Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#252 Dec 22 2010 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Dec 22 2010 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Thanks Shaow. :3
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#254 Dec 22 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
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.


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
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#255 Dec 22 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256 Dec 22 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Well at least they moved on from "It was God".
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#257 Dec 22 2010 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
******
49,889 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And as I understand it homosexual acts are against the UCMJ, which is the law for the military.
UCMJ prohibits any act of sodomy, which would also include getting blow jobs from your wife. In fact, its Article 125: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite *** or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#258 Dec 22 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Technically, the army only defines "unnatural carnal copulation" to mean **** or oral ***.

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 *** 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.
#259varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 2:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#260 Dec 22 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
#261 Dec 22 2010 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
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.
#262 Dec 22 2010 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
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]
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.
#263 Dec 22 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
Wait, that's the worst it can do??? Crap, I should probably see my doctor...
If I wasn't so damned sure he'd decline or go ******* 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 **** he does here in the presence of real people.
#264varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 2:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) littlwoc,
#265 Dec 22 2010 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
#266 Dec 22 2010 at 3:00 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
iddigory,

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.

#267 Dec 22 2010 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
But not sexual deviants. Just because you label a class a "minority" doesn't make it so.
Just because you label a class "sexual deviants" 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.
#268 Dec 22 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
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! Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#269 Dec 22 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
lilwoc,

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.
#270 Dec 22 2010 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

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.
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of ****.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#271 Dec 22 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Bard,

Quote:
Jews and Muslims also agree that Christians are full of sh*t.


But all three of them agree that homosexuality is a sin.

#272 Dec 22 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
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.
#273 Dec 22 2010 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Bard,

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 don't know my bible too well but from what I recall most references to homosexuality are in the Old Testament...

I didn't know you kids still followed that thing.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#274 Dec 22 2010 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
I saged Lewo (or someone else did and I got to experience it). :D

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.
#275 Dec 22 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
lilwoc,

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.

#276 Dec 22 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lilwoc,

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.

You do realize it's the job of the SCotUS to interpret the Constitution, right? You do realize that you don't get to reinterpret it because it doesn't fit your worldview?


@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
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (49)