Ok, I'd vote for Obama over Santorum

[rightwinger]

Apparently my point went over your head...

People have every right to not like a "group"

Why stop at blacks or Jews??

Group anything you'd like - those who like lobster, those who hate lobster, those who love hockey, those who hate it...

You can never force a man to like someone they don't like...

Legislation will never change that...

God...are you really this lame?

Who is legislating that YOU do anything?

Are you fucking retarded?

How the fuck do you think DADT was abolished you fucking dummy?

Not to mention I can come up with several hundred pieces of legislation that control all our lives....

Sponsored by democrats none the less....

I refer to progressives as authoritarians for a reason you know.....

Go at it fool

Show me hundreds of pieces of legislation that force you, personally to accept gays

It is YOU who is insisting that your personal hatred be applied to others

You are a dying breed you jerk

 

[Amelia]

Don't be dramatic...

Homosexuality is wrong... I have every right to believe that and bitches have zero right to create consequences for my belief.

As a libertarian I have no opinion on sexuality, nor do I oppose civil unions, however that doesn't mean I agree with them...

I respect freedom....

I wouldn't expect many to understand the notion that I can separate morals and ethics, even if they contradict one another.

You are no fucking libertarian

Who are you to demand that big government enforce your hatred against gays?

The hell I'm not....

I never demanded government do a fucking thing... I'm merely challenging PC views...

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

It's no different than the government shoving food you don't care for down your throat (which they're doing)...

The military is not forcing people to accept homosexuality. Not in a moral sense. No more than society is forcing you to accept homosexuality in America.

Homosexuals exist. Reality demands that you accept that.

And homosexuals need to eat and breathe. Nature demands that you accept that.

And you're not allowed to beat up on them. The law demands that - regardless of whether they are in the military or on the street.

But no one is forcing you to accept anything as moral.

 

[Mr.Nick]

You are no fucking libertarian

Who are you to demand that big government enforce your hatred against gays?

The hell I'm not....

I never demanded government do a fucking thing... I'm merely challenging PC views...

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

It's no different than the government shoving food you don't care for down your throat (which they're doing)...

What kind of Libertarian would tell the Military that they should discriminate against their members because of your own personal beliefs?

You are a phony.....you are no libertarian

I'm not advocating that....

I'm saying forcing an individual to accept anothers behavior if they do not approve of it is social engineering.

Maybe we should take your ass and put you in a Marxist reeducation camp because "you don't think like the rest."

As a true libertarian I'm taking the correct position...

I'm arguing and defying collectivist "group think."

 

[rightwinger]

You are no fucking libertarian

Who are you to demand that big government enforce your hatred against gays?

The hell I'm not....

I never demanded government do a fucking thing... I'm merely challenging PC views...

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

It's no different than the government shoving food you don't care for down your throat (which they're doing)...

The military is not forcing people to accept homosexuality. Not in a moral sense. No more than society is forcing you to accept homosexuality in America.

Homosexuals exist. Reality demands that you accept that.

And homosexuals need to eat and breathe. Nature demands that you accept that.

And you're not allowed to beat up on them. The law demands that - regardless of whether they are in the military or on the street.

But no one is forcing you to accept anything as moral.

The military did the same thing with blacks..

If you hate blacks...it's your fucking problem

 

[Mr.Nick]

You are no fucking libertarian

Who are you to demand that big government enforce your hatred against gays?

The hell I'm not....

I never demanded government do a fucking thing... I'm merely challenging PC views...

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

It's no different than the government shoving food you don't care for down your throat (which they're doing)...

The military is not forcing people to accept homosexuality. Not in a moral sense. No more than society is forcing you to accept homosexuality in America.

Homosexuals exist. Reality demands that you accept that.

And homosexuals need to eat and breathe. Nature demands that you accept that.

And you're not allowed to beat up on them. The law demands that - regardless of whether they are in the military or on the street.

But no one is forcing you to accept anything as moral.

Yes, democrats are telling the military they need to accept openly gay people and that service members have absolutely no choice but to accept them...

 

[Amelia]

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

The government allows blacks to marry whites.

But it doesn't force people to believe that it is moral.



Now the government allows gays to serve in the military.

And still it doesn't force people to believe that it is moral.




The end.

 

[Mr.Nick]

What kind of Libertarian would tell the Military that they should discriminate against their members because of your own personal beliefs?

You are a phony.....you are no libertarian

I'm not advocating that....

I'm saying forcing an individual to accept anothers behavior if they do not approve of it is social engineering.

Maybe we should take your ass and put you in a Marxist reeducation camp because "you don't think like the rest."

As a true libertarian I'm taking the correct position...

I'm arguing and defying collectivist "group think."

Anyone who doesnt accept it is more than right to leave. Nobody is keeping them around. They are their to do a job, nothing more, nothing less.
We get it, you are an anti-american piece of shit. You hate people in the military, and we can clearly see you are not with us here in the United states.

Maybe you should move to Iran or something. They have the same outlook you do.

You telling me to "move to Iran" is classic....

Get the fuck out of here you communist authoritarian piece of shit.....

Don't even pretend to be patriotic you stupid motherfucker...

You got some balls you tyrant....

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I would never suggest the government should oppress homosexuals - my comments are merely philosophical - meaning that an individual is a unique person that possesses their own feelings and emotions and that they make their own decisions and that disagreeing with one anothers lifestyle is perfectly fine and only natural.

From a philosophical standpoint - people (even those in the military) are still free to have their own feelings and emotions. They will never have a problem with them, however if they allow those "feelings and emtions" to translate into direct actions against homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews, or women) then they will probably have a problem.

If they feel or have emotions that a "lifestyle" like "religion" is something they don't agree with - then they should not participate in that "lifestyle" and/or "religion". Notice I use quotes around "lifestyle" and "religion" since I'm assuming you feel "lifestyle" is a choice just like "religion". If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then choose not to be homosexual and forget about it. Just like you can choose to be Christian and not Hindu.


It's not the governments job to discriminate against a group because it might hurt the "feelings and emotions" of another group.

>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

The government allows blacks to marry whites.

But it doesn't force people to believe that it is moral.



Now the government allows gays to serve in the military.

And still it doesn't force people to believe that it is moral.




The end.

Yeah until you get frivolous discrimination claims.....

You know - "it's because I'm gay" or "it's because I'm black" type bullshit...

 

[Mr.Nick]

No, I would never suggest the government should oppress homosexuals - my comments are merely philosophical - meaning that an individual is a unique person that possesses their own feelings and emotions and that they make their own decisions and that disagreeing with one anothers lifestyle is perfectly fine and only natural.

From a philosophical standpoint - people (even those in the military) are still free to have their own feelings and emotions. They will never have a problem with them, however if they allow those "feelings and emtions" to translate into direct actions against homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews, or women) then they will probably have a problem.

If they feel or have emotions that a "lifestyle" like "religion" is something they don't agree with - then they should not participate in that "lifestyle" and/or "religion". Notice I use quotes around "lifestyle" and "religion" since I'm assuming you feel "lifestyle" is a choice just like "religion". If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then choose not to be homosexual and forget about it. Just like you can choose to be Christian and not Hindu.


It's not the governments job to discriminate against a group because it might hurt the "feelings and emotions" of another group.

>>>>

Yeah, but some people just don't like other people for many different reasons...

I don't understand why sexuality is above other reasons...

For the last 2 years I have seen progressives persecute fat people and everyone thinks its funny but the second you talk shit about a fag you're thrown under the bus..

Society can go fuck its self.....

99% of humanity is wrong in their actions and thinking.... They will call a person a fat ass, then claim they want "tea baggers dead" then turn around and claim anyone who opposes them are "hatemongers."

WTF??

 

[WorldWatcher]

The hell I'm not....

I never demanded government do a fucking thing... I'm merely challenging PC views...

I have a huge problem with GOVERNMENT telling people what they should do and the establishment of DADT is exactly that - forcing people to accept homosexuality....

It's no different than the government shoving food you don't care for down your throat (which they're doing)...

The military is not forcing people to accept homosexuality. Not in a moral sense. No more than society is forcing you to accept homosexuality in America.

Homosexuals exist. Reality demands that you accept that.

And homosexuals need to eat and breathe. Nature demands that you accept that.

And you're not allowed to beat up on them. The law demands that - regardless of whether they are in the military or on the street.

But no one is forcing you to accept anything as moral.

Yes, democrats are telling the military they need to accept openly gay people

Actually polls show it was 70% of the people (60% Republicans) that supported repeal of DADT. Would you like Congress to not do what the American people want like Obama getting ObamaCare through even though the majority opposed it. If that's the case then we are no better then the Democrats pushing an agenda.

and that service members have absolutely no choice but to accept them...

False, members of the Military simply need to complete the terms of the contract they agreed to and if they don't want to serve with homosexuals, then don't reenlist. For Officers, they are not under contract and can resign their commission when they want unless they incurred an obligation for training (after which they can resign).

To no they do have a choice.



>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Anyone who doesnt accept it is more than right to leave. Nobody is keeping them around. They are their to do a job, nothing more, nothing less.
We get it, you are an anti-american piece of shit. You hate people in the military, and we can clearly see you are not with us here in the United states.

Maybe you should move to Iran or something. They have the same outlook you do.

You telling me to "move to Iran" is classic....

Get the fuck out of here you communist authoritarian piece of shit.....

Don't even pretend to be patriotic you stupid motherfucker...

You got some balls you tyrant....

lol....Hit a nerve huh...You know its true, you belong in Iran. they are your people nick. Go be with them. We dont need your kind here. We dont like people who hate the military like you do.

There is nothing i said that even comes close to being a communist authoritarian you fucking dumbass. This just goes to show you have no real understanding of anything, and just toss words out because you think you look good.

You don't know what an authoritarian is you stupid motherfucker....

You support all progressive government intervention and that makes you a tyrant and an authoritarian freak...

You belong in 1975 Cambodia...

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I would never suggest the government should oppress homosexuals - my comments are merely philosophical - meaning that an individual is a unique person that possesses their own feelings and emotions and that they make their own decisions and that disagreeing with one anothers lifestyle is perfectly fine and only natural.

From a philosophical standpoint - people (even those in the military) are still free to have their own feelings and emotions. They will never have a problem with them, however if they allow those "feelings and emtions" to translate into direct actions against homosexuals (or blacks, or Jews, or women) then they will probably have a problem.

If they feel or have emotions that a "lifestyle" like "religion" is something they don't agree with - then they should not participate in that "lifestyle" and/or "religion". Notice I use quotes around "lifestyle" and "religion" since I'm assuming you feel "lifestyle" is a choice just like "religion". If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then choose not to be homosexual and forget about it. Just like you can choose to be Christian and not Hindu.


It's not the governments job to discriminate against a group because it might hurt the "feelings and emotions" of another group.

>>>>

Yeah, but some people just don't like other people for many different reasons...

I don't understand why sexuality is above other reasons...

The repeal of DADT put homosexuals on the same plane as blacks, Jews, and women - they can all serve. Seems like you are the one that wants to put the feelings some might have about sexuality "above other reasons" so they are treated differently.

You've supported continued discrimination against homosexuals in terms of serving in the military because of the "feelings and emotions" of some that may not want to serve with them - yet you haven't responded to if blacks, Jews, and women should be discriminated against in terms of service because there may be some whose "feelings and emotions" are against serving with them.



>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

The military is not forcing people to accept homosexuality. Not in a moral sense. No more than society is forcing you to accept homosexuality in America.

Homosexuals exist. Reality demands that you accept that.

And homosexuals need to eat and breathe. Nature demands that you accept that.

And you're not allowed to beat up on them. The law demands that - regardless of whether they are in the military or on the street.

But no one is forcing you to accept anything as moral.

Yes, democrats are telling the military they need to accept openly gay people

Actually polls show it was 70% of the people (60% Republicans) that supported repeal of DADT. Would you like Congress to not do what the American people want like Obama getting ObamaCare through even though the majority opposed it. If that's the case then we are no better then the Democrats pushing an agenda.

and that service members have absolutely no choice but to accept them...

False, members of the Military simply need to complete the terms of the contract they agreed to and if they don't want to serve with homosexuals, then don't reenlist. For Officers, they are not under contract and can resign their commission when they want unless they incurred an obligation for training (after which they can resign).

To no they do have a choice.



>>>>

In what universe did I claim I opposed the repeal?

I'm talking about people..... yes people - not liking one another for human reasons....

My question is what makes a persons sexuality more of a priority than other traits???

I mean progressives are already beating the shit out of fat people..... Maybe they can attack midgets next??

But gays are off limits?

What a bunch of pricks..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah until you get frivolous discrimination claims.....

Merriam-Webster:

Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually​

If homosexuals as a group are barred from service instead of an evaluation based on each individual, that is exactly what discrimination is. Decisions made on belonging to a group, vice individual evaluation.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yeah until you get frivolous discrimination claims.....

Merriam-Webster:

Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually​

If homosexuals as a group are barred from service instead of an evaluation based on each individual, that is exactly what discrimination is. Decisions made on belonging to a group, vice individual evaluation.


>>>>

Definition of FRIVOLOUS
1
a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>
2
a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity
— friv·o·lous·ly adverb
— friv·o·lous·ness noun
See frivolous defined for English-language learners »
See frivolous defined for kids »
Examples of FRIVOLOUS

She thinks window shopping is a frivolous activity.
<judges are getting sick of people bringing frivolous lawsuits>
She knew that people might think her frivolous, Kitty said, to talk to some saint when she had a cooking disaster, but that was what she really believed the saints were there for. —Alice Munro, New Yorker, 8 Oct. 2001
[+]more

 

[WorldWatcher]

In what universe did I claim I opposed the repeal?

I'm talking about people..... yes people - not liking one another for human reasons....

You previous posts about democrats and "forcing" acceptance of homosexuals into the military.

So I misunderstood then: Do you or do you not support the repeal of DADT so that homosexuals are allowed to serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals? Yes or No

My question is what makes a persons sexuality more of a priority than other traits???

That's just it, under the United States Code that barred homosexuals from serving under the same rules as heterosexuals - sexuality WAS made more a priority than other traits. It didn't matter how strong you were, it didn't matter how smart you were, it didn't matter how dedicated you were, etc. If you were heterosexual and were strong, smart, patriotic, and motivated you were accepted. If you were homosexual and were strong, smart, patriotic, and motivated you were barred by law. If your sexuality (given other conditions) was heterosexual, your sexuality made you qualified. If your sexuality (given other conditions) was homosexual, your sexuality made you disqualified.


No there are other traits that you have to have to qualify, such as, not to short, not to tall, not to overweight, not to underweight (yes that is a disqualifying condition), not a drug user, not a felon (without a waiver), not to dump, not disabled, not being single with a bunch of children, etc - because those "traits" impact an individuals ability to perform the job requirements.


Being black, homosexual, Jewish, or a woman - does not impact the ability to perform within certain MOS/NEC's.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah until you get frivolous discrimination claims.....

Merriam-Webster:

Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually​

If homosexuals as a group are barred from service instead of an evaluation based on each individual, that is exactly what discrimination is. Decisions made on belonging to a group, vice individual evaluation.


>>>>

Definition of FRIVOLOUS
1
a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>
2
a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity
— friv·o·lous·ly adverb
— friv·o·lous·ness noun
See frivolous defined for English-language learners »
See frivolous defined for kids »
Examples of FRIVOLOUS

She thinks window shopping is a frivolous activity.
<judges are getting sick of people bringing frivolous lawsuits>
She knew that people might think her frivolous, Kitty said, to talk to some saint when she had a cooking disaster, but that was what she really believed the saints were there for. —Alice Munro, New Yorker, 8 Oct. 2001
[+]more

I agree, basing admission to the military on sexual orientation is frivolous.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

lol....Hit a nerve huh...You know its true, you belong in Iran. they are your people nick. Go be with them. We dont need your kind here. We dont like people who hate the military like you do.

There is nothing i said that even comes close to being a communist authoritarian you fucking dumbass. This just goes to show you have no real understanding of anything, and just toss words out because you think you look good.

You don't know what an authoritarian is you stupid motherfucker....

You support all progressive government intervention and that makes you a tyrant and an authoritarian freak...

You belong in 1975 Cambodia...

i do? funny you always retreat back to these type of insults when anyone corners you.

moron.

Yeah you do...

 

[Mr.Nick]

In what universe did I claim I opposed the repeal?

I'm talking about people..... yes people - not liking one another for human reasons....

You previous posts about democrats and "forcing" acceptance of homosexuals into the military.

So I misunderstood then: Do you or do you not support the repeal of DADT so that homosexuals are allowed to serve under the same conditions as heterosexuals? Yes or No

My question is what makes a persons sexuality more of a priority than other traits???

That's just it, under the United States Code that barred homosexuals from serving under the same rules as heterosexuals - sexuality WAS made more a priority than other traits. It didn't matter how strong you were, it didn't matter how smart you were, it didn't matter how dedicated you were, etc. If you were heterosexual and were strong, smart, patriotic, and motivated you were accepted. If you were homosexual and were strong, smart, patriotic, and motivated you were barred by law. If your sexuality (given other conditions) was heterosexual, your sexuality made you qualified. If your sexuality (given other conditions) was homosexual, your sexuality made you disqualified.


No there are other traits that you have to have to qualify, such as, not to short, not to tall, not to overweight, not to underweight (yes that is a disqualifying condition), not a drug user, not a felon (without a waiver), not to dump, not disabled, not being single with a bunch of children, etc - because those "traits" impact an individuals ability to perform the job requirements.


Being black, homosexual, Jewish, or a woman - does not impact the ability to perform within certain MOS/NEC's.



>>>>

Sorry to tell you that 99% of homos are democrats and it is impossible for a democrat to be "patriotic and strong."

To refute your assertion - gays destroy cohesion.....