Ok, I'd vote for Obama over Santorum

[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.



>>>>

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

Why won't you answer the bolded questions, just so we don't continue to have a "misunderstanding": 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


70% of the people supported repeal and 60% of Republicans supported repeal. I could care less what the demographic is for party affiliation of homosexuals, but without some support, I would classify your "99%" figure has hyperbole.


BTW: here is the link to the 70/60 figures -->> In U.S., Broad, Steady Support for Openly Gay Service Members

Your Link?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Good night all, see ya tomorrow.


>>>>

 

[Mr.Nick]

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




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."

Why won't you answer the bolded questions, just so we don't continue to have a "misunderstanding": 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


70% of the people supported repeal and 60% of Republicans supported repeal. I could care less what the demographic is for party affiliation of homosexuals, but without some support, I would classify your "99%" figure has hyperbole.


BTW: here is the link to the 70/60 figures -->> In U.S., Broad, Steady Support for Openly Gay Service Members

Your Link?


>>>>

As a libertarian - yes

As a Christian - no

As an American - no


My libertarian side doesn't judge, my Christian side remains committed to my faith and My American side realizes the repeal could create epic problems for troop cohesion....

So what should I say???

 

[Vanquish]

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

Why won't you answer the bolded questions, just so we don't continue to have a "misunderstanding": 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


70% of the people supported repeal and 60% of Republicans supported repeal. I could care less what the demographic is for party affiliation of homosexuals, but without some support, I would classify your "99%" figure has hyperbole.


BTW: here is the link to the 70/60 figures -->> In U.S., Broad, Steady Support for Openly Gay Service Members

Your Link?


>>>>

As a libertarian - yes

As a Christian - no

As an American - no


My libertarian side doesn't judge, my Christian side remains committed to my faith and My American side realizes the repeal could create epic problems for troop cohesion....

So what should I say???

Your Christian side should fucking be ashamed of itself. I wouldn't admit you were a Christian with the unloving, hate spewing you're doing here. You're making Christians look terrible.

There's a way to uphold your version of what the Bible says and being entirely uncharitable and full of fucking hate. You fail in every way that a Christian should try to be like Christ.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why won't you answer the bolded questions, just so we don't continue to have a "misunderstanding": 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


70% of the people supported repeal and 60% of Republicans supported repeal. I could care less what the demographic is for party affiliation of homosexuals, but without some support, I would classify your "99%" figure has hyperbole.


BTW: here is the link to the 70/60 figures -->> In U.S., Broad, Steady Support for Openly Gay Service Members

Your Link?


>>>>

As a libertarian - yes

As a Christian - no

As an American - no


My libertarian side doesn't judge, my Christian side remains committed to my faith and My American side realizes the repeal could create epic problems for troop cohesion....

So what should I say???

Your Christian side should fucking be ashamed of itself. I wouldn't admit you were a Christian with the unloving, hate spewing you're doing here. You're making Christians look terrible.

There's a way to uphold your version of what the Bible says and being entirely uncharitable and full of fucking hate. You fail in every way that a Christian should try to be like Christ.

In what universe is disapproval "hate?"

I suppose parents who disapprove that their teenage kids smoke pot "hate" them...

It's not "hate" it is disapproval.

I would probably compare it to not caring for a particular food, just because you don't like it...

I don't like cabbage - but I'm not going to go Genghis Khan on a fucking cabbage.

I must say I have never even came across a gay couple so ..... I've kicked it with chicks that would kick it with one another but they weren't "real" lesbians....

 

[Vanquish]

As a libertarian - yes

As a Christian - no

As an American - no


My libertarian side doesn't judge, my Christian side remains committed to my faith and My American side realizes the repeal could create epic problems for troop cohesion....

So what should I say???

Your Christian side should fucking be ashamed of itself. I wouldn't admit you were a Christian with the unloving, hate spewing you're doing here. You're making Christians look terrible.

There's a way to uphold your version of what the Bible says and being entirely uncharitable and full of fucking hate. You fail in every way that a Christian should try to be like Christ.

In what universe is disapproval "hate?"

I suppose parents who disapprove that their teenage kids smoke pot "hate" them...

It's not "hate" it is disapproval.

I would probably compare it to not caring for a particular food, just because you don't like it...

I don't like cabbage - but I'm not going to go Genghis Khan on a fucking cabbage.

I must say I have never even came across a gay couple so ..... I've kicked it with chicks that would kick it with one another but they weren't "real" lesbians....

The term "homo" isn't funny. It isn't cute. It isn't just slightly annoying. Add to that responding to people like this...

Get the fuck out of here you communist authoritarian piece of shit.....
Don't even pretend to be patriotic you stupid motherfucker...

That's not Christian by a long shot.

 

[Political Junky]

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.....

I'll bet you believe that shit.

 

[rightwinger]

Your Christian side should fucking be ashamed of itself. I wouldn't admit you were a Christian with the unloving, hate spewing you're doing here. You're making Christians look terrible.

There's a way to uphold your version of what the Bible says and being entirely uncharitable and full of fucking hate. You fail in every way that a Christian should try to be like Christ.

In what universe is disapproval "hate?"

I suppose parents who disapprove that their teenage kids smoke pot "hate" them...

It's not "hate" it is disapproval.

I would probably compare it to not caring for a particular food, just because you don't like it...

I don't like cabbage - but I'm not going to go Genghis Khan on a fucking cabbage.

I must say I have never even came across a gay couple so ..... I've kicked it with chicks that would kick it with one another but they weren't "real" lesbians....

The term "homo" isn't funny. It isn't cute. It isn't just slightly annoying. Add to that responding to people like this...

Get the fuck out of here you communist authoritarian piece of shit.....
Don't even pretend to be patriotic you stupid motherfucker...

That's not Christian by a long shot.

He only complies with the Christian part where he gets to hate homosexuals and call them fags

 

[Vanquish]

Probably because he has some of his own homosexual feelings that he can't resolve. Maybe towards his absentee dad or a cousin he only sees at family reunions.

 

[rightwinger]

Probably because he has some of his own homosexual feelings that he can't resolve. Maybe towards his absentee dad or a cousin he only sees at family reunions.

He is not homosexual, he is libertarian

That is what should be banned from the military

 

[yidnar]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

that just means you are a left wing homo !!

 

[Seawytch]

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...

No...Congress is telling the military (which they have the authority to do, by the way) that the military must allow gays and lesbians to serve under the exact same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under.

Why are you opposed to equal treatment under the law?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Santorum said that he'd reinstate DADT if he got elected.

I gotta say that I hate everything about Obama's economic policies, but the military has always had gay servicememembers. Witch hunts for gays only reduces the capability of our fighting forces. I was never a fan of the activist elements pushing for the "rights" to serve in the military, but I don't think it's a good strategy to kick out trained capable warriors for what they do on liberty.

Santorum calls the repeal of DADT "social engineering" and injecting social policy into the military mission. No, he's the one injecting social policy into the military mission. He's the one practicing social engineering.

To be fair, Santorum was always marginal to me. On economic policy he's clueless. He's not a leader for shit, and he waffles. But using the military for political purposes to the extent of reducing our capabilities? That's horseshit.

You realize that repealing DADT was entirely a political issue pushed by the Left and radical gays with an agenda, right? The military was fine with the way things were.

June 9, 2009​

"The ostensible rationale was that the known presence of gay men and lesbians would undermine morale and unit cohesion, but as it turned out, the policy caused its own kind of damage to military readiness. Thousands of service members have been discharged from duty at a time when the military is stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The loss of highly skilled interpreters and intelligence analysts has been especially damaging."

The Ban On Gays In The Military​

​

 

[Full-Auto]

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...

No...Congress is telling the military (which they have the authority to do, by the way) that the military must allow gays and lesbians to serve under the exact same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under.

Why are you opposed to equal treatment under the law?

Why are you opposed to equal treatment under the law?

I PUT THAT QUESTION TO YOU OVER TAXES>

 

[asterism]

Yes, they are given a mission. And they are asked what they need to accomplish that mission. This is why they submit requests for different weapons programs, why they maintain their own courts and justice system, their own regs etc etc.
Thanks for proving that. Individual conduct is the purview of the military. That Congress over-rode that authority proves that this is nothing more than social engineering and feel-goodism. It certainly has nothing to do with military readiness.

Individual conduct is certainly NOT the purview of the military. Tailhook anyone?

While I agree with the intent behind the activists and their friends about how DADT was removed, that doesn't change the reality that when you have a shortage of linguists and you discharge trained highly competent linguists for stuff they did on leave or liberty the mission is hampered.

The real stupid part is that I know of some linguists that immediately got hired as contractors and augmented their old units in the same roles.

You mean Tailhook where people were brought up on charges after the story leaked? You prove my point.

It was not a "leak" that led to the charges. The media coverage cause an investigation. That led to an Admiral saying that some of the female pilots who came forward with complaints were strippers and hookers. That got the attention of a very non-military bureaucrat civilian working for the DoD and the rest is history.

You need to check your facts on this one. That you are even going to pretend to know about this means you are talking out of your ass.

Not every homosexual discharged was a linguist,

True.

although they all probably could do a pretty good job with their tongues.

Funny.

In any case, anyone who was discharged wanted to be.

Bullshit.

The military would not discharge people on the suspicion of homosexuality. That was the basis of DADT. They had to be blatant about it.

More bullshit.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

No...Congress is telling the military (which they have the authority to do, by the way) that the military must allow gays and lesbians to serve under the exact same rules and regulations that heterosexuals serve under.

Why are you opposed to equal treatment under the law?

Why are you opposed to equal treatment under the law?

I PUT THAT QUESTION TO YOU OVER TAXES>

What question? Is it equal treatment for me to pay thirty something percent in Federal taxes and corporations to pay zero? Absolutely not.

You're not trying that flat tax nonsense again are you? The one that disproportionately hurts the poor and middle class who can't hide their money in investments and offshore accounts, are you?

 

[geauxtohell]

Why should anyone be forced to accept anything they don't agree with?

What makes the pro-gay groups any different from the Nazi's??

Those two statements/pseudoquestions lead me to the conclusion that you've never been in a military unit.

Have you?

 

[geauxtohell]

I agree with Santorum. Sexual preference is irrelevant to military service. Keep your personal lives to yourself.

Santorum said keep your sexuality to yourself whether you are homosexual or heterosexual and it shouldn't be part of the military.

Does that mean Santorum wants the military to do away with Basic Allowance for Quarters (Dependent Rate) for Civilly Married members of the Armed Forces without children?

Does that mean Santorum wants the military to do away with paying to transport military wives as part of permanent change of station orders and eliminate the additional weight allowance for Civilly Married members of the Armed Forces without children?

Does that mean that Santorum wants to bar Military Weddings in military Chapels and by military Chaplains?​

I mean if you are going to say keep sex (as in sexual orientation) out of the military, then should Santorum support removing all aspects of sex from the military in terms of it's functioning.

So who is getting the "special privileges" in the military? Homosexuals simply because they can now serve or heterosexuals that are compensated thousands of dollars per year in addition income?



>>>>

I proposed to my wife at the podium in front of the Battalion at the Battalion Ball.

I got my Battalion Commander's permission. I guess I forgot to ask Santorum.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why should anyone be forced to accept anything they don't agree with?

What makes the pro-gay groups any different from the Nazi's??

You are still allowed to hate anyone you wish

You just can't force your views on other people. That would make you a Nazi

You're the one forcing views..........

I'm not the one legislating that one be tolerant......

Progressives demand that I neglect my faith for them...

Who the fuck are you to request that???

Got news for you, soldiers are required to be tolerant of everyone under the UCMJ. If you attend a neo-nazi rally and your commander finds out about it, you are in trouble. If you beat up a homosexual and your commander finds out about it, you are in trouble.

Soldiers will be tolerant of their fellow soldiers, regardless of circumstances, because that's what the UCMJ tells them to do.

Otherwise, they can go find work somewhere else. Can't play by the rules (which are subject to change)? Don't join the military.

 

[Flopper]

I disagree.

Anyone serving their country in the military deserves to be treated according to their effectiveness in accomplishing the mission of the military.

I agree with your statement. However, the treatment should be based on the effectiveness of the individual without regard to sexual preference, race, gender, or religion.

No, there are no "rights" with regards to service and I think it should still be that way and those attributes are most definitely rightly considered in some situations, as well as others.

You don't send a Christian to infiltrate Jamaat Islamiya. You don't send a Muslim to infiltrate Sinn Fein (the political arm of the former IRA). You don't fly a woman pilot over Sudan, you don't send a black anything as an attache in Oman, you don't send a gay guy as an observer in Kenya, and you absolutely never send a white southern evangelist to Russia. Conversely, you don't send a 6-5 blonde stud into low level negotiations with a base commander in Turkey. You send an Ivy League educated 30ish blonde female with an ass that won't quit.

These are very specific roles, but from there (and many thousands of other specific roles) a certain force capability needs to be maintained. Women cannot operate on a mortar team currently. Sure some women can carry the big heavy plate over long distances but the chances are so low that it's not worth the bureaucratic effort to include them in screening.

I'm not sure if I'm making my point correctly, but the overall concept is that there are no "rights" with regards to who can and cannot serve in the military and there should not be. The priority is accomplishing the mission. The makeup of the armed forces has to reflect that.

I think your're making your point quite clear, crystal clear.