Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#1 Dec 18 2010 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
65-31

As long as Obama signs off on it, as he says he will, the ban on gays in the US military is over.

And not a moment too soon. Nothing terrifies a terrorist more than a flaming queen with a rifle skipping towards him.

:D
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#2 Dec 18 2010 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,212 posts
It will not happen until the Sec Def, and the Joint Chiefs say its ok to do so. They now have permission to do it, but may postpone it until it is "safe" to our military needs.
____________________________
For Truth, Justice, and the Norrathian Way!
Tinkering is a trade skill which will not prevent the mobs from hitting you.
#3 Dec 18 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Kind of a double ended sword. I mean sure the gays gained a few basic rights and were partially acknowledged as equals, but now I've got one less situation to gaudily say "You can't have a first class nation with second class citizens!"

Edited, Dec 18th 2010 5:42pm by Allegory
#4 Dec 18 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Allegory wrote:
Kind of a double ended sword. I mean sure the gays gained a few basic rights and were partially acknowledged as equals, but now I've got one less situation to gaudily say "You can't have a first class nation with second class citizens!"

Edited, Dec 18th 2010 5:42pm by Allegory
Well, I don't think varus is going to die anytime soon, so you still have plenty of ammo.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#5 Dec 18 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Allegory wrote:
Kind of a double ended sword. I mean sure the gays gained a few basic rights and were partially acknowledged as equals, but now I've got one less situation to gaudily say "You can't have a first class nation with second class citizens!"
Plus I've lost my draft-dodging ace in the hole
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#6 Dec 18 2010 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Don't be silly Bard, like they were gonna let us poor ****** out of the draft. DADT clearly wasn't going to seem so important if we were in a war that actually required the draft.

And the bill can't go into affect for another 60 days, so hopefully the pentagon won't take much longer than that to change procedures.

I'm not really sure why that would take long (other than deliberately delaying it). I mean, how is it not as easy as "Okay, don't report people for being ***--done?--and those undergoing investigations now are cleared?"

The only thing I could see being difficult is readmitting dismissed members with their benefits intact.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#7 Dec 18 2010 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Senators Snowe and Lieberman deserve exceptional credit for fighting to make sure this bill passed.

Senators Ensign and Burr are cowardly shits who refused to vote to end the filibuster but then jumped on the bill once the filibuster was defeated and it was obvious the bill would pass.

Edited, Dec 18th 2010 7:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Dec 18 2010 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
*
139 posts
Jonwin wrote:
It will not happen until the Sec Def, and the Joint Chiefs say its ok to do so. They now have permission to do it, but may postpone it until it is "safe" to our military needs.


Actually, if I recall correctly, there's been some sort of hearing involving the top brass of the armed forces. I do believe all of them but the Marine Corps said they approve of repealing DADT, and General Amos pretty much summed it up as, "We're Marines. We follow orders."
#9 Dec 18 2010 at 11:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#10 Dec 19 2010 at 1:35 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
LIBERAL ACTIVIST JU... Oh, wait.
#11 Dec 19 2010 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,289 posts
Allegory wrote:
Kind of a double ended sword.


Super ***?
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#12 Dec 19 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
*
53 posts
Finally.

DADT was just a horrible idea. All the arguments for it that I've heard (morale, unit cohesion, etc) were used in the 40s before they de-segregated the military, and I'm glad there's one less policy in this country that downgrades *** people.

____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#13 Dec 19 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
They were literally the same argument. Except that the discrimination against gays was worse in ways. Of course, the black guy couldn't hide the fact that he was black. But he was still allowed to serve in some capacity. Th gays just got kicked out and stripped of all their pensions (some of which were the result of over a decade in the service).

And is it just me, or are lesbians in the military more logical than straight women in the military? I mean, the lezzie isn't gonna get preggers, for starters. And have you seen butch lesbians? I would NOT f*ck with them.

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...

Plus, the policy itself was destroying unit cohesion actively. A few months ago, a veteran flight nurse was kicked out for being a *******. I REALLY doubt the bleeding soldier was going to care that he and the lady ensuring he doesn't die have more in common than he would have thought. Plus, "all right, ******* nurse!"

Same thing for soldiers kicked out of combat troops. Do you think the guys would prefer another person there to help, or for the icky *** to go away? There's a reason comrade testimony has been such a huge part of reinstating gays into the military in the last year.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14Almalieque, Posted: Dec 19 2010 at 3:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.
#15 Dec 19 2010 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
*
53 posts
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...


o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...


There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#16 Dec 19 2010 at 4:27 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
SuperAtheist wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...


o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...


There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?


Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.
#17 Dec 19 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
*
53 posts
Almalieque wrote:


There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?

Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.


That's an argument for separate bedding/showers, not an argument for DADT.

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 5:36pm by SuperAtheist
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#18 Dec 19 2010 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
SuperAtheist wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?

Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.


That's an argument for separate bedding/showers, not an argument for DADT.

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 5:36pm by SuperAtheist


I'm sorry if you fail to see the connection.
#19 Dec 19 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
An argument that comes down to "them gays are icky so we don't want the real men to have to shower with them" which is pretty sad.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#20 Dec 19 2010 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
So now that the bill has passed, I'm curious as to what defenses those who opposed the repeal will offer in a few years.

I'd wager the most popular response will be:

"I was never opposed to the repeal. I was just opposed to a rash implementation. Republicans were always in favor of homosexuals serving in the military, but we wanted to make sure it was done right."
#21 Dec 19 2010 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Dec 19 2010 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Also, you are assuming that the reason separate showers exist in the first place is due to sexual desire. Frankly, it seems more true to me that it has to due with a sense of modesty--Men don't expose themselves to women and vice versa. There's nothing a *** man has that the straight man doesn't.

Let me put it this way--why might a straight man be uncomfortable in a co-ed changing room? Do you think it's because he will feel like other people in there are sexually attracted to him? No. Not a chance. It's because he feels like it is immodest.

Some people will be fine with it. Some women may not want to change because they feel like the men might be looking at them sexually. But I doubt any of the straight men don't want to change for that reason.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my instinct.

So not wanting to change in the same room as a *** is solely because you think gays are disgusting on some level.

Oh, another note, studies have shown that homophobia is often linked to homosexual desire. Just saying.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#23Almalieque, Posted: Dec 19 2010 at 7:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Which has proven the point being argued. I talked to a friend about this last night on the phone and she said exactly what I said before. A lot of us already know who's ***. I can't speak for the circumstances of people being booted. For the most part, people don't care during the work day. More people care when it comes to living arrangements.
#24 Dec 19 2010 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
You bring up the privacy issue, but why would there be a privacy issue with *** men that wouldn't be there with straight men? What is the issue of privacy?

My other comment would be that if as you've said people are generally aware of who is *** and seem to be fine with it, then where do these privacy issues suddenly come from? Or are there a bunch of issues, and we're just not aware of them.

Edited, Dec 19th 2010 7:39pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#25 Dec 19 2010 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Iddigory wrote:
And it's no different than if you showered at a gym.

And guess what, no one who isn't brain dead should care in the first place. Why? Because you are delusional if you think every *** guy wants to have *** with you.


Oh, yea that's right, *** men aren't attracted to men... what was I thinking.... o.O... I thought by now people would drop that stupid argument. So, I guess you think heterosexual men aren't attracted to lesbians?


Holy ****, this has got to be the most stupid argument from you ever. And that's saying a lot.

And don't fuCking ask me to explain.
#26 Dec 19 2010 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together.

Canada, the UK, Israel, France, Germany, Russia... ****, practically every other military on earth worth mentioning has figured out how to make it work. I'm sure we'll figure it out somehow.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)