- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Not hate. He's fine with them! As long as he doesn't know they are gay.
Oh, so you're a mind reader, now?
Not hate. He's fine with them! As long as he doesn't know they are gay.
I would not waste my time. I find the military for any nation repugnant.
So far you have not answered one of my questions. Not one.How long before you et. al. understand that it has nothing to do with all that and that these talking points are just the typical Libbos insults towards people who don't agree with them?
I should have known it would be impossible to have a rational discussion with a Liberal on this subject.
So far you have not answered one of my questions. Not one.
Ah yes like phantoms. That might be a good title for a book The phantom gay. heheheheheNot hate. He's fine with them! As long as he doesn't know they are gay.
Well right in that statement you prove what I believe is correct. You are bigoted against them and don't want them around so that seems to make me correct.Why do you think I hate gays? Have I said that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military? I didn't? I didn't think so. How about you ask me what I think of the idea, before you automatically assume that since I'm not in lockstep with you, that I hate gays.
Well right in that statement you prove what I believe is correct. You are bigoted against them and don't want them around so that seems to make me correct.
Did i say anything about the troops. I said military did I not? YOU need to upgrade the reading for understanding skills.And, you call other people bigots? :lamo
I would not waste my time. I find the military for any nation repugnant.
And, you call other people bigots? :lamo
Did i say anything about the troops. I said military did I not? YOU need to upgrade the reading for understanding skills.
No they are not. Thinking that gays would hurt the military just by them being known is bigoted. That is a child's mentality.
Its pbvious by your comment that you have never seerved in the military or you would know about troops morale ans command readiness.........Happy troops aew much betteer in combat........They don't need the gay thing disturbing them.......
Funny...though....Navy.....but most of the Military are not the bigots that you think that they are. Most are fine with gay people serving....they aren't disturbed by it at all.
Its a new world Navy.....and your anti-gay bigotry isn't welcome many places anymore.....including the military.
Will, it appears your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You really think a military shower is comparable to posting one's .... seriously, I can't even dignify that thought with a re-type.
as soon as you begin advocating forcing female servicemembers to strip down in front of the males, let me know.
............. Will. You're against gays serving openly in the military?
:shrug: not that it matters any more - the decision has been made and we follow orders
but generally, yes - at least and especially in the combat arms. I thought that for such units, DADT was an excellent compromise which allowed those who wanted to serve to do so, while protecting the units from the added stress that the introduction of sexual tension would bring.
Why, indeed.
why betty? why wouldn't you expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? would it be better if that audience instead was generally made up solely of 18-22 year old males?
Well, since you edited out my quote, I don't feel the need to answer you.
Finding the military repugnant is far different than finding particular people a problem. The military is an organization. He does not have a point.He does have a point here.
That is fine they believe in what they are doing. That is up to them and I don't have a problem with them. It is the entire nature of the military as a whole. It has nothing to do with it's members. Why would I have to be believe that the people that do as they are told by the the organization are repugnant. That is an extrapolation that does not fit. Sorry try again.Who do you think makes up the military? Most of the men and women in out military believe in what they are doing and believe that a strong military is a necessity. If you find the military repugnant, you must also believe that anyone who serves in the military is repugnant.
How long before you et. al. understand that it has nothing to do with all that and that these talking points are just the typical Libbos insults towards people who don't agree with them?
I should have known it would be impossible to have a rational discussion with a Liberal on this subject.
redress said:There is a potential argument that claiming a group of people are not fit to serve and will disrupt military readiness, especially when this argument flies in the face of all research on the topic, is in fact bigoted. It is certainly stupid.
Yes a child's mentality. Gays have served in military for ages and only the homophobic would have a problem.Μολὼν λαβέ;1059561061 said:Child's mentality, eh? Is your opinion based on evidence or just emotion?
Why gays should not serve in the military
no. just ones who insist that disagreement with them must be bigotry.
there is a big difference between "will reduce good order, discipline, and unit cohesion" and "not fit to serve" given that I support DADT, i obviously already think they are fit to serve, and merely wish to find a way for them to do so that doesn't involve anyone else suffering.
frankly i find the need to reach for the "bigot" card to be indicative of someone's intelligence. If that is truly the best one can come up with, then they are no better than the "Tea Party Just Opposes Obama Because He's Black" types.
Finding the military repugnant is far different than finding particular people a problem. The military is an organization. He does not have a point.
there is a big difference between "will reduce good order, discipline, and unit cohesion" and "not fit to serve" given that I support DADT, i obviously already think they are fit to serve, and merely wish to find a way for them to do so that doesn't involve anyone else suffering.
frankly i find the need to reach for the "bigot" card to be indicative of someone's intelligence. If that is truly the best one can come up with, then they are no better than the "Tea Party Just Opposes Obama Because He's Black" types. It seeks to make an ad hominem smear against one's opponents rather than actually meet or negate their arguments.
To pick on one select group within the military because of sexual orientation is bigotry. How blind are you. I am not calling you a bigot because you disagree with me. I am calling you one because of what you are defending. So you might want to try reading what your type if you don't want to be seen as having a bigots viewpoint.
I quoted a post of yours, but I quoted it before you edited my quote out. Other than that, it's nothing I care enough about to pursue.
So it is ok for people to suffer, as long as it isn't you. Got it, that sounds so much less bigoted.