Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#1077 Nov 05 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I like my definition better!
I'd say it makes his posts more interesting ...

But it doesn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1078 Nov 05 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Please quote me where.


Alma, #1052 wrote:
Do you or do you not believe that racial quotas and minority scholarships are racial discrimination?

Alma wrote:

All you did was say why racial discrimination is necessary. No where did you quote my statement and say no it wasn't. You came back said that it isn't racism, but you never said that it wasn't racial discrimination.


I, #1055 wrote:
I believe it is necessary due to "white privilege" & "selection", as opposed to discrimination. It is neither unjust nor prejudice to select a minority for a minority scholarship until such a time that minorities have an equal opportunity to attend college to begin with.


Alma wrote:
Read above. Didn't you say "no" above and now you're saying "yes"? Please explain the difference in "most cases" and "affirmative action". When is "affirmative action" affirmative action and how are the actions different when they aren't "affirmative action"?


I don't feel the need to explain the difference between outright discrimination & affirmative action to you. If it's something you want to learn, go nuts.

Alma wrote:

It's specifically spelled out in post 206 with details. It's your job to counter which specific detail that you disagree with.


No, it's not. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You have yet to provide any clear argument for the reinstatement of DADT as you are a coward.

Alma wrote:
Well, if you exclude what was argued and the result of the appeal, i.e. homosexual couples not receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples, then you would be absolutely correct. Given the fact that isn't the case, then you're the one in denial.

You're right that they are separate issues, that's my point. There's nothing preventing the military from giving benefits to homosexual couples. They choose not to. The two are not connected.


So...we agree that the rights of homosexual couples in the military have little to do with DADT repeal? Cool. So what's your point?

Alma wrote:
I did..

Actions speak louder than words. Why aren't SSM legal in all 50 states? I mean if the majority of the nation feels the way you say, then why are SSM proponents still FIGHTING battles?


Cite? And again: Christian Conservatives have good marketing.

Alma wrote:
I just wiki'd SSM and looked at the polls. The percentages varied by month. We had this argument on this already on these "polls". Unless you believe it's possible for the entire nation to shift views on a particular subject without any major incidents, then the results are purely random. Actions speak louder than words.

You see the protesters on the news? That's action.


So you've got no evidence to dispute my claims & can't do so? I guess I win then.

Alma wrote:

If only someone would actually read post 206.


I did read it, I even quoted the whole thing & responded point by point to what I got out of it. Whatever you think is in there that "proves" any sort of point isn't. It's mostly you arguing about comfort & the "slippery slope" of repeal. The only "logic" in there is that because the military discriminates because of other things, why not this? But you've since gone back on that so I don't know what the **** you think besides it'd be creepy for *** dudes to shower near you (But that doesn't apply to you anyway so...)

I'm done answering your questions. You can't provide a single practical reason to discriminate due to one's sexual orientation in any scenario, let alone in the military. Unless you can, or want to offer why it is you seem to oppose *** rights in general, you have nothing more to offer towards this debate.
















____________________________
"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


#1079 Nov 05 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Nadenu wrote:
SSM=Same *** Marriage, which Alma keeps bringing up to try and deflect from the fact that he has no argument.


I was under the impression that it was Super Sekret Magic, which is what would be needed for him to make any sort of coherent sense.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1080Almalieque, Posted: Nov 06 2011 at 2:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You can't have it both ways.. Just a few pages ago, people were posting polls that most of Christians and Republicans support "homosexual rights". Yet, every time these "rights" aren't supported, Christians and Republicans are the ones to blame.
#1081 Nov 06 2011 at 2:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I did..

Actions speak louder than words. Why aren't SSM legal in all 50 states? I mean if the majority of the nation feels the way you say, then why are SSM proponents still FIGHTING battles?

Because moronic Christians like you have all the power in politics?



You can't have it both ways.. Just a few pages ago, people were posting polls that most of Christians and Republicans support "homosexual rights". Yet, every time these "rights" aren't supported, Christians and Republicans are the ones to blame.

Cuz they are, obviously. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#1082 Nov 06 2011 at 2:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I did..

Actions speak louder than words. Why aren't SSM legal in all 50 states? I mean if the majority of the nation feels the way you say, then why are SSM proponents still FIGHTING battles?

Because moronic Christians like you have all the power in politics?



You can't have it both ways.. Just a few pages ago, people were posting polls that most of Christians and Republicans support "homosexual rights". Yet, every time these "rights" aren't supported, Christians and Republicans are the ones to blame.

Cuz they are, obviously. Smiley: schooled

It's like this, people may support these things in their private lives. However, when a politician is getting a lot of money from a certain lobby which, say, doesn't want teh gays to get married for whatever bullshit reason they have, the politician isn't going to do the right thing and lose a lot of money. They're not wired like that.

____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#1083 Nov 06 2011 at 3:07 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
It's hard to know what Alma is talking about.

Sultry **** Men?
Scary Scandinavian Menopause?
Super Shoujo Mimi?
Secret Sauce Meat?
#1084 Nov 06 2011 at 3:08 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Do you or do you not believe that ra

I ask again, where did I ask you if it were racist/racism? I don't believe it is racist or racism either, so why would I want you to believe that it is?

Omega wrote:
I believe it is necessary due to "white privilege" & "selection", as opposed to discrimination. It is neither unjust nor prejudice to select a minority for a minority scholarship until such a time that minorities have an equal opportunity to attend college to begin with.


I didn't ask if you thought it was necessary, just, right or fair.

Omega wrote:

I don't feel the need to explain the difference between outright discrimination & affirmative action to you. If it's something you want to learn, go nuts.


So now there's a difference between "outright" discrimination and discrimination? I'm pointing out to you that you're just making up stuff. There is no difference between hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person due to skin color and hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person due to skin color.

Unless you can somehow differentiate the two, the two are the same. Your entire argument on how it was "necessary" was due to "white privilege" but you have yet responded on your thought on when "privileged" white people gain from affirmative action.

Omega wrote:
No, it's not. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You have yet to provide any clear argument for the reinstatement of DADT as you are a coward.


Obviously it does or I wouldn't be able to quote it to counter stupid claims like "all changes must be done all at once". Everything is clear. If you think something is not clear, then quote exactly what you think is not clear and then I can clarify. Since you refuse to do so, then you're the coward.

Even when you quoted my post, you gave counters to it WHICH MEANS YOU UNDERSTOOD MY CLAIM. You not agreeing to my point and you not understanding it are two different things. Unless you were countering stuff that you didn't understand (which is stupid), then you understood my post, you just didn't agree.

Omega wrote:
So...we agree that the rights of homosexual couples in the military have little to do with DADT repeal? Cool. So what's your point?


Nice try. You argued that the only reason for DADT was due to the lack of acceptance of homosexuality and now that everyone loves gays, it was removed. I countered to say that isn't the case. Just because homosexuality is popular in the media, doesn't mean that everyone equally view homosexuality.

I argued that the military hasn't changed their views on homosexuals or they would have changed the rule on their own accord, not be forced to do so. I argued that their reasons for DADT were of the same reasons that I posted on post 206, which had nothing to do with bigotry. I concluded that the evidence is in how the repeal was done. It still supported all of the concerns that I listed on post 206 and part of that is the fact that homosexual couples do not receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

You countered that the only reason that was the case was because of DOMA.

I countered to say that isn't the case, because you receiving extra living allowance is based on having a dependent, not a spouse. Your dependent could be a spouse, child, care giver, etc. If the military wanted, they could define "life time partner" as a "dependent". They don't for one of the very same reasons why the homosexual policy was instated in the first place.

Omega wrote:
Cite? And again: Christian Conservatives have good marketing.
Didn't you just say that most of Christian Conservatives were for homosexual rights? You see now why your cites are stupid. I told you that I wiki'ed SSM

[quote=Omega]So you've got no evidence to dispute my claims & can't do so? I guess I win then.


http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_marines_view/2011/07/does-the-military-really-support-dadt-like-the-survey-said.html

#1085 Nov 06 2011 at 3:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
So now there's a difference between "outright" discrimination and discrimination? I'm pointing out to you that you're just making up stuff. There is no difference between hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person due to skin color and hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person due to skin color.

Unless you can somehow differentiate the two, the two are the same. Your entire argument on how it was "necessary" was due to "white privilege" but you have yet responded on your thought on when "privileged" white people gain from affirmative action.


There's a difference between "selection" & "discrimination", *************** For the last time, when I say discrimination I'm using the definition that falls under "making an an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things", not "choosing between two or more things".

Affirmative action is a response to racism & until such a time that white's are in the minority, I don't believe that affirmative action can be misconstrued as racial discrimination to white's. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't give a fuck.
Alma wrote:

Even when you quoted my post, you gave counters to it WHICH MEANS YOU UNDERSTOOD MY CLAIM. You not agreeing to my point and you not understanding it are two different things. Unless you were countering stuff that you didn't understand (which is stupid), then you understood my post, you just didn't agree.


Then it should be easy for you to state your point clearly & concisely. Are you unwilling or unable too?
Alma wrote:

Nice try. You argued that the only reason for DADT was due to the lack of acceptance of homosexuality and now that everyone loves gays, it was removed. I countered to say that isn't the case. Just because homosexuality is popular in the media, doesn't mean that everyone equally view homosexuality.

I argued that the military hasn't changed their views on homosexuals or they would have changed the rule on their own accord, not be forced to do so. I argued that their reasons for DADT were of the same reasons that I posted on post 206, which had nothing to do with bigotry. I concluded that the evidence is in how the repeal was done. It still supported all of the concerns that I listed on post 206 and part of that is the fact that homosexual couples do not receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.


Breakdown: Post 206, you used "comfort" as a reason that DADT was instated & should be upheld. I countered that because the military & American public have been proven to be comfortable with homosexuals, it was no longer logical to exclude them & it's one of the reasons DADT was repealed. "Popularity" has nothing to do with human rights.
Alma wrote:

You countered that the only reason that was the case was because of DOMA.

I countered to say that isn't the case, because you receiving extra living allowance is based on having a dependent, not a spouse. Your dependent could be a spouse, child, care giver, etc. If the military wanted, they could define "life time partner" as a "dependent". They don't for one of the very same reasons why the homosexual policy was instated in the first place.



Read this article to learn a bit about how DOMA effects the military & how steps are being taken to repeal DOMA
. In fact, it's military couples suing that may get DOMA repealed! I'm not going to pretend I know more about the military's inner workings than you do, but in this case it looks like I'm correct about how DOMA applies to the military.

RE: http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_marines_view/2011/07/does-the-military-really-support-dadt-like-the-survey-said.html

Dude, I don't normally attack sources, but a link to a blog that discusses a study which is then paraphrased by an organization that's sole purpose is to prevent gays in the military & limit woman's roles is pretty weak. Really, that's all you got? Fox News doesn't have anything you can use?

I suppose I really do win.








____________________________
"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


#1086 Nov 07 2011 at 5:50 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Allegory wrote:
Scary Scandinavian Menopause?


It is scary.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#1087 Nov 07 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You can't have it both ways.. Just a few pages ago, people were posting polls that most of Christians and Republicans support "homosexual rights". Yet, every time these "rights" aren't supported, Christians and Republicans are the ones to blame.

Well, you can if you understand politics. "Republicans" as a general class may have plurality/majority support for SSM or whatever. This doesn't mean that GOP politicians do. So how are they elected? Because people who oppose these things typically do so more strongly than people whose opinion is "Sure, whatever" and the "family values" style primary voter comes out in greater numbers than the largely ambivalent voter. Why do you think GOP politicians put so much effort into appealing to Evangelicals?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1088 Nov 07 2011 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,407 posts
Mazra wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Scary Scandinavian Menopause?


It is scary.


Hide the battle axe, granny just hit 55.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1089 Nov 07 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, you can if you understand politics.
Far be it from me to tell someone who's been doing it longer how to post count, but Jesus man at least look at the name of the person you're responding to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1090 Nov 07 2011 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wasn't implying that Alma was able to understand. I was noting that Alma was obviously unable to understand.

GAWD!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1091 Nov 08 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:
There's a difference between "selection" & "discrimination", @#%^wit. For the last time, when I say discrimination I'm using the definition that falls under "making an an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things", not "choosing between two or more things".


You're falsely accusing me of using fictional terminology. I gave you a very simple task. You said that selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in affirmative action is somehow different than selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in other scenarios. I asked you to explain how they are different. If you can't, because they aren't different, then either man up and admit it or politely STFU.

Vageta wrote:
Affirmative action is a response to racism & until such a time that white's are in the minority, I don't believe that affirmative action can be misconstrued as racial discrimination to white's. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't give a ****.


As I stated before (and you conveniently overlooked), everyone (including white people) benefit from affirmative action. So, if your stance on affirmative action relies on the unjust done towards ethnic minorities, then what's your stance on when it benefits white people? Do you support affirmative action then? How can you support widening the racial gap if you're fighting to close it?

Vageta wrote:
Then it should be easy for you to state your point clearly & concisely. Are you unwilling or unable too?


I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin'.

Vageta wrote:
Breakdown: Post 206, you used "comfort" as a reason that DADT was instated & should be upheld. I countered that because the military & American public have been proven to be comfortable with homosexuals, it was no longer logical to exclude them & it's one of the reasons DADT was repealed. "Popularity" has nothing to do with human rights.


If you think for a second that post 206 was founded on "comfort", then you have just admitted to not reading and/or comprehending my post. Either that or you're just over generalizing "comfort" in attempt to weaken my argument.

Once again, "comfort" is a huge category. My argument was that the discrimination was specifically done due to sexuality, the same exact reason for the separation of men and women. So, unless you're against the segregation of women and men, then your "comfort" attack is invalid.

Vageta wrote:
Dude, I don't normally attack sources, but a link to a blog that discusses a study which is then paraphrased by an organization that's sole purpose is to prevent gays in the military & limit woman's roles is pretty weak. Really, that's all you got? Fox News doesn't have anything you can use?


I didn't for a minute take my source as something that I would defend. For almost any argument, I can google a counter study. My point is to show you how polls don't override actions. No matter how many polls you pull up, actions speak louder than words. If the military really wanted to show homosexuals extra love, then the military would have done this on their own accord.

It's not a coincidence that a decision on a national level that involves the President favors homosexuals, yet the lower court systems in the states seem to not favor homosexuals.


You can pout all you want, but the problem is civilians wanting to equalize military life with civilian life. You simply don't have the same rights and there is method to the madness and that is all explained in post 206.
#1092 Nov 08 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Quote:
I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin


/thread
#1093 Nov 08 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Alma wrote:
Quote:
Then it should be easy for you to state your point clearly & concisely. Are you unwilling or unable too?
I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin'.


There are two ways that this can be interpreted.

1. That Alma thinks that he's being clear and concise by referring to a muddled, long-winded post concisely.
2. That Alma thinks that post 206 is clear and concise.

Both of them make him look like an idiot. Either way, it's probably true that that's as good a job as he can do to explain himself, which is a sorry statement indeed.

Edited, Nov 8th 2011 4:35pm by Eske
#1094 Nov 08 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
Alma wrote:
Quote:
Then it should be easy for you to state your point clearly & concisely. Are you unwilling or unable too?
I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin'.
There are two ways that this can be interpreted.

1. That Alma thinks that he's being clear and concise by referring to a muddled, long-winded post concisely.
2. That Alma thinks that post 206 is clear and concise.

Or he's just actually incapable of being more clear and concise due to some failing in his mastery of the language or ability to compose his thoughts. He may be accurate that 206 represents the very pinnacle of his abilities to create a clear and concise argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1095 Nov 08 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Alma, let me try this one more time.

Post 206 does not say what you think it says.

Maybe in *your* head, it's clear as a bell. Maybe to *you*, it sums up all your arguments perfectly. But to the rest of the world, it says nothing. It's a lot of vague statements that don't make any real sense.

I know you'll say that this is the failing of the rest of us, that we just aren't able to understand you, but that's not the case.

You are unable to get your point across.

You once said that you only have this problem on this forum, that people in real life don't seem to have as much issue understanding you. I know what's going on. The same thing that goes on when my slightly senile neighbor tries to tell me something. I smile, nod, say "Boy, you got that right!" and walk away.
#1096 Nov 08 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You once said that you only have this problem on this forum, that people in real life don't seem to have as much issue understanding you. I know what's going on. The same thing that goes on when my slightly senile neighbor tries to tell me something. I smile, nod, say "Boy, you got that right!" and walk away.


On a barely-related note, that reminded me of a time back in grad school, when a classmate of mine was venting to me about a fight that she was having about desk space. Apparently, she had straight-up annexed a neighboring girl's desk without asking, and told me as much without so much as a hint of regret.

After railing on the other girl for a bit, she said something like "I CAN'T HELP IT IF I NEED TWO DESKS! I WORK HARD AND I HAVE TO TAKE UP MORE SPACE! THAT'S NOT MY FAULT! SHE SHOULD BE UNDERSTANDING! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!"

She was looking at me pretty expectantly for confirmation, and all I thought was that she sounded like she was being a huge *****. Not knowing what to do, I just said "Yeah, that just sounds like a bad situation for everybody!" and quickly ran off.

She probably took that as agreement, somehow.

Edited, Nov 8th 2011 5:01pm by Eske
#1097 Nov 08 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Apparently, she had straight-up annexed a neighboring girl's desk without asking, and told me as much without so much as a hint of regret.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1098 Nov 08 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You once said that you only have this problem on this forum, that people in real life don't seem to have as much issue understanding you. I know what's going on. The same thing that goes on when my slightly senile neighbor tries to tell me something. I smile, nod, say "Boy, you got that right!" and walk away.


On a barely-related note, that reminded me of a time back in grad school, when a classmate of mine was venting to me about a fight that she was having about desk space. Apparently, she had straight-up annexed a neighboring girl's desk without asking, and told me as much without so much as a hint of regret.

After railing on the other girl for a bit, she said something like "I CAN'T HELP IT IF I NEED TWO DESKS! I WORK HARD AND I HAVE TO TAKE UP MORE SPACE! THAT'S NOT MY FAULT! SHE SHOULD BE UNDERSTANDING! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!"

She was looking at me pretty expectantly for confirmation, and all I thought was that she sounded like she was being a huge *****. Not knowing what to do, I just said "Yeah, that just sounds like a bad situation for everybody!" and quickly ran off.

She probably took that as agreement, somehow.

Edited, Nov 8th 2011 5:01pm by Eske

Yeah, I see similar things happening with Alma in his real life. People aren't agreeing with him, they're just trying to end the conversation so they can get away.
#1099 Nov 08 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Apparently, she had straight-up annexed a neighboring girl's desk without asking, and told me as much without so much as a hint of regret.


Ironically, she was Jewish.
#1100 Nov 09 2011 at 1:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
You're falsely accusing me of using fictional terminology. I gave you a very simple task. You said that selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in affirmative action is somehow different than selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in other scenarios. I asked you to explain how they are different. If you can't, because they aren't different, then either man up and admit it or politely STFU.


The former is affirmative action, which is a response to racism, while the latter is racism. Both are discrimination, but only one is due to "unjust prejudice". They are different & I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not.

Alma wrote:
As I stated before (and you conveniently overlooked), everyone (including white people) benefit from affirmative action. So, if your stance on affirmative action relies on the unjust done towards ethnic minorities, then what's your stance on when it benefits white people? Do you support affirmative action then? How can you support widening the racial gap if you're fighting to close it?


I will support affirmative action until it is no longer needed.


Alma wrote:
I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin'.
If you think for a second that post 206 was founded on "comfort", then you have just admitted to not reading and/or comprehending my post. Either that or you're just over generalizing "comfort" in attempt to weaken my argument.

Once again, "comfort" is a huge category. My argument was that the discrimination was specifically done due to sexuality, the same exact reason for the separation of men and women. So, unless you're against the segregation of women and men, then your "comfort" attack is invalid.


See post #385.
"Comfort" was the only thing in post #206 that was actually a part of the reason for DADT implementation. Most of the rest of the post is you incoherently throwing words at the thread hoping they make sense.

Alma wrote:
I didn't for a minute take my source as something that I would defend. For almost any argument, I can google a counter study. My point is to show you how polls don't override actions. No matter how many polls you pull up, actions speak louder than words. If the military really wanted to show homosexuals extra love, then the military would have done this on their own accord.

It's not a coincidence that a decision on a national level that involves the President favors homosexuals, yet the lower court systems in the states seem to not favor homosexuals.

You can pout all you want, but the problem is civilians wanting to equalize military life with civilian life. You simply don't have the same rights and there is method to the madness and that is all explained in post 206.


I'm not pouting, this was a win for progress & the world is a better place because of it.
____________________________
"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


#1101 Nov 09 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Nadenu wrote:
People aren't agreeing with him, they're just trying to end the conversation so they can get away.
It's standard military operating procedure when dealing with officers.

Edited, Nov 9th 2011 9:06am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)