with 71 votes.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
iddigory,
Then you don't give sh*t about the constitution. But we already knew this.
Quote:
But I don't give a rat's *** about tradition.
Then you don't give sh*t about the constitution. But we already knew this.
Quote:
But not sexual deviants. Just because you label a class a "minority" doesn't make it so.
LOL DO U SEE WUT I DID THAR?! I DID WUT U DID
The difference is: they are objectively verifiably a minority.
idiggory wrote:
Though I notice no one ever uses tradition to defend the ones they don't like. Like hosting a Ramadan feast at the White House, which was first done by Jefferson (I'm pretty sure--too lazy to fact check?)
This is (mostly) true. 1805, Jefferson hosted the Tunisia representative and agreed to change the time to past sunset in respect of Ramadan.
Tunisia was also the first country to recognize the US as a new country. Yay Muslims!
lilwoc,
Fortunately the christians, jews, muslims, and just about every other organized religion in the world agree with me.
You know there's got to be something to it if the jews and muslims actually agree on it.
Quote:
Just because you label a class "sexual deviants" doesn't make it so
Fortunately the christians, jews, muslims, and just about every other organized religion in the world agree with me.
You know there's got to be something to it if the jews and muslims actually agree on it.
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,
Fortunately the christians, jews, muslims, and just about every other organized religion in the world agree with me.
You know there's got to be something to it if the jews and muslims actually agree on it.
Quote:
Just because you label a class "sexual deviants" doesn't make it so
Fortunately the christians, jews, muslims, and just about every other organized religion in the world agree with me.
You know there's got to be something to it if the jews and muslims actually agree on it.
Bard,
But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.
Quote:
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.
But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.
Considering they all are branches of the same original book (the Old Testament), your argument is complete ****. Variations on a theme often have some relation to the central theme, you know? It's beside the point that the Supreme Court has ruled again and again that we can't discriminate based on sexuality and that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state. (As it was by the founding fathers you adore so much) Your religion doesn't matter here, varus.
varusword75 wrote:
Bard,
But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.
Quote:
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.
But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.
I didn't know you kids still followed that thing.
I saged Lewo (or someone else did and I got to experience it). :D
He probably start humping the chair with all the excitement
And @varus, that's the weakest argument I've ever heard. I don't respect the constitution out of tradition, I respect it because it's the backbone of our entire country. I think it was decently written at the start, and has gotten better with additional amendments (mostly). But I'm not opposed to striking amendments if they prove to be poisonous overall.
But there are certain ones that I won't give up--Amendment 1 is frankly the one I care most about, which is funny, because it's the one the right hates the most. Most amendments I would not want to give up. Some, like 3 are archaic and pointless (and if troops want to be quartered in your home, it's because you are in a fucking war zone and you better be happy they are there). I don't give a crap about 2, frankly. Most people are better off without guns.
Quote:
If I wasn't so damned sure he'd decline or go apesh*t at the event, I'd invite him to a few of the live debates that I have from time to time. We live probably no more than 30 minutes away from each other, and I'd just love to see him stammering to try to pull the sh*t he does here in the presence of real people.
He probably start humping the chair with all the excitement
And @varus, that's the weakest argument I've ever heard. I don't respect the constitution out of tradition, I respect it because it's the backbone of our entire country. I think it was decently written at the start, and has gotten better with additional amendments (mostly). But I'm not opposed to striking amendments if they prove to be poisonous overall.
But there are certain ones that I won't give up--Amendment 1 is frankly the one I care most about, which is funny, because it's the one the right hates the most. Most amendments I would not want to give up. Some, like 3 are archaic and pointless (and if troops want to be quartered in your home, it's because you are in a fucking war zone and you better be happy they are there). I don't give a crap about 2, frankly. Most people are better off without guns.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
lilwoc,
Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.
And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.
Quote:
that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state.
Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.
And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,
Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.
And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.
Quote:
that the first amendment is interpreted as a clear separation of church and state.
Separation from church and state. Not that I expect you to know the difference.
And it was never mentioned in the constitution. So no it's not in there.
@idiggory - You've jinxed me. Or I'm just being a particularly big cnut today. Either way.
Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:26pm by LeWoVoc
Recent Visitors: 266
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Repeals DADT
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC