The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[bodecea]

well by all means show us how the military is or would be endorsing homosexuality?

If they change their policies making homosexuality acceptable they are.

so what you're saying is passive acceptance is the same as active endorsement?

Wait! Wait! I think I'm onto something here. I'm seeing the same thing in another thread. IF we are not actively and voraciously going AGAINST something, we are really actively endorsing it. There is no middle ground. At least it looks like Spoonman's stance and the stance of at least four posters in the thread :
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...trivialize-the-threat-from-radical-islam.html

A trait of the far right partisan maybe?

 

[bodecea]

Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?

i'm not.

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.

where is the endorsement?

Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?

DADT is anti known gay. That is what is known. But please, play on.

 

[Spoonman]

What?

You obviously understood it, you bolded it.

I am a little puzzled....what kind of policy change ENDORSED homosexuality? You seem to be going into fantasy land with that one.

Same question to you. The military's stance with DADT is not an anti gay statement then?

 

[ogibillm]

Why do libs always try to put words in your mouth?

i'm not.

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.

where is the endorsement?

Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?

it is. but removal of that policy is not an endorsement of homosexuality. it's acceptance of homosexuality. there is a difference.

 

[Spoonman]

i'm not.

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.

where is the endorsement?

Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?

DADT is anti known gay. That is what is known. But please, play on.

So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay? You play on LMAO

 

[ogibillm]

Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?

DADT is anti known gay. That is what is known. But please, play on.

So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay? You play on LMAO

it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?

 

[Spoonman]

i'm not.

you said endorsed. repealing dadt would at best be passive acceptance.

where is the endorsement?

Ok so DADT is not anti gay. That's what you're saying right?

it is. but removal of that policy is not an endorsement of homosexuality. it's acceptance of homosexuality. there is a difference.

I repeat

So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay? You play on LMAO

it sure is the same thing. which is why the military has opposed repealing it even under pressure from obama. they are not going to come out and endorse a lifestyle

 

[Spoonman]

DADT is anti known gay. That is what is known. But please, play on.

So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay? You play on LMAO

it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?

of course you can't see how I do it. you have liberal blinders on. They blind you to so much

 

[ogibillm]

So DADT is anti gay but repealing it is not pro gay? You play on LMAO

it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?

of course you can't see how I do it. you have liberal blinders on. They blind you to so much

wow. that analogy just went screaming over your head - the only question now is whether or not you really didn't get it or if you're being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Spoonman]

it must be awfully tough to drive your car. frankly i don't see how you do it. do you just go through the stop signs and lights or do you rapidly shift between drive and reverse so as not to go through them but still remain in constant motion?

of course you can't see how I do it. you have liberal blinders on. They blind you to so much

wow. that analogy just went screaming over your head - the only question now is whether or not you really didn't get it or if you're being purposefully obtuse.

I see things perfectly clear. You, by your own admission are the one who has trouble seeing things. Psssst - take off the blinders

 

[Gadawg73]

any one. see unlike you, I really am tolerant

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....

I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.

 

[Spoonman]

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....

I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.

So why is it a crime for a religious figure to accept payment when all politicians do is walk around with their hand out for a payment? kind of a double standard

 

[SFC Ollie]

I feel very uncomfortable with a governmental entity doing prayer of one kind or another...I would think that religious people would be just as uncomfortable. It's not an issue of religion in government, it's an issue of government in religion. And that I most certainly am not tolerant of...proudly so.

You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....

I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.

I believe it's always been that way... So the Framers accepted it.... Of course I haven't researched that so It could have started later.

 

[Gadawg73]

Speaking as a career Navy man who served through 4 war zones from 1982 until 2002, I can safely say that Yota is full of shit.

Met my first gay person in '83 while serving on my first ship.

Was living with 2 lesbians in 1997-1998 on my last ship.

No. Gays will NOT impact readiness, and, with them being able to serve openly, will be able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to overall readiness.

Apparently, Yota, you've never been deployed, have you?

I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did. So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.

I say this again. Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately. End of story. That is why your fable doesn't hold water. That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.

Check out this story. Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers. "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.

The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."

Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com

Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

or any of these distinguished veterans:
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
Where the **** are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.

 

[Gadawg73]

You do know that our Congress opens each session with a prayer given by a paid religious figure. Payed for with our tax dollars.....

I do not have any problem with that other than a religous figure accepting payment.
But from my past experiences with organized religion it does not surprise me.

So why is it a crime for a religious figure to accept payment when all politicians do is walk around with their hand out for a payment? kind of a double standard

Who said it was a crime?
We are running deficits and we pay someone to say a prayer?
How hard is to say a prayer? And we have to pay someone?
Only a dumbass would advocate paying someone to say a prayer.

 

[Spoonman]

I've got to admit that I was fortunate in not being deployed with a bunch of rump rangers like you allege that you did. So in that case my deployments while not always pleasant observed standard SOP.

I say this again. Under DADT a service member declaring deviant sexual persuasion was discharged immediately. End of story. That is why your fable doesn't hold water. That lends credence to the assumption that you've never served in the US Military.

Check out this story. Even the first lady doesn't want to hang out with Obama's rump rangers. "A gay military advocacy group is complaining that the White House blocked its members from attending the kickoff for a military families initiative Tuesday afternoon, despite the fact Congress voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" last year.

The repeal of the longstanding policy banning gays from serving openly in the military has not yet gone into effect -- a fact first lady Michelle Obama's office cited in explaining its apparent decision not to allow Servicemembers United at the White House on Tuesday. The kickoff was hosted by Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, Vice President Biden's wife."

Read more: Gay Advocacy Group Challenges White House Over Exclusion From Military Event - FoxNews.com

Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

or any of these distinguished veterans:
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
Where the **** are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.

So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system. With a skill level beyond comprehension. Does that make him right?

 

[Gadawg73]

Are you claiming you are better than this guy?
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

or any of these distinguished veterans:
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
Where the **** are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.

So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system. With a skill level beyond comprehension. Does that make him right?

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.

 

[Spoonman]

Well how about it all you warriors that claim that gays and lesbians will hurt the readiness of the military and combat effectiveness?
Where the **** are you now that someone has put up some real evidence to refute each and every claim you make?
Which one of these vets was deficient in their duties?
Thought so. You guys are ALL TALK AND NO FACTS.

So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system. With a skill level beyond comprehension. Does that make him right?

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.

If you had paid attention is school instead of bad mouthing your country you might have gotten a little bit of intelligence.

 

[Gadawg73]

So lets say a thief breaks into what was thought to be an impenatrable security system. With a skill level beyond comprehension. Does that make him right?

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.

If you had paid attention is school instead of bad mouthing your country you might have gotten a little bit of intelligence.

Didn't have to pay attention. I had tutors.

 

[Spoonman]

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here.

If you had paid attention is school instead of bad mouthing your country you might have gotten a little bit of intelligence.

Didn't have to pay attention. I had tutors.

I either read the cliff notes or watched the movie