Senate Repeals DADTFollow

I don't imagine We is, with a thread like this still going. How about you get a more effective Last! working in here.

No, ******. I said that particular quote came from the MILITARY, which it did. It came from a powerpoint that they used to train military leaders on DADT policy. As you should know, you can't google a string of words from a powerpoint and get it to return on a search. The fact remains that a simple google search yielded me the DoD page in seconds, explaining the policy on DADT, and that glancing through the other hits, they all said the same thing. But you're going to write off the DoD, so what source would be good enough?

Apparently, the most authoritative source on the subject as far as you're concerned, is you.

I can easily see why people refer to you as a gbaji/varus hybrid. You rather artfully display the worst qualities of the both of them. I never thought it possible for there to be a more detestable poster than varus (aside from the comedic value), but at least he's concise with his idiocy.

Congratulations on being my new least favorite person, you poster-child of an irredeemable child-poster.

But people would view it differently. While you may want to deny it, perception is reality on something like this.

I should point out that I'm replying to this: you may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 6:45pm by Uglysasquatch

No it's because you're almost as dumb as varus and equally bad at debating.

Explain...

Everyone's "Explanation" is their original claim.

You say almost as dumb as Varus... but people have agreed to other posters as being idiots(even on this thread), yet I'm not compared to them. Why? They agree with the mass. Do you think it's a coincidence that I'm only compared with the people who tend to argue against the mass? Or do you believe the only "stupid" people on these forums are myself, Gabaji and Varus? If not, there should be a stupidity comparison with these other posters as well.

Second, bad at debating? I present the governing document on the subject and ask my opponent to substantiate his claim in that document and he refuses to. How exactly is that "bad at debating"? He uses a slide show documentation that probably came from some random unit doing EO/legal training and he argues that somehow trumps the actual Homosexual Policy? Really? Seriously? Do you believe that? That isn't a rhetorical question either. Do you or do you not believe the actual Homosexual Policy trumps any contradictory language presented in a slide show? If there is a contradiction, which would you agree is actually correct?

Seriously, you guys will have to come up with more than "that's the way it is" if you want any sensible person to believe that. When I got rated down in a Merry Christmas thread for saying "Merry Christmas", it was blatantly obvious that people are not judging my content. They just don't like me. Others have admitted to that in this thread. So let it go.

Because they're not idiots in 90%+ of their posts. Unlike you and varus.

You are re-imagining the disagreement to your liking--casting yourself as more flattering and the person you dislike as less so--and then repeating it back to someone hoping they'll accept your interpretation. That is what children do when asked to tell their story about a disagreement with another child.

Is there a comedy show that hasn't done the joke at least once?

Regardless of whether everyone else in this thread is wrong or not, I hope you are at the very least aware of why people argue with you. To pretty much everyone here, you are a joke. You are not taken seriously. People do not have debates with you because they are interested in your opinion or because they wish to prove something to you. They are merely providing quotes for you to respond to because they want to hear a ridiculous refutation. They leave because they become bored.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 7:45pm by Allegory

Why on EARTH would Obama be the most authoritative source on the subject of DADT? He wasn't even a federal employee when DADT was implemented.

All you keep saying is, "Show me in the policy!" You know damn well that it doesn't say explicitly one way or the other in the policy, just like many other legislative amendments and even the ******* constitution. The legislators who presented DADT explained the purpose of their legislation when they presented it-- I linked you to that, and you weren't satisfied. The Department of Defense, who is responsible for understanding the meaning of the legislation, explained what it meant-- I linked it to you, and you weren't satisfied. I quoted you from a powerpoint that the military used to train their leaders on the policy-- you demanded a link, and when I couldn't find it, you called me a liar.

You've very transparently created a situation where your demands for being convinced that you're wrong are so unreasonable that they cannot be met, where any reasonable intelligent person would have looked at the evidence I presented and said, "Ah, I stand corrected." Or if you were gbaji, you would have changed the subject. Claiming to be open-minded and then demanding an unreasonable level of proof makes you look like a fool, and to no great surprise, that's what everyone thinks of you.

Now, I'd like to point out that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I don't even think gbaji is an idiot-- just not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and determined to try to make smart arguments for stupid positions, and usually failing (like you, except without this next part). However, he at least makes a decent point from time to time and clearly has some intelligence even if he applies it in the most inappropriate of ways. It'd be a feat if he didn't as much as he writes. But I don't think I've ever seen you say anything that even resembles something a smart person would say. If I didn't take your word that you have some sort of job, I'd swear you were a middle-schooler, which honestly makes the fact that you're an adult that much sadder.

And that's why this thread, as I imagine many others are, has become about why you're a buffoon. I hope you resist the urge to pull out the first defense mechanism in your ******* to preserve your misguided self esteem, and instead actually take a moment of critical introspection to grow as a person. Hell, I will be impressed if you just shut up.

Uh... I was making the transition to the war in Iraq, you know, that entire block that you conveniently looked over. Why don't you reread that and explain to me how the Commander and Chief can say that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still over there?

If you can't see the relevance, then you can't be helped. The Commander and Chief implies that the war in Iraq is over
when it really isn't. He didn't necessarily lie, he just left out all of the details when saying that, because that's what people wanted to hear. President Obama is over the DoD and I just showed you in his speech how it was very misleading from the truth. So, your "The DoD said so" does not trump what's clearly written in the policy. Just like President Obama's words don't trump the fact that we are still in Iraq.



That's funny, because I quoted in the policy where it contradicts your claim. All I'm asking you to do is to do the same. There is nothing wrong with using other people's interpretations to substantiate your claim from the policy, but you have to actually make one first.

This is why I'm "****" about your response. You have made ZERO effort in reading the policy. You're not even thinking for yourself. I presented to you a counter argument to your claim using the policy and instead of taking the time out to read the policy to find a counter to that argument, you post what other people say. So, if you want to use their opinion to help yours, then fine, but at least have a statement to work off of.



Oh, you mean, the same department whose Commander and Chief said that the war in Iraq was over? Yeaaaaaa.... forgive me for not being a blind idiot.



If you remember correctly, I assumed at first that you just read it out of context. That's the reason why I asked you to post the link. I gave you plenty of time to find it.. "I can't find it" at this point, is complete and utter BS, even if the quote did exist. You can look at your posts to see what day you posted that quote, go look in your broswer's history and go to that specific day and pull it up. I find it hard to believe that you can't remember the words that you googled. I find it even harder to believe that you went past the first or second page of results. So either way, you're not putting any effort into it. You're either lying, lazy or a lazy liar. Pick one.

Besides, a slide show does not trump the policy. My last OPD that consisted of our BDE legal literally skipped the DADT slides saying that it didn't matter because President Obama was going to repeal it anyways and any case would just bring unwanted negativity from the media to the BDE CDR, unit and the military in general. He didn't write that down in his slides, but said it. None of that is substantiated in the policy, that was 100% his opinion. So forgive me for not being a blind idiot.




Unreasonable? I'm asking you to use the Homosexual Policy, the governing document on this situation, as the foundation of your argument, not what somebody else said. HTF is that unreasonable? You're just being too lazy to do your own homework. Even if the policy wasn't straight forward, if it really means what the others claim to mean, then surely you would be able find something from the policy to at least support your claim. I didn't read the whole thing myself, so maybe there's a sentence that completely contradicts my entire claim. I don't know.. but you wont know until you actually read it yourself.



Really? So you honestly believe public nudity has nothing to do with personal privacy? Yea, man, you're delusional. If you can't think of any intellectual argument that I've made, then you're plum delusional. I already listed some positions that I've made in previous arguments and I could go on and some people would only object to them if I said I were for them, plain and simple.



Really dude? Seriously? When you get the cojones to read the policy and argue with me what really matters, the governing document, then you can talk about growth and development. At this point,you're so delusional that you're believing in your own lies as truth.

Three things:

1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.

2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.

3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.