Senate Repeals DADTFollow

First time I've ever been accused of being sensible.

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.

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

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.



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...

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.

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.

Thanks.. I apologize for not being detailed enough..