Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#52 Dec 20 2010 at 6:12 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Quote:

Noooo... you're not a homophobe at all!


Wow, you're a tool... so, now thinking that someone's *** make you a homophobe as well? I guess there's no limit to the stupidity of that word. Hmmmm. I think that you're white, does that make me racist?

You people need to grow up, this is life. I can talk about being black, white, man, woman, heterosexual, homosexual, Muslim, Jewish, etc. without any negative connotation.

Sir X wrote:
Oh, so the privacy isn't actually your argument then. I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.


No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".

Sir X wrote:
If you didn't treat someone differently based on what you thought about them, why would what you thought being true or not change how you treat someone?


Dude, what part of ASSUMPTION don't you understand?

Have you seen the movie Crash? Sometimes your stereotyping is accurate, sometimes it isn't. You shouldn't just go around judging people based off stuff that you aren't sure on.

Besides, that's the beauty of DADT, even if an individual DID treat someone differently, that individual can't say "I don't want to room with him/her b/c s/he's ***" with no proof.
#53 Dec 20 2010 at 6:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You people need to grow up, this is life. I can talk about being black, white, man, woman, heterosexual, homosexual, Muslim, Jewish, etc. without any negative connotation.
Talking about how you take pride in not treating 'lesbos' and *** men any differently despite knowing about their sexual preference certainly has a negative connotation and makes the statement itself implausible. For example, "I can think that Almalieque is a substandard thinker exemplary of everything that is wrong with current society, but hey, that doesn't affect the way I treat him." You believe me? Hint: You shouldn't.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Oh, so the privacy isn't actually your argument then. I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.


No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".
I'm female. Any female lives with the occasional man leering and catcalling in the street unless she's a complete mess. In the workplace, sexual harassment policies exist to protect the workplace as a non-threatening environment. I can take someone to HR for slapping my ***, but simply thinking it's a hot *** and that they would like to tap it is not actionable, and therefore irrelevant to policy. A man can think you're hot and yet somehow restrain his mouth and eyes and hands from molesting you in the workplace. If he can't, then you have an actionable offense. The fact that he is hetero doesn't even come into play.

____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#54 Dec 20 2010 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Canada, [...] ****, 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.
Something's wrong with this.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 8:19am by Uglysasquatch


LOL seemed odd to me too but I thought it was just a typo.

Besides as a Canadian thats I give my oil to the US for basically nothing jut so their War machine is always able to come to my aid. Just like the promised us back in the 50's. P.S. **** you Diefenbaker.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#55 Dec 20 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Canada's army is actually kind of bad *** at times.

Example 1.

Example 2.

And Alma, you made an assumption that we've all given evidence against. Why are you defending it again? I can't just assume gravity doesn't exist and ignore evidence to the contrary.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#56varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 9:09 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Just one more thing our young soldiers are going to have to think about.
#57 Dec 20 2010 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Most of the military didn't want this.

Whether or not this is accurate is irrelevant. Most of the civilian public did want it. The military works for the civilian public, not the other way around. If you want a country where the military calls the shots, there's plenty of options available to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Dec 20 2010 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Whether or not this is accurate is irrelevant. Most of the civilian public did want it. The military works for the civilian public, not the other way around. If you want a country where the military calls the shots, there's plenty of options available to you.


And it actually is inaccurate to begin with. The vast majority of the military said they wouldn't mind or wanted the repeal. This is according to a study released by the Pentagon, not some fanatical, untrustworthy group. Only some of the top-tier generals and most combat-stationed forces were against it.

And Joph is right--the military doesn't get to create its own rules. Well, actually, it often does, but that's a separate problem. It exists to serve the nation--not the other way around.

[EDIT]

Also,

A. Since when is it part of the liberal agendy to weaken the military? You act like they are actively trying to kill off soldiers.

B. What some liberals (myself included) would like to see is a more focused and smaller military. We spend more on ours than all the rest of the world combined. And it is retarded. Until WWII, we were a nation that avoided military conflict when possible (well, minus killing off those disgusting savages!) Since then, we've been perpetually at war.

I would not be opposed to a military with less external presence in favor of a strong national defense. And that means we would stop being the policemen of the world and our soldiers would stop dying in other peoples' fights.

C. MOST politicians are all for cutting excess spending of the military. The problem is that none of them want to bring that up, and the ones who do can't make a direct case because most programs are classified. There's tons of spending that could be cut without hurting the military at all because they are research programs for technologies everyone is fairly sure will never work. Cutting them, or at least redirecting the funds to a project that is expected to yield usable results, seems like a good idea to me.

D. I'm not really sure why I responded to varus at all...

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 10:39am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 Dec 20 2010 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes
#60varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 9:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) idiot,
#61 Dec 20 2010 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Wow, I'm happy you're as racist as you are retarded.

A. A stronger national defense as a trade-off to less international presence does not mean I want a weaker army. It means I want the army to focus more on protecting the US than every other nation. Because all that does is ensure that every corrupt gov't on the planet has us as the enemy.

B. Of course the democrats are forcing through votes. We're about to have a lame duck congress. We'll see little to no policies passed on either side in the next 2 years. If they don't pass now, they won't pass at all.


Hey, I have an idea, how about we give varus a potato gun and ship him to Afghanistan? A human shield would certainly be useful in at least one fire fight, no? And he's all for making the military stronger.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#62 Dec 20 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Atomic Flea wrote:
Talking about how you take pride in not treating 'lesbos' and *** men any differently despite knowing about their sexual preference certainly has a negative connotation and makes the statement itself implausible. For example, "I can think that Almalieque is a substandard thinker exemplary of everything that is wrong with current society, but hey, that doesn't affect the way I treat him." You believe me? Hint: You shouldn't.


You got lost in the train of thought.

My statement was a response to questions on how people treat other "assumed" homosexuals. I responded that I don't treat them any differently. I wasn't talking in pride, I was answering questions.

Atomic Flea wrote:
I'm female. Any female lives with the occasional man leering and catcalling in the street unless she's a complete mess. In the workplace, sexual harassment policies exist to protect the workplace as a non-threatening environment. I can take someone to HR for slapping my ***, but simply thinking it's a hot *** and that they would like to tap it is not actionable, and therefore irrelevant to policy. A man can think you're hot and yet somehow restrain his mouth and eyes and hands from molesting you in the workplace. If he can't, then you have an actionable offense. The fact that he is hetero doesn't even come into play.


I don't even want to get into the "sexual harassment" discussion. I'm not sure how's it like in the civilian world, but in the military EVERYTHING is sexual harassment. Because of that, I try to limit my interaction with female coworkers all together. It's much safer.
#63 Dec 20 2010 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Because of that, I try to limit my interaction with female coworkers all together. It's much safer.


Understandable, one might overhear you calling her a ***** and get ****** or something.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#64 Dec 20 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
varusword75 wrote:
idiot,

Quote:
I would not be opposed to a military with less external presence in favor of a strong national defense. And that means we would stop being the policemen of the world and our soldiers would stop dying in other peoples' fights.



Thanks for proving my point; we know you, and every other Dem/liberal, on this board hate the military. Doing things like this drives an even greate wedge between the two factions in this nation.

The only reason Obama and congress are working late now is because they know the american people are sick of this type of sh*t and it's going to stop when the new congress is sworn in.

And for the record i'm not so sure Obama is going to sign off on this to begin with. The black community likes the homosexual community even less than their white counterparts.


Edited, Dec 20th 2010 10:51am by varusword75


? I didn't think being opposed to a useless war meant you hate your military. I don't like paying for my countries soilders in Afghanistan, payin to help people who do not appreciate or want our help, paying to help people who after 8 years are not even attempting to help themselves. Does that mean I hate my military? No it means I hate the mission. Put them someplace like the Ivory Cost and help the people there that are about to go through a hella ****** time, people who can not help themselves and people who have always been vry grateful for assistance in dealing with rogue warlords.

Supporting troops doesn't mean you have to like what they do. I support american troops and I am canadian, I do not support their mission, the reasoning behind the mission, nor the people that decided that they would send these sons, fathers, husbands, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, daughters off to fight in a place they are not wanted or appreciated. Just because people do not support the War means they want to see the men and women serving in it to die. Quite the contrary they want them to come home and stop dieing for a needless cause. Unless you can give me a reason to be in afghanistan that doesn't include, Osama Bin Laden, Terrorist Cell, Al Qaeda, or democracy.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#65 Dec 20 2010 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".
I don't think the issue is the same privacy issue with men and women. If you can't explain what you mean by that, or why you think that it's exactly the same it's sort of a strange point to make.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
If you didn't treat someone differently based on what you thought about them, why would what you thought being true or not change how you treat someone?
Dude, what part of ASSUMPTION don't you understand?

Have you seen the movie Crash? Sometimes your stereotyping is accurate, sometimes it isn't. You shouldn't just go around judging people based off stuff that you aren't sure on.

Besides, that's the beauty of DADT, even if an individual DID treat someone differently, that individual can't say "I don't want to room with him/her b/c s/he's ***" with no proof.
Well, from your initial posts, including in past threads you seemed to be very confident that people generally knew who was *** and who wasn't, that it wasn't just a WAG. I also don't think you can somehow separate what you think the way you're saying. If someone has a problem rooming with gays, and is fairly certain the person he's sharing a room with is ***, then whether or not that person admits it won't really have too much impact on what he thinks. You're attributing some magical significance to the ability for someone to confirm publicly, and I don't see that.

I don't know the details, do people have a lot of choice generally in who they room with? What would be an acceptable reason to ask for a change of roomate? Why would being *** without DADT allow someone to complain and change their room?
____________________________
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
#66 Dec 20 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.
God are you that stupid? Our soldiers are living, showering and billeting together under DADT?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#67 Dec 20 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Flea wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote, to idiggory: wrote:



And Alma thinks gays are icky, which is fine as it is his right to do so. There is no need to "argue" with him about other reasons why he doesn't support DADT repeal, as the "Alma thinks Gays are icky" is the root cause & everything else is BS.
So please stop.




Whoa, sparklepony. Who died and made you Alla? I find it humorous that you are asking for a halt to upstanding debate (if you can call taunting a moran debate, which in here, you certainly can) when you yourself are sitting in the back of the metaphorical point bus.

The focus of his argument is the total lack of comprehension of what constitutes an enforceable policy or law vs. public ideology. Someone can think all day long that brown people are lawnmowing jobstealers who shoot out anchor babies like fireworks, but as long as they don't violate a policy or break a law by doing so, then I have jacksh*t to say about it. You can't regulate thought, so the fact that anyone thinks that gays are icky is ******* POINTLESS.


My post was directed at idiggory, as his gbaji length responses to alma ******* up threads on here seems to elicit gbaji-er responses from Alma himself which may one day lead to an actual gbaji response so long it will create one of the mini-black holes that even the LHC failed to create.

Even if that would help support string theory.

The rest of you can & should continue throwing shit at the monkey.

____________________________
"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


#68 Dec 20 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Default
Ya but you don't know who is *** and who isn't. So that means it is entirely safe.Smiley: rolleyes Of course its not like suddenly thousands gays are going to come out of the word work just because they can. I mean why put yourself in the line for unnecessary persecution if you don't have to.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:42am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#69 Dec 20 2010 at 10:44 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
The bottom line is, while the exclusion of homosexuals might have been due to prejudice and there might be people who still support those reasons, those have been the minority of what I've seen in my experiences in the military. This has also been stated by the generals in question, there's no denying that, so I'm not sure why people are trying to argue against me.

So, there is no addition in throwing in articles from the past, because I'm talking about my personal experiences and the generals who "just so happen" express the same thing.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes


This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!

Locke wrote:
Understandable, one might overhear you calling her a ***** and get ****** or something.


oooorrrrr something more realistic like get offended by a joke, sexual reference, a compliment or a date request... since the word "***" is somehow sexual harassment. I know I didn't want get in this discussion, but it's better than replying to people like Idiggory making up crap to argue that he hasn't any clue what he's talking about. Besides all I did was correct a false claim made and then I get thrown on the "hots seat" as defending x,y and Z.


The problem with sexual harassment isn't the *** part, it's the harassment part. People ASSUME that every sexual reference, rather if it's a natural biological reference or not, is harassment even though no one was actually harassed.

Sexual harassment for one person isn't the same for someone else.
#70 Dec 20 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Seems to remind me of when blacks were first allowed to join openly the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whites, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


just for fun:

Quote:
when blacksgays were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesstraights, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean whitestraight boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


Quote:

Seems to remind me of when blackswomen were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesmen, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


whoa double deja vu.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:48am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#71 Dec 20 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
varusword75 wrote:


Most of the military didn't want this. This is all you need to know. But because a few radicals think otherwise I guess we need to change what's worked to create the most effective and most powerful military on the earth.





Most of the military didn't want to integrate in the 40s either; was that a valid argument against de-segregating the military back then?

Majority does not rule when it comes to civil rights. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner and it's not going to be the sheep.
____________________________
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.
#72 Dec 20 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
Seems to remind me of when blacks were first allowed to join openly the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whites, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


just for fun:

Quote:
when blacksgays were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesstraights, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean whitestraight boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


Quote:

Seems to remind me of when blackswomen were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesmen, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


whoa double deja vu.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:48am by rdmcandie
I've never heard anyone use the argument that gays and/or women shouldn't be in the military because they wouldn't care as much.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#73 Dec 20 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sir X wrote:
I don't think the issue is the same privacy issue with men and women. If you can't explain what you mean by that, or why you think that it's exactly the same it's sort of a strange point to make.


The comparison to women is the best explanation because it's the same thing. Let's start here then. Explain to me how they are different.

Sir X wrote:
Well, from your initial posts, including in past threads you seemed to be very confident that people generally knew who was *** and who wasn't, that it wasn't just a WAG. I also don't think you can somehow separate what you think the way you're saying. If someone has a problem rooming with gays, and is fairly certain the person he's sharing a room with is ***, then whether or not that person admits it won't really have too much impact on what he thinks. You're attributing some magical significance to the ability for someone to confirm publicly, and I don't see that.

I don't know the details, do people have a lot of choice generally in who they room with? What would be an acceptable reason to ask for a change of roomate? Why would being *** without DADT allow someone to complain and change their room?


You're overlooking the fine detail. You can be 100% sure that a person is a homosexual, but you can't ask for another roommate because your roommate is ***, because there is no proof. It's really that simple. If the dude is banging his bf in your room, then now you have proof and a potential reason for a new roommate.

How that person acts towards their roommate will vary for each person. I cant speak for everyone, but I do know you can't kick a guy out for wearing a pair of skinny jeans.
#74 Dec 20 2010 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
The majority of the military isn't opposed to having gays openly serving with them, so I'm not sure why Varus is making the blatantly false statement that they are.

He could bring up that the majority of marines and combat troops specifically are opposed, but then it's trivially easy to also point out that the vast majority of marines and combat troops who knowingly served with a *** service member had no issues with it.
#75Almalieque, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 10:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.
#76 Dec 20 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes while learning nothing from them.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (71)