Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next »
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#952 Jan 24 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
This really is the only sensible thing left to say in this thread.
____________________________
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.
#953 Jan 24 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
This really is the only sensible thing left to say in this thread.

First time I've ever been accused of being sensible.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#954 Jan 24 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
There's a first time for everything Moe.
____________________________
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.
#955 Jan 24 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
It's somehow meant to show that taking a quote from a speech isn't the same as the actual wording of a bill or piece of legislation.

But... troop movement isn't legislated :(


The analogy obviously isn't perfect, Joph. This is Alma we're talking about here.


My analogy is perfect, because it's based on political talk and not legislation. Rather you or other posters on this thread believed that President Obama meant the end of the war, others did. My point is that you can say something that is true, but be misleading. People's concern about the wars weren't the name of the war or the motive of the war, it has always been the destruction, violence and death involved. Absolutely none of that has changed. Just about everyone in my graduating class is going to a unit that is deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq. We are all just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission. So, why have there been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war?

The same reason why a homosexual person STILL can't serve openly in the military till this day and people aren't discussing it in the media. This has nothing to do with legislation, but wording.

The bottom line is that homosexuality can discharge a heterosexual or a homosexual. So, to say that the military doesn't discriminate against your sexual orientation is misleading because nothing in the rules has changed prior to DADT on homosexuality. The rules are exactly the same except, you don't say and they won't ask. That holds true for spousal abuse, child molestation, prostitution, drug trafficking, etc., that doesn't mean that you're AUTHORIZED to do those things. Furthermore, if you actually read the policy, it states every measurable way of homosexuality as reason for discharge.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#956 Jan 24 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
People's concern about the wars weren't the name of the war or the motive of the war, it has always been the destruction, violence and death involved.

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#957 Jan 24 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The rules are exactly the same except, you don't say and they won't ask. That holds true for spousal abuse, child molestation, prostitution, drug trafficking, etc., that doesn't mean that you're AUTHORIZED to do those things. Furthermore, if you actually read the policy, it states every measurable way of homosexuality as reason for discharge.


The army can't ask if you've been breaking the law...? Somehow, I highly doubt that.
#958 Jan 24 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The rules are exactly the same except, you don't say and they won't ask. That holds true for spousal abuse, child molestation, prostitution, drug trafficking, etc., that doesn't mean that you're AUTHORIZED to do those things. Furthermore, if you actually read the policy, it states every measurable way of homosexuality as reason for discharge.


The army can't ask if you've been breaking the law...? Somehow, I highly doubt that.


Didn't say that they couldn't, but they don't ask you upon entry or for no reason. The point being that not asking you if you participate in those things doesn't mean that you're authorized to do so.

I know the two things that are you trying to address.

1) The law vs a military rule: I've already addressed this. Sodomy isn't illegal but against the UCMJ. You aren't asked if you participate in Sodomy and can only be discharged for a BJ by the SAME exact notions for a discharge for homosexuality. That doesn't mean that you're authorized to do so. That is just one example.

2) The military "can't" question your sexual orientation: If you read the policy, the military can't question, pursue or investigate your sexuality without reason. For example, you can't start an investigation because Joe wore a pair of skinny jeans. That doesn't mean the military can't do those things.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#959 Jan 24 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,728 posts
Nadenu wrote:
*sigh*
#960 Jan 25 2011 at 1:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Therefore, Kachi using a quote from a speech to support his argument isn't effective because everyone making a speech is deliberately putting a spin on their words to make the general public (those of us not enlisted and therefore not super super intelligent like Alma) believe something that isn't true... like that the military is suddenly allowing homosexuals to enlist in the military.


That's what I suspected, but I wasn't quoting a speech-- I was quoting the official declarations of position by the military, so his argument was as sadly irrelevant as I expected. Good thing I stuck to my guns about not wasting any time on it.

Quote:
I mean seriously, it would take like 3 posts to end this one way or the other.


You've been the last man standing for how long? The burden of proof has been on you for a while now-- don't think that I've been humoring you beyond anything that humored myself. How does it benefit me to acquiesce to the only person who disagrees with me, and thus far has only demonstrated an obstinate refusal to accept defeat?

Besides, I can end it in one:

You're starting to bore me.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#961 Jan 25 2011 at 6:04 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Kachi wrote:
That's what I suspected, but I wasn't quoting a speech-- I was quoting the official declarations of position by the military, so his argument was as sadly irrelevant as I expected. Good thing I stuck to my guns about not wasting any time on it.


How ironic... Instead of listening to me, the source, you take on someone else interpretation. Wow, that's kinda like how you ignore the source, the policy, and follow someone else interpretation, a random slide show.

Kachi wrote:
You've been the last man standing for how long? The burden of proof has been on you for a while now-- don't think that I've been humoring you beyond anything that humored myself. How does it benefit me to acquiesce to the only person who disagrees with me, and thus far has only demonstrated an obstinate refusal to accept defeat?

Besides, I can end it in one:

You're starting to bore me.


I'm still waiting for that reference of your quote...

The burden has always been on you. I quoted directly from the policy and you haven't. If you want to use someone else interpretation, fine, do it as long as they also quoted the policy. You have yet done either.

If your references sourced the policy, show me exactly where they did so. If your references did not do so, then their interpretation is as good as anyone else.
You've been boring me for quite a while, I was just trying to make sure this will hit 20 pages...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#962 Jan 25 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I was just trying to make sure this will hit 20 pages...


Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#963 Jan 25 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My analogy is perfect.... Absolutely none of that has changed. Just about everyone in my graduating class is going to a unit that is deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq. We are all just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission. So, why have there been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war?



Wrong again O' Ignorant one.

Average Casualties in Iraq per month from start of war until Obama's declaration of the end of combat operations (Sep 1,2010): 52.6
Average Casualties in Iraq per month since said declaration: 3.6

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx (you'll have to do the math yourself)

Hardly "just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission". And that is why there has "been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war".

The only perfect thing about you is your inability to recognize your own stupidity. You're really just embarrassing yourself at this point. Please, shut up and go away, for your own good.
#964 Jan 25 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#965 Jan 25 2011 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#966 Jan 25 2011 at 12:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
My analogy is perfect.... Absolutely none of that has changed. Just about everyone in my graduating class is going to a unit that is deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq. We are all just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission. So, why have there been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war?



Wrong again O' Ignorant one.

Average Casualties in Iraq per month from start of war until Obama's declaration of the end of combat operations (Sep 1,2010): 52.6
Average Casualties in Iraq per month since said declaration: 3.6

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx (you'll have to do the math yourself)

Hardly "just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission". And that is why there has "been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war".

The only perfect thing about you is your inability to recognize your own stupidity. You're really just embarrassing yourself at this point. Please, shut up and go away, for your own good.


Sooooooo.. there exist casualties??? Wow, thanks for supporting my point. Any idiot knows that there are less deaths now then there were in 2001. I was never arguing that. I'm saying that servicemen that serve in Germany, Korea, Japan and other previous war locations aren't concerned about being killed by natives as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the violence is still there in high volumes. When Iraq and Afghanistan turns into the next "Germany", then people will stop caring. As long as there exist IEDs, mortars, etc., people will care.

So, the only person looking stupid is you... so please follow your own advice.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#967 Jan 25 2011 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Holy mother of christ, you're an idiot.

I have to hand it to you, I didn't think anyone could possibly be more obtuse than Virus, but you've managed it. Kudos to you. Please don't procreate.
#968 Jan 25 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
My analogy is perfect.... Absolutely none of that has changed. Just about everyone in my graduating class is going to a unit that is deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq. We are all just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission. So, why have there been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war?



Wrong again O' Ignorant one.

Average Casualties in Iraq per month from start of war until Obama's declaration of the end of combat operations (Sep 1,2010): 52.6
Average Casualties in Iraq per month since said declaration: 3.6

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx (you'll have to do the math yourself)

Hardly "just as much subjected to violence, destruction and death then as others were before the declaration of the ending of the combat mission". And that is why there has "been a decrease of negative publicity in regards with the war".

The only perfect thing about you is your inability to recognize your own stupidity. You're really just embarrassing yourself at this point. Please, shut up and go away, for your own good.


Sooooooo.. there exist casualties??? Wow, thanks for supporting my point. Any idiot knows that there are less deaths now then there were in 2001. I was never arguing that. I'm saying that servicemen that serve in Germany, Korea, Japan and other previous war locations aren't concerned about being killed by natives as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the violence is still there in high volumes. When Iraq and Afghanistan turns into the next "Germany", then people will stop caring. As long as there exist IEDs, mortars, etc., people will care.

So, the only person looking stupid is you... so please follow your own advice.


Actually, based on the numbers, 50k troops and 3.6 deaths per month the death rate is .864 per 1000, which is significantly less than the German death rate of 11 deaths per 1000.

Which would put serving as a US soldier in Iraq today at a 12-13 fold lower chance of mortality in a given year than a German citizen picked at random.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#969 Jan 25 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
Holy mother of christ, you're an idiot.

I have to hand it to you, I didn't think anyone could possibly be more obtuse than Virus, but you've managed it. Kudos to you. Please don't procreate.
I don't think Alma's more obtuse than Varus. Certainly more persistent though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#970 Jan 25 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Actually, based on the numbers, 50k troops and 3.6 deaths per month the death rate is .864 per 1000, which is significantly less than the German death rate of 11 deaths per 1000.

Which would put serving as a US soldier in Iraq today at a 12-13 fold lower chance of mortality in a given year than a German citizen picked at random.
I think Alma was talking about US troops stationed in Germany vs US troops in Iraq.

Also:
Timelordwho wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
!
____________________________
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.
#971 Jan 25 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Aethien wrote:
I think Alma was talking about US troops stationed in Germany vs US troops in Iraq.


Thanks.. I apologize for not being detailed enough..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CST
Bijou, tribalfusion009, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (37)