Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#127 Dec 20 2010 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
I was just surprised you went to the trouble to link a poll.

Being able to show I'm right is never "trouble".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Dec 20 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
RDD wrote:
It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.


Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?


My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, ***, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small *****, or a large *****. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#129varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 3:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#130varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 3:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) wonderboy,
#131 Dec 20 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
wtf does that have to do with anything you idiot.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#132varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 3:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) wonderboy,
#133 Dec 20 2010 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

I didn't bring it up, but it's fun to see just how twisted I can make the panties of those who should be wearing something else.


All my men wear panties or they wear nothing at all.
#134 Dec 20 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
varusword75 wrote:
wonderboy,

You mean besides negating your idiotic assertion that homosexuality is biological?




Seems to me that it is, one of my best friends is ***. I grew up and enjoyed girls, he grew up and enjoyed other guys. Having known him my whole life he has never once looked at a girl, he has never kissed a girl, he has never dated a girl. His room at home was decorated with boy bands, and male models, while mine was of half naked chicks and big boobs.

If he made a solid choice to be ***, he did so basing it off no personal experience with the other side, he made it when he was 8 when he told everyone he likes guys. Ironically around the same age that girls start liking boys, and boys still think they are icky.

But since there is no hardcore proof either way, what does 2 people choosing to have *** with each other have to do with anything. What is your point.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#135varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 5:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wonderbread,
#136 Dec 20 2010 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:

For all you know he could have walked in on his mom getting rammed in the as* at age 3 and that twisted his little mind against hetero-*** for the rest of this life.
ITT Varus recalls repressed memories.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#137 Dec 20 2010 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Far more likely that it was his dad/uncle and uncle going at it. While his mother/aunt taped. Explains both him and his homophobia.

Dammit, I was going to avoid this thread until my paper was done. >.<
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#138 Dec 20 2010 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
A lame duck session of congress ramming through social change on an electorate that clearly doesn't want it...

Heh


Great example of the difference between what people want in the abstract and what they support directly:

Do you think homosexuals / gays and lesbians who DO publicly 
disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the  
military or not?" 
						 
 
                Should be	Should not      Unsure 
                allowed         be allowed 			 
		% 	        % 	        % 		 
12/9-12/10 	77 	        21 	        2 


and...

 
"Do you think the current Democratic Congress should repeal the  
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and allow *** men and women to serve  
openly in the military or do you think they should not repeal it so  
they continue to serve but not openly?" 
						 
 
		Should repeal 	Should not  Unsure 
                                repeal 		 
     		% 	        % 	    % 		 
	 
11/15-18/10	47 	        48 	    5 


So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed. Confused poll takers? Who knows? I just always find it interesting how different wordings of what is essentially the same question can so dramatically change the outcome of the poll.


What's interesting is that when the issue is asked without any association to an action people overwhelmingly support allowing gays to serve openly. But when its associated with a specific legislative action, the support drops. And the more specific the association, the lower it drops. If they ask just about whether "federal legislation" should be repealed, 58% say it should be. But when DADT is specifically named, that number drops.


Doesn't have anything specific to this topic. It's just an observation about poll results themselves.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 5:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Dec 20 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Dec 20 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm
orz ?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#141 Dec 20 2010 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm


Er? One poll has a 55 point margin saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military over those who say they should not serve.

Another poll, taken within a month of the first has a 1 point margin saying that DADT should not be repealed over those saying that it should.


You don't see how those margins are massively different based on how the question is asked?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Dec 20 2010 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,046 posts
Gbaji, I give you a hint.

You might like to double check the dates of when the two polls were taken.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#143 Dec 20 2010 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm
Er?

Heh. I'll leave it to you to try and noodle this one out.

Have fun with it.

Edit: I don't know that there's anything wrong with the dates.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 8:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Dec 20 2010 at 10:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
A. You are comparing polls from two different sources. How about you compare a poll from the SAME poll, especially when it covers the same period. Assuming a news source polls its viewers, then each one is going to have at least SOME skew one way or another. The point is to try and evaluate all the data from each source to figure out the feelings of the public per time period.

So, the first poll you linked is from ABC. It shows increasing support for an appeal over several years, with a massive increase over the early 90s.

[EDIT] Note--this is my minor opposition. B is the important part of this post. [/EDIT]

B. The second poll you referenced gives no other data for comparison over time. Furthermore, it adds an additional factor into the mix. Note that the question was *NOT* "should DADT be repealed?" It was "should the CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS" repeal DADT.

If you were someone that supported the repeal, but worried about being rushed (which is what the majority of republican senators claimed as their position), you'd vote against it.

Furthermore, that poll was taken before the pentagon released its report saying the repeal would have no significant affect on combat effectiveness, which would have disbanded a lot of concern for people worried about "rushing" a repeal. Notice how the repeal actually passed this time around due to that report...

But thanks for trying.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:56pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#145 Dec 21 2010 at 5:46 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sir X wrote:
Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.


Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

Wow, didn't you know support those things... surely there is more to simply being different that causes you support any form of segregation or discrimination.

Sir X wrote:
You don't seem to be understanding what I was saying but whatever. You're getting caught up in the legality of DADT which wasn't my point at all.


It seems that your point is that a person's attitude towards an assumed homosexual isn't going to change overnight when that person comes out of the closet, because you already "knew" that the person was homosexual. Am I right? If so, I've addressed your concern.

Sir X wrote:
Given how he can't explain or quantify the privacy issue, I don't think he really understands it beyond "it's an argument he's heard from some top people" We'll see, I'm playing his 20 questions game he loves so much, so maybe he'll let me in on the secret. I think he agrees with the privacy argument, but it's hard to tell, maybe he doesn't and he's just arguing it for no reason.


Although I never thought of it until someone else mentioned it, this isn't just because the "top people" are using it, just an argument that I figured more people could relate to because the "top people" are using it. You knew from the beginning that this was a game, as you stated.

You know that this was all a game from the start. You never thought the two were the same, but you pretended that you did think they were the same just so I can make my argument the basis of your argument. When you realized that you couldn't get anything from me, then you admitted that you don't think the two were the same. If this weren't a game, you would have stated that from the beginning. So, if I have to look "silly" to get my point across, then so be it.

Belkira wrote:
I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.


Uh, they both aren't on the same scale. Your sexuality has nothing to do with getting shot at so that's a fail comparison. You're actually doing the same exact thing the bigots against homosexuals are doing. You're making a false comparison to someone's lifestyle to the ability to perform their duty. Many people joined the Army to be in combat, so getting shot at, isn't considered a "problem" to them because that's what they joined up for.

Personally, I would rather be in combat than have someone's junk in my mouth and I'm sure many military people would agree.

Belkira wrote:
It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule.


So, you have no problem taking a communal shower with guys? In the cases where you KNOW the person might be interested in you? You missing the whole concept of DADT. The whole point is that no one knows. DADT causes people to behave a certain way. Repealing that allows them to act differently.

If the people didn't change, then there wouldn't be a reason to repeal DADT now would it?

Besides, I'm sure there are some homosexuals who chose not to join because of DADT

Belkira wrote:
You've got issues, Alma.


Explain.. If you disagree with the concept of removing yourself from potential problematic situations, then you my friend, is the one with problems.


Nadenu wrote:
That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or ***. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privac


If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?
#146 Dec 21 2010 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or ***. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privac


If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?


Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or ***.
#147 Dec 21 2010 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Locke wrote:
I'm not sure if you were responding to "People take offense to such things"; "It happens, it's not uncommon"; or "You might want to just think before you speak?"


I was referring to "Instead of segregating yourself". That's the problem with society, instead of being proactive and not placing themselves in potential problematic situations, they are reactive.

1. I wont because I wont say anything because I wont be there.
3. No, I took a step further. I believe people should remove themselves from potential problematic situations. In doing so, you are "thinking before talking".

I had this very same argument with a female coworker not too long ago and she said the same thing as you "just think before you talk, don't segregate". Starting that day, I started pointing out all of the sexual references the females were saying in class. This creates a false environment that it's ok to say such things because not many people complain when women say sexual things. Since *** is the topic of the conversation, the guy thinks it's ok to talk about *** and says the wrong thing. Instead of guessing what is PC and what isn't, just don't say anything at all, unless you really know your audience.

Locke wrote:
Point was right in my part you quoted: "If you think they might take offense, don't say anything."
Also,


Exactly, that's my point.


#148 Dec 21 2010 at 6:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.


Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?
That was quite the leap you took there. That's like me saying since you like yellow, you must hate red.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


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

#149 Dec 21 2010 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#150 Dec 21 2010 at 6:45 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
RDD wrote:
It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.


Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?


My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, ***, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small *****, or a large *****. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.


RDD, you're a tool.
So I guess you believe heterosexual men aren't attractive to hot lesbians, only heterosexual women.. This talk that homosexual men are LESS sexual than heterosexual men is nonsense. Men are men.

Afraid of what? You're just throwing around terms and false accusations to make you seem right. Learn something from politics, smearing your opponent doesn't always make you look good. Doing so makes you look stupid.

Nadenu wrote:
Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or ***.


I completely agree, but that's now how the system works. I'm all for complete open showers. But

#151 Dec 21 2010 at 6:53 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.


Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?
That was quite the leap you took there. That's like me saying since you like yellow, you must hate red.


I know it is. I'm just pointing out the reality that there has to be more to it than "they are different". If you can't justify the discrimination, then it probably shouldn't occur and simply being different isn't a justification.

lolaxe wrote:
The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.


Any real officer already knows that s/he knows nothing and must rely on the Soldiers and NCO's to be successful. I took a lot of flak because I don't get into that politic nonsense.. I care about two things, the mission and my subordinates.. Take care of your subordinates, they take care of you and the mission, which makes your immediate supervisor happy and his/her supervisor happy and everyone's happy.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 85 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (85)