Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Glad to hear you finally say it. Especially in light of the part you say after this being the exact same thing I've been saying all along. It brings me hope to know that even you can learn.



Honestly, I can't even be asked to read the point you were trying to make out of morbid curiosity NOW, so whatever "pointing out" you were trying to do was completely in vain. It's extremely amusing to me that you've kept talking on and on about this subject to yourself. I told you very plainly that whatever crazy tangent you were going off on, I wasn't going to touch it. My eyes rolled right past it to the parts where you were at least on the topic.

When someone says they aren't going to talk to you about something, maybe you should just accept it at face value rather than pretending like they're avoiding the question. Not everything you say is even remotely interesting enough to acknowledge, which I realize may be a foreign concept to you seeing that you're the center of so much (negative) attention.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you've accepted the point I was trying to make and have moved on to having this other boring conversation that you so desperately wanted to have with people that actually want to have it with you.

Whoops.

Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 8:34am by Jophiel

Last.

No, I'm comparing something not authorized in the military that isn't questioned and is viewed as not being done to other things not authorized in the military that aren't questioned and are viewed as not being done. So, if those examples offend you, just choose something else that fits in those categories.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2011 12:37am by Almalieque

Whoops, I guess not. The military allows gays, though I could be wrong, since your statement really didn't make much sense. Homosexuality isn't authorized even if you're a heterosexual?

Well, whatever you meant to say, my point remains that the military's policy, which many people more qualified than you have already explained, is that while open homosexuality is not allowed, homosexuals are allowed in the military.



The difference is that I enjoyed it. I can spend more money on a prostitute than a trip to the dentist, too. If I haven't made it abundantly clear, I'm not here to engage in a productive discourse with you-- that's essentially impossible anyway.

This is about me not finding everything you say amusing enough to warrant my response.

Oooor, it's like I already told you, and I don't actually read your posts in their entirety. If you're going to repeat yourself over and over, then yes, I'm probably going to respond to it at some time. But let's be clear here: just because it amuses me now doesn't mean it would amuse me then, and that is really the full extent of any "value" in responding to you.



I am so incredibly sad for you that you think I would waste my time forging a quote. Really, I think that looks worse on you than me. You're the only one that is stupid enough to actually believe that it's more likely that I made up a quote than that I just can't find it again (or probably could, just don't care enough to try beyond the two minutes I already did). So yes, I could possibly spend a little time to find it, but really that would only satisfy you. I actually find it much more amusing to use that time entertaining your pathetic ad hominem attacks.



Oh ok... so the fact that what "Mr. Smith" says is presented as the official position on the DoD webpage doesn't matter. Instead, you expect me to believe your interpretation of the policy. You don't realize how incredibly stupid that sounds?

Of course you don't. Realization isn't the forte of the stupid.

That doesn't even make any sense.... You were good at not responding to certain questions on purpose when you were actually reading my posts, so if you decided to respond to them at a later post (because you didn't see it before) that means it was worth value to you. Else, you would have just ignored it like you did that one question for like 4 pages.




You're actually satisfying me by not responding, because it makes you appear more like a liar. You gave what you believed to be a "thread ending" quote that would supposedly counter my argument, WTF would you not reference it? Answer: A) Incredibly stupid, B) Made it up C) Came from a dumb source D) A combination of the three. Those are the only logical answers. So, you can live in denial and pretend as if this is making me look sad, but you're the one who can't google a phrase that you already googled after a few days have passed. Really, who's the idiot? I would rather post the quote under the belief of "satisfying" my oponent rather than admitting that I don't know how Google works.





This.....

This isn't about my interpretation or "Mr. Smith's" interpretation, but what the actual policy says, you know the governing document that you keep avoiding. You can't have a logical interpretation of something you haven't read. You're trying to pretend that I'm arguing against what others are saying. I'm doing exactly the opposite, I'm strictly going off what the policy says. If it so happens to agree or disagree with your sources, then so be it. That's why I'm not wasting time with your sources and focusing on the Policy . So, whenever you want to talk about the policy, then we can actually start the debate.

The simple fact that you didn't understand my quote "Homosexuality isn't authorized in the military regardless if you're a homosexual or a heterosexual" tells me that you're lost. If you understood that quote, you would realize how the military can say that they don't discharge based on sexual orientation and still not authorize homosexuality. This all goes back to that quote from President Obama.

You're not fooling anyone, including yourself.

You specifically choose to avoid certain questions and statements as you stated with President Obama's quote. You only addressed the other questions later because you overlooked it the first 2,3,4 times I stated them. If that isn't true, you look real silly responding to statement claiming that I finally agree with you when I had already said that numerous times before.



I just want you to present something in the policy so we CAN discuss our interpretations.

*sigh*

I've no idea what continually quoting Obama re: Iraq is supposed to mean.

The combat mission ended. We've since been withdrawing troops. We went from ~120,000 in early 2009 to 50,000 by August 2010 and are expected to be down to a couple thousand by the end of 2011 for security and training purposes. Which is keeping with the timetable the administration set up.

Is that supposed to help your argument?

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. Alma thinks that we are all stupid, and we all think that "combat has ended in Iraq" means all of the troops are home and nothing further is going on in the Middle East.

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.

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