yes, it's two separate occasions but it's the truth.
...and you still think any of the right deserve to be commander in chief?
- Thread starter blackohio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- $tinkle <3 ghey cock
yes, it's two separate occasions but it's the truth.
...if it's Ron Paul, of course.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/ron-paul-gays-military-dadt_n_1032990.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/ron-paul-gays-military-dadt_n_1032990.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Rather than an election, a winner take all WWE style Cage match against the GOP candidate. Sell it on PPV to pay down the national debt.
Barry deserves teh respect that he gives to gay service men and women. Unlike the denial of human rights the GoP guys want to exercise in cases regardign gays in service.
Eh, the Right doesn't deserve it any more or less than the Left. Political parties are part of the problem in our electoral/governmental process. It oughta be like our local school board elections. State law prohibits a candidate from running on any political affiliation. They have to run on their own merits...not the agenda of given party.
And all the repeal of DADT did for us here in my unit was require MORE boring mandatory CBT training.
And all the repeal of DADT did for us here in my unit was require MORE boring mandatory CBT training.
You right...And all the repeal of DADT did for us here in my unit was require MORE boring mandatory CBT training.
for the never initiated, some helpful background information necessary for making an informed decision:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards.htm
Where are you going with that Stink?
"40 percent of recruits who enlist in the military today will not complete their full term of service."
This is true by my estimation. I have seen many young kids derailed by sloth, ego, attitude, refusal to leave the past behind and many other issues. Its kind of sad, the military is a great place to start. You can leave all the bad sh!t of your prior life behind (I know I did, although my life was positively Cleaver/Brady-ish compared to the stories told by some of the guys I have served with...), or you can let it haunt you and ruin a golden opportunity to excel.
I like how homophobes just assume that gays want to have sex with every same sex person that comes near them.
Homosexual agenda = surprise buttsecks!
b/c this is based on a false premise: that the soldier in question has integrity. he enlisted knowing he was gay, and knew this was forbotten. would i serve with any less honor if i claimed no dependents, but i'm actually jim bob duggar? or that i had used meth in the past? or committed a felony?
for all the talk about how gays should be who they are, they seem to enjoy the fruits of their own manufactured deceit
while true, this isn't my issue.
i get pissed when this 190 lb kid races clydesdale b/c he wants to win at my expense.
what about ppl who claim certain non-verifiable legacy status in order to gain entry to university?
serve with honor is all i ask; don't suborn the system
Maybe he realizes that being gay makes no difference in his ability to serve his country in the military?
I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, the military isn't a sex club, so who or what you like to **** is irrelevant to the job.
so make the case
while you're at it, demonstrate your impartiality & intellectual honesty regarding how relevant it is that someone be 18, or have no more than 2 dependents, have a hs diploma, be a US citizen, etc., to do their job.
please make the case, or come to realize there's more to it than simply the ability to take aim & shoot some brownie in islamistan
Why don't you make the case for why gays can't do your job just as well as you can? Or why black people can't sit at the front of a bus.
if you care to review my comments, you'll find i never said they couldn't, but rather those who joined during DADT & chose to T are in violation of DoD policy, which they contractually volunteered to abide by. To break this contract, this pact, comes at the cost of their honor.
i do not understand how this is not plain to you
who else is going to drive it? an asian?
There are many WWII vets who lied about their age so they could serve, do you feel that they were also dishonorable?
Stinkle your argument is truly pathetic.
Most people realize not all laws are moral or have true moral value. Hiding behind unjust laws just highlights that you are a weak bigot, it has nothing to do with serving with honor. Sounds like the same bull**** excuses people made against minorities and women.
You are no better than the Muslim extremists if you truly feel that way.
Most people realize not all laws are moral or have true moral value. Hiding behind unjust laws just highlights that you are a weak bigot, it has nothing to do with serving with honor. Sounds like the same bull**** excuses people made against minorities and women.
You are no better than the Muslim extremists if you truly feel that way.
only the ones from tuskegee, obviously
From a legal standpoint, I understand it. Just like I understand that Rosa Parks is a criminal and black people are really 3/5 of a person.
From an ethical and common sense standpoint, I don't.
so instead of addressing the merits of my case, you choose to lash out like a pathetic woman with all the intellectual backing of The View (hint: "most people" == argumentum ad populum)
but **i'm** the pathetic one?
so now it's ethical to lie on a job application?
i can now better see how you arrived at your username
You guys are funny. I don't think many of you realize how much of a non-issue this really is WITHIN the military.
Hell, gays have been serving for decades. All DADT did was say that no, we don't care if you wanna smoke pole or munch rug...just keep it to yourself. Quite honestly, most of us in positions of authority don't really care what our troops want to put in their mouths as long as it doesn't cause a problem in the workplace and they can do their job.
Hell, gays have been serving for decades. All DADT did was say that no, we don't care if you wanna smoke pole or munch rug...just keep it to yourself. Quite honestly, most of us in positions of authority don't really care what our troops want to put in their mouths as long as it doesn't cause a problem in the workplace and they can do their job.
You think lawyers are honorable when they get the guilty off via technicalities and loopholes? Again just showing you are bigoted coward hiding behind a flawed system. Laws are not more important than the greater good. It was wrong and repealed.
Last edited:
My grandfather had accumulated enough instruction to fly solo when he was still 13. At 14 he was instructing GI flight students and accompanying them on cross country flights so they wouldn't get lost. Doubly illegal.
Do you understand how the previous policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell works?
From that link you put down:
"Applicants for enlistment will not be required to reveal their sexual orientation. "
A military friend pointed this out to me: you can be a prancing fairy around the base, but as long as you tell no one you are gay, no one will ask.
It is bad to keep your personal life a secret, and DADT was one of the lousy half-measures Clinton was forced to implement because 20 years ago, too many people will not willing to accept gays serving openly.
Now you can claim that gays were subverting DADT by being excellent secret keepers, but you really consider what the rule was intended to do, stopping gay witch hunts in the military.
So are you going to defend unjust law simply because it is the law?
that's exactly what i found when i was in, but the gallery here seems to think that if you don't fall in lock step that it then translates to homophobia
it's a vapid stance, but is obviously well received here. you'll also notice this same lot crows on about how conservatives are crazed, emotional, superstitious, etc., but will give no quarter to honest examination on supposed 'civil rights' & rule of law when it's inconvenient to a pet cause like this one
and that's what i found to be objectionable when i was in was truly abhorrent behavior went unchecked (promiscuity, chauvinism, drunkenness, petty gossip, racism, & social divisiveness), all of which bled over into the day-to-day, causing distractions in the workplace.
you mean how a JAG will get charges dismissed for someone found in violation of DADT? truly a conundrum if there ever was one!
i will readily admit to being bigoted toward cheats & liars. if due process has any meaning, then it should be applied universally, not just when convenient.
would you call me a bigot b/c i defended the decision to be discharged with other than honorable reasons if they were found to have lied about their status which was either irrelevant to their job, or a basic human right (i.e., to have more than 2 dependents, financial status, conscientious objection status, physical disability)
what does one have to do with the other? plenty of legislation has been repealed that wasn't wrong, just poorly argued and not founded upon legal merit.
please define this & demonstrate its relevance to this topic, paying particular attention to why you believe it should supersede the "greater good" of the military
why didn't you include the rest of that paragraph, and then what follows?:
can you people now see what this is all about?
"qualifications for entry"
but now that this has been repealed, any takers on the +/- they are going to fight to have taken down the other "unjust" qualifications for entry? nopers. time to pull up the ladder. which would be other than honorable.
How is Pastor Ted these days?
I'd be perfectly fine if our military consisted of racially pure lily-white christian manly men. But the GI bill is the single most egalitarian benefit available to an American. Remove that benefit and I see no problem with restricting military service.
WTH are you talking about?
I really am having trouble following your argument. Are you saying that it was dishonorable for homosexuals to enter the military because they knew that they did not posses the "qualifications for entry"?
If that is your case then you missed the wiggle words "may be grounds for barring enlistment". So in plain English...
"We wont ask if you've had homosex and we don't require you to tell us. But if you do tell us about your homosex we might not let you join up in our club"
I would say that the honorable thing to do is not to talk about anysex during recruitment.
Or maybe your trying to say that people who joined up and then talked about homosex were acting in a dishonorable fashion. If this is the your point then yes they are just as dishonerable as anyone who has ever broken any rule/law such as speeding or parking with the bumper of their car intruding on a red curb.
In summary:
Last edited:
yes, and yes
not quite
there is no qualification for entry, nor grounds for other-than-honorable discharge for the specifics of operating a vehicle in the ways you describe, excepting for those actions which are found to be felonious to the point of disqualification (i.e., speeding resulting in death, DUI, etc.), but there are for deceit & misrepresentation
add to that the section which specifies "Questionable moral character", which seems to be itself questionable & highly subjective, and alcoholism, which can also be argued to be irrelevant to being able to do a job (ref: highly functioning alcoholics).
let's get down to it, shall we? the claim here is that gays served with honor, even though they broke their oath, b/c their ability to serve supersedes their now disclosed & therefore illegal orientation (that's grammatically awkward: illegal to disclose, but not to be). yet, no one here is making the argument for the other disqualifying attributes as i previously listed.
this is itself reverse bigotry, as it considers a specific class, and is identical to legislation targeting homosexuals from being barred from marriage in the civilian world (ref: CA's prop 8).
Ok I think I may be getting the idea.
Now that DADT is gone and the gays are out they are acting dishonorably?
The rules changed. When DADT was the rule homosexuals followed it. Now that it's gone they don't need to. I assume you are equating "honor" with following the letter of the rules and it seems to me that you can't break a rule that no longer exists nor be retroactively punished for breaking it when it did exist.
Maybe I'm still confused. It is my custom title after all. Is the issue that they were withholding info while they served under DADT?
I thing you need to clarify your definition of honor. Are we just talking about honorable/dishonorable discharge situations.