The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[gekaap]

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

You are a ******* idiot. You really should not have opened your mouth because you proved that you have no idea what the constitution says.

The Congress shall have Power To...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

 

[bodecea]

I R Republican.

Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.

I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
Is that fake or not?

you do realize he's a tad confused....he thinks Congress has nothing to do with the UCMJ and should have no business telling the military anything.

 

[grunt11b]

Tell that to the medic the next time they are bandaging your dumbass up for doing something stupid just to try to get your rocks off and prove how much of a man you think you are. Typical infantryman, inflating your own self, thinking that you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. That you alone are all that matters. You're so big, bad, and tough. But you can't handle two boys holding hands.

You're the one who started taking jabs over MOS, so I think this might be hypocritical of you inflating your own ego.
Also, two boys holding hands is not going to help anyone out in a firefight.

 

[grunt11b]

Are you of the fake sort or real sort, because I can't tell right now. You could be the Lindsey graham republican for all I know.

I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
Is that fake or not?

you do realize he's a tad confused....he thinks Congress has nothing to do with the UCMJ and should have no business telling the military anything.

Sorry, but I think you clearly missed the point I was getting at.
This horse has been beaten too much. time to move on.

 

[bodecea]

I own 3 corporations, employ others and pay a shit load of taxes.
Is that fake or not?

you do realize he's a tad confused....he thinks Congress has nothing to do with the UCMJ and should have no business telling the military anything.

Sorry, but I think you clearly missed the point I was getting at.
This horse has been beaten too much. time to move on.

No way...you were very, very clear in stating that Congress had no right to tell the military what to do and had no authority over the UCMJ....shall I quote your posts saying that?


This is getting amusing....could be fun all day.

 

[gautama]

"There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million)." .........THUS, THE HIV POPULATION, PROPORTIONALLY, ESTABLISHES THE QUEERS AS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE AIDS.

Yet you dishonestly snip out the rest of the quote showing a 22.5 million population where HIV has predominantly infected a heterosexual population. Thus debunking you statement that it is most likely to be homosexuals that have AIDS.

Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of ******* queers with HIV NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!

Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War.


>>>>

WorldWatcher,

Listen arsehole, when you accuse me of "dishonestly snipping out the rest of the quote", the rest of the quote was:

".......in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals "

Please note that it applies to SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA ..... THAT'S WHY I SNIPPED IT OUT......IT WAS IRRELEVANT !!!

So, stick that up your money-making arse and smoke it.

As to your final sentence in your post:

"Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War."

Obviously these are not allowed to deploy ...... the concern is for the ******* queers acquiring AIDS after they are deployed.

 

[bodecea]

Yet you dishonestly snip out the rest of the quote showing a 22.5 million population where HIV has predominantly infected a heterosexual population. Thus debunking you statement that it is most likely to be homosexuals that have AIDS.




Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War.


>>>>

WorldWatcher,

Listen arsehole, when you accuse me of "dishonestly snipping out the rest of the quote", the rest of the quote was:

".......in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals "

Please note that it applies to SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA ..... THAT'S WHY I SNIPPED IT OUT......IT WAS IRRELEVANT !!!

So, stick that up your money-making arse and smoke it.

As to your final sentence in your post:

"Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War."

Obviously these are not allowed to deploy ...... the concern is for the ******* queers acquiring AIDS after they are deployed.

Actually, there's a greater chance of Hetero's getting AIDS during deployment with the prostitutes in ports of call....we had lots of briefings on this problem how everyone was focusing on the gays and left the barn door wide open, inadvertently giving the impression that straight sex was perfectly safe. Thailand comes to mind as a BIG problem...at least it was in the late 80s.

 

[High_Gravity]

WorldWatcher,

Listen arsehole, when you accuse me of "dishonestly snipping out the rest of the quote", the rest of the quote was:

".......in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals "

Please note that it applies to SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA ..... THAT'S WHY I SNIPPED IT OUT......IT WAS IRRELEVANT !!!

So, stick that up your money-making arse and smoke it.

As to your final sentence in your post:

"Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War."

Obviously these are not allowed to deploy ...... the concern is for the ******* queers acquiring AIDS after they are deployed.

Actually, there's a greater chance of Hetero's getting AIDS during deployment with the prostitutes in ports of call....we had lots of briefings on this problem how everyone was focusing on the gays and left the barn door wide open, inadvertently giving the impression that straight sex was perfectly safe. Thailand comes to mind as a BIG problem...at least it was in the late 80s.

Last I heard it was still like that, with all the sex tourists going to that place I wouldn't touch any of those women with a 10 foot pole.

 

[grunt11b]

I stand corrected. I myself was misinformed.

 

[yota5]

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate. One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military. He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard. Things haven't changed on the liberal side of the ball since I served so that was to be expected. . All that I have to say is that folks like mr. gekaap, aren't worthy of spit shinning the shoes of the most junior private.

Grunt11b, has served, and has a frame of reference with which to form an opinion. Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply. I salute you sir. You are a true American Patriot. Thank you for your service to this country.

I would only add one thing to Grunt11b's reply. I still think that all "dickweed Washington politicians" should be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and strapped into a seat that is bolted to the front bumper of an MRAP. After being driven through the AO for at least 3 months. If that were to happen I think that a profound change in Washington's attitude, and decision making process in relation to the military would become evident.

I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball. Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you. Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion. Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot. That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies. But, leave the troops alone.

Have a nice day.

 

[rightwinger]

yota5's unfounded fears that his son may somehow turn gay if he is forced to serve with them are once again clouding his hate filled rhetoric.

If yota5's son wants to turn gay there is nothing in DADT that will stop him

 

[bodecea]

Maybe you should read the constitution. Even the hyper restrictive interpretation crowd can't deny that the Congress has the exclusive constitutional power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Congress shall have the authority to raise an army and navy. Raise being the key word here, meaning they can levy taxes to fund them. There is nothing in the constitution that says congress shall make laws that govern the military, that is left up to the UCMJ, not some dickweed politician in washington.
Unless of course you can prove otherwise. I'll be waiting.

The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate. One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military. He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard. Things haven't changed on the liberal side of the ball since I served so that was to be expected. . All that I have to say is that folks like mr. gekaap, aren't worthy of spit shinning the shoes of the most junior private.

Grunt11b, has served, and has a frame of reference with which to form an opinion. Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply. I salute you sir. You are a true American Patriot. Thank you for your service to this country.

Interesting....even Grunt11b admits now that he was wrong....you seem to be of the frame of mind that people have only served if they agree with your opinon on DADT. Rest assured....I served for 21 years and am now retired. And I totally disagree with you.....you will now probably say I didn't serve. That seems to be your M.O.

I would only add one thing to Grunt11b's reply. I still think that all "dickweed Washington politicians" should be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, and strapped into a seat that is bolted to the front bumper of an MRAP. After being driven through the AO for at least 3 months. If that were to happen I think that a profound change in Washington's attitude, and decision making process in relation to the military would become evident.

I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball. Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you. Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion. Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot. That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies. But, leave the troops alone.

Have a nice day.

 

[gekaap]

The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate. One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military.

I have such a "contemptuous" view of the military that I stepped up and volunteered for service. And I now stand firm in supporting protecting the rights of our men and women in uniform. That sounds very "contemptuous" indeed.

He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard.

I hear those opinions all of the time, which is why I know that what you are saying is full of shit.

Things haven't changed on the liberal side of the ball since I served so that was to be expected. . All that I have to say is that folks like mr. gekaap, aren't worthy of spit shinning the shoes of the most junior private.

It's quite sad that you consider people who stand up and speak in favor of protecting the rights of American citizens, especially those citizens who serve our country in the military, as unworthy. You are a disgrace not only to the service, but to our entire country. You have no respect for our military personnel or the freedom they help protect.

Grunt11b, has served, and has a frame of reference with which to form an opinion.

I've served as well. But that doesn't really matter much to this subject, because service in the military does not automatically make one right or wrong. You're such a narcissist that I would venture to suggest that you suffer from a disease called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply.

If you call that accurate and perceptive, then I don't know what to tell you. Even he was forced to admit that he was wrong.

I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball. Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you. Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion. Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot. That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies. But, leave the troops alone.

Have a nice day.

This here shows that you are not here to discuss anything. You're here to throw an extremist bitchfit, like a little child who doesn't get his way and cries to his mommy, and then punches a little girl in the face when crying doesn't get him the attention he wants. You are pathetic. A waste of flesh. Someone should have taught your mother how to swallow.

 

[kaz]

I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong,...

1. Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus. It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals. It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals. A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.

2. The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.

3. There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals. In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.

4. As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.

Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html


>>>>

OK, fair enough. In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals. Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.

I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data. It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country. Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy. I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact. And that fact is irrefutable.

 

[kaz]

I stated that using the f-word for gay man is disrespectful and not using it isn't being politically correct. Your response was "Yeah it is".

What other conclusion am I to draw from that?

You're going to have to show me that post. Something was misunderstood there. I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "***" in itself is either offensive or not offensive. Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say. You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html

My God, you have zero ability to detect sarcasm, do you?

 

[yota5]

"Interesting....even Grunt11b admits now that he was wrong....you seem to be of the frame of mind that people have only served if they agree with your opinon on DADT. Rest assured....I served for 21 years and am now retired. And I totally disagree with you.....you will now probably say I didn't serve. That seems to be your M.O." (bodecea)

Good day bodecea. Those of us who serve, and who have served have certain core values ingrained into our persona's. You've probably noticed that active duty, and veterans alike place high value in Loyalty, Integrity, Honor, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Personal Courage.

Therefore it doesn't surprise me that Grunt11b, has admitted his error. No one is right 100% of the time. I can tell you that I too am mistaken at times. That is why I will admit to my errors as well. It comes down to the issue of trust. Service men and women place a high value on that commodity. Liars aren't tolerated.

Trust is the highest compliment that one soldier can pay to another. Along with trust the concept of team is paramount. Military core values are missing from the civilian rank and file. That is why you may have a hard time following what I'm about to say.

In the military it's all about the common well being of the whole. Team! This is the foundation of esprit de corp/ morale. Team, along with a professional NCO corps is what sets the American military apart from all others. That sense of team is what sets veterans apart from the civilian rank and file. I would trust Grunt11b, but I can't say that I'd trust many of you who've responded to this thread.

Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team. That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military.

By the way Bod, let me know how you make out at the rest area? I'll bet that you'll have a great time.

 

[kaz]

I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style

Even though I've tended to be on your side, I see absolutely nothing wrong or deviant in any way about being gay. Why do you care what consenting adults do between themselves? You're not gay, fine. But don't pass judgment on others. My issue is only that we send 18 year old kids into places like Iraq and Afghanistan and I think social attitude changes should be driven somewhere else and go to the military once it's happened. They have enough on their minds. Sadly for the Left, that only incents them all the further to start there.

 

[kaz]

Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team. That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military

I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point. I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement. That argument cannot be used for "black." But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way? What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?

 

[yota5]

The included quotes give a good representation of differing mindsets in this debate. One side in this case represented by gekaap the clown, has a contemptuous view of the military.

I have such a "contemptuous" view of the military that I stepped up and volunteered for service. And I now stand firm in supporting protecting the rights of our men and women in uniform. That sounds very "contemptuous" indeed.

He and his minions feels that the opinions of the brave young men and women that this nation sends in to harms way shouldn't be heard.

I hear those opinions all of the time, which is why I know that what you are saying is full of shit.



It's quite sad that you consider people who stand up and speak in favor of protecting the rights of American citizens, especially those citizens who serve our country in the military, as unworthy. You are a disgrace not only to the service, but to our entire country. You have no respect for our military personnel or the freedom they help protect.



I've served as well. But that doesn't really matter much to this subject, because service in the military does not automatically make one right or wrong. You're such a narcissist that I would venture to suggest that you suffer from a disease called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Therefore he has posted an accurate and perceptive reply.

If you call that accurate and perceptive, then I don't know what to tell you. Even he was forced to admit that he was wrong.

I have a suggestion for those of you on the pro gay side of the ball. Go up on the Interstate Hwy that is closest to you. Find a rest area that is frequented by those of you that are of a liberal/ gay persuasion. Then you can all engage in a liberal Charlie Foxtrot. That should satisfy even your most deviant fantasies. But, leave the troops alone.

Have a nice day.

This here shows that you are not here to discuss anything. You're here to throw an extremist bitchfit, like a little child who doesn't get his way and cries to his mommy, and then punches a little girl in the face when crying doesn't get him the attention he wants. You are pathetic. A waste of flesh. Someone should have taught your mother how to swallow.

Wow! Talk about a ***** fit. But then I realize that liberals are as fearful of truth as a vampire is fearful of the cleansing rays of a bright sunlit day. Faced with truth most liberals feel threatened, and are compelled to over react.

You served? I've never met active duty or vet personnel who would accept a clown avatar for any reason. I think that would have something to do with credibility, and self respect issues.

Oh well to each his own. Have fun at the rest area. I'm sure you'll have a great time.

 

[sinister59]

I said AIDS is primarily a gay disease with the exception of drug users, show me wrong,...

1. Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus. It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals. It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals. A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.

2. The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.

3. There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals. In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.

4. As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.

Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html


>>>>

OK, fair enough. In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals. Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.

I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data. It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country. Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy. I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact. And that fact is irrefutable.

what a peace of shit . you believe its a non white disease ?

go light you cross o0n your neighbor's lawn .