• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

That is the best you got huh?:rofl Come back when you have something to add instead of attacking me.........

I've already dismantled any arguments you have. I don't see any point to kicking a man while he is down. I'll just leave a placeholder for your predictions so in the future you can see how wrong you were and I'll have a handy post to quote whenever you make doomsday predictions in the future.
 
I've already dismantled any arguments you have. I don't see any point to kicking a man while he is down. I'll just leave a placeholder for your predictions so in the future you can see how wrong you were and I'll have a handy post to quote whenever you make doomsday predictions in the future.

I gave you a chance and While your patting yourself and the back and not saying **** or adding anything constructive to the thread and since I don't like to debate little kids who just personally attack other posters I think I will just block you because you bore me sonny......I been a member here for almost 5 years and because of your juvenile antics you will be the first person I have blocked sine 26 champs was here in 2005.you sound a lot like him by the way and if you keep attacking other posters you will suffer the same fate he did...........You can respond to this if you like but I won't see it.............

bye bye.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
I gave you a chance and While your patting yourself and the back and not saying **** or adding anything constructive to the thread and since I don't like to debate little kids who just personally attack other posters I think I will just block you because you bore me sonny......I been a member here for almost 5 years and because of your juvenile antics you will be the first person I have blocked sine 26 champs was here in 2005.you sound a lot like him by the way...........You can rspond to this if you like but I won't see it.............

bye bye.:2wave:

Do what you need to do to protect your precious ego NP. I was getting tired of proving you wrong in thread after thread anyways.
 
The fact that being around gays makes most men's skin crawl has no bearing on the law?.....:confused:
I for one would find solace in not knowing that my 'buddy' wanted to.....Ugh...:shock:
It gives a whole new meaning to "I got your back".........:(

We don't in this country tend to make laws based on peoples irrational emotional reactions. We never should in fact.
 
Maybe it is because you ignore all evidence to contrary, just like you ignored that video.

And it is certainly broken when 300 qualified translators are dismissed from the military just because they are gay during a war when there is a shortage of Arab translators. Imagine all the intelligence that could have been missed as a result and how many lives may have been saved with that intelligence.

That is what you get when you let prejudice dictate the terms of national security. People may have needlessly died because of this policy, but you could care less.

Okay, "Critical" Thought. I apologize for giving you my side of the story. I guess you know it all.

God Bless you and be well.
 
Thank you for bolstering my position....
Loathing is not fear.....;)
I'm not worried about gay guys, just don't hit on me or publicly display your disgusting behavior......
As a straight guy, I can tell you DADT works for me.....;)

Oh, so you loath gay people?

I'd laugh if you weren't so pathetic...
 
Okay, "Critical" Thought. I apologize for giving you my side of the story. I guess you know it all.

God Bless you and be well.

If you hadn't pretended your side of the story was the only side of the story...
 
Oh, so you loath gay people?

I'd laugh if you weren't so pathetic...

Eschew would be a better choice of words.......;)
I'm speaking subjectively....
One man's opinion.....
I wonder how potential recruits feel about the situation?.....
I know I wouldn't join if it were changed.......
That is all......;)
 
Forgive me, but how does it relate to DADT?

You must be joking.

Yes, Men who have unprotected anal sex with Men are proportionately higher in contracting HIV, but that is primarily an issue of promiscuity and unprotected anal sex, and has nothing to do with sexual orientation in itself.

So...what you're saying here is that men...who have sex with men...are more likely to contract HIV....and that it is an issue with promiscuity...and you don't think that has anything to do with DADT? You..must be joking?

A monogamous gay couple, in which both partners are clean, cannot possibly give each other HIV.

Obviously, the monogamous gay couple...at least among males...as you point out above with your promiscuity statement...are few and far between.

Furthermore, the argument does not extend to lesbians who are among the lowest risk groups for contracting HIV.

This is true, but then shouldn't the focus be on maes as they dominate numbers especially in combat ranks where such disease and human behavior are most critical.

So I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, but I'm sure it is just as illogical as all the others you make.

Yours is the argument with the burden, we have some atrocious AIDS stats in this nation and discussing allowing gays to serve openly would almost certainly bring in the question of the increased risks of HIV. Now, if you're saying it's a promiscuity issue, does that need to be taken into account?
 
That bull **** was posted 20 pages back by your buddy Hautey...........keep up DD.....it has already been discounted


Did you watch your daddy Obama the other night.....did you see what the Joint chiefs did when he tried to get gay votes????

Let me give you a clue Navy....the joint chiefs ALWAYS sit stoically silent like the Supreme Court. Have you never watched a SOTU speech before?
 
Let me give you a clue Navy....the joint chiefs ALWAYS sit stoically silent like the Supreme Court. Have you never watched a SOTU speech before?

May I ask...since you too know of process....does the Legislature ever get up behind the always stoic Supreme Court and applaud after the President chastises their decisions?

Don't want to interrupt, just wonderin.
 
Yours is the argument with the burden, we have some atrocious AIDS stats in this nation and discussing allowing gays to serve openly would almost certainly bring in the question of the increased risks of HIV. Now, if you're saying it's a promiscuity issue, does that need to be taken into account?

Let me get this straight...you think allowing gays to serve openly would cause a greater HIV risk than allowing them to serve secretly?

:rofl

Oh please do tell me how that is possible.
 
Let me get this straight...you think allowing gays to serve openly would cause a greater HIV risk than allowing them to serve secretly?

I think that issue very much needs to be raised. However, we don't allow them to serve secretly, they violate the UCMJ if they act out. The military has a zero tolerance for their behavior, allowing them to serve openly changes that. Therefore AIDS affects must be discussed
 
I think that issue very much needs to be raised. However, we don't allow them to serve secretly, they violate the UCMJ if they act out. The military has a zero tolerance for their behavior, allowing them to serve openly changes that. Therefore AIDS affects must be discussed

You are avoiding the question...exactly how will allowing gays to serve openly pose a greater HIV risk than allowing them to serve secretly?

The entire purpose of the DADT compromise was so that gays could serve. The leaders simply weren't allowed to ask them if they were gay and the gay service people weren't allowed to say they were gay; hence the name of the policy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Seriously, you didn't even realize that much?
 
You are avoiding the question...exactly how will allowing gays to serve openly pose a greater HIV risk than allowing them to serve secretly?

We allow them to serve...as long as they do not engage in homosexual behavior...that increases the risk of HIV. Allowing them to serve openly is the same as removing the behavior from being a UCMJ violation.

The entire purpose of the DADT compromise was so that gays could serve. The leaders simply weren't allowed to ask them if they were gay and the gay service people weren't allowed to say they were gay; hence the name of the policy, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Homosexual behavior has you removed straightaway. Repealing DADT would in effect condone homosexual behavior, the military would be forced to admit what a soldier does on his own time isn't relevant. A huge mistake in my opinion.
 
We allow them to serve...as long as they do not engage in homosexual behavior...that increases the risk of HIV. Allowing them to serve openly is the same as removing the behavior from being a UCMJ violation.

You allow them to serve as long as they practice protected anal sex? Works for me. After all, the only type of homosexual behavior that increases the risk of HIV is unprotected anal sex. Allowing them to serve openly would actually probably reduce the HIV risk because then the military could address the behavior by having condoms and such available.

Homosexual behavior has you removed straightaway. Repealing DADT would in effect condone homosexual behavior, the military would be forced to admit what a soldier does on his own time isn't relevant. A huge mistake in my opinion.

So we get down to the truth of the matter of your side. This is about "condoning homosexual behavior". This has nothing to do with matters of national security.
 
Last edited:
My solution is not to rescind DADT. You're asking me to fix problems that I would never allow to come about.

Wrong. I guess you forgot that you're the one that asked me how I would deal with DADT being rescinded. Here's the post:

I agree, they should be willing to do that, but a lot of the infantry folks won't, so where does that leave us? Just kick out all the conservative Christians and headstrong alpha males?

See? You asked the question. You set the parameters (i.e. DADT has been rescinded, now what?). Now you're refusing to acknowledge that those parameters were ever set by you, AND you continue refusing to answer your own question.

by the way, you never offered any solutions either, so I guess that means you have none and are just fishing for suggestions.

Wrong (again). I did give my ideas. Here's the post:

You educate them and expect them to act like the ****ing adults they're supposed to be, to follow their orders and not deviate from them for any pansy "personal reasons." You give them strict instructions and allow for one or two "oopsie" moments, so no one can cry foul about how awful and harsh it is to have to suddenly behave like a grown up. After that, they're out. If it means we ****can a bunch of bad apples, so be it. Do we really want a bunch of whiny and/or violent homophobes on the force anyway?

Just do your damned job and get over yourself.

See that? And you even responded to that post. Now you're pretending that I never made it. :roll:

I'm not here to solve problems you insist on creating.

YOU created the "problem" by posing the question. The only person here refusing to answer the question is you.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. The posts containing your question and my answer are there, and have been reposted here. YOU came up with the question of how to handle DADT being rescinded.

I agree, they should be willing to do that, but a lot of the infantry folks won't, so where does that leave us? Just kick out all the conservative Christians and headstrong alpha males?

I will ask one last time for you to answer your own question. Thus far, you've proved only that

1. You lie about what others have or have not said.

2. You pose questions, then refuse to acknowledge the answers you receive.

3. You refuse to give your own answer to the question you posed.

4. You don't have the chops for real debate.

FAIL​
 
Last edited:
The military has a zero tolerance for their behavior,

Seems to me the military should have zero tolerance for the poor behavior of those who are too afraid of gay people to serve next to them.
 
If you hadn't pretended your side of the story was the only side of the story...

I wasn't doing that. You just think I was. I'm more than willing to hear other sides of the issue. That's probably why I have such a moderate or centrist position on the matter. I see both the benefits and negatives associated with DADT.
 
Eschew would be a better choice of words.......;)
I'm speaking subjectively....
One man's opinion.....
I wonder how potential recruits feel about the situation?.....
I know I wouldn't join if it were changed.......
That is all......;)

What are you so worried about? Aren't you secure enough in your own sexuality to be in the company of gay men without feeling like a little girl?
 
What are you so worried about? Aren't you secure enough in your own sexuality to be in the company of gay men without feeling like a little girl?

Since I received a warning, I can't say what I really want to, but......
Since you trotted out this tired, old fallacy, why don't you roll out the other one?....
You know, the BS one about latent homo tendencies & all that carp?....:doh
Equally tired, equally false, but fags & fag lovers always go there as a last line of defense.....
Anyway.....
How many people are in the military?.....:confused:
Let them VOTE on it......;)
If it is a majority, then so be it.....
However, those who don't like it should be able to opt out immediately.....;)
 
Wrong. I guess you forgot that you're the one that asked me how I would deal with DADT being rescinded. Here's the post:



See? You asked the question. You set the parameters (i.e. DADT has been rescinded, now what?). Now you're refusing to acknowledge that those parameters were ever set by you, AND you continue refusing to answer your own question.



Wrong (again). I did give my ideas. Here's the post:



See that? And you even responded to that post. Now you're pretending that I never made it. :roll:



YOU created the "problem" by posing the question. The only person here refusing to answer the question is you.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. The posts containing your question and my answer are there, and have been reposted here. YOU came up with the question of how to handle DADT being rescinded.



I will ask one last time for you to answer your own question. Thus far, you've proved only that

1. You lie about what others have or have not said.

2. You pose questions, then refuse to acknowledge the answers you receive.

3. You refuse to give your own answer to the question you posed.

4. You don't have the chops for real debate.

FAIL​

You must associate big red letters with success. Too bad the fail is all your's, my dear.

You want to repeal DADT, not me. That means it's your responsibility, not mine, to provide the framework for said policy change. The fact that I asked you to outline such a framework does not all of a sudden shift the burden of responsibility onto me, indeed, that would be truly silly. If you want to repeal DADT, then you need to tell us how it's going to be done effectively. Fact is, you can't because you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, so, instead of admitting this painfully obvious fact, you blather and create fake debate protocols whilst emboldening your letters and splashing them in red font; last time I checked, that was a debate tactic used by high-schoolers and Sgt. Stinger.

Thanks for playing though!

:2wave:
 
Since I received a warning, I can't say what I really want to, but......
Since you trotted out this tired, old fallacy, why don't you roll out the other one?....
You know, the BS one about latent homo tendencies & all that carp?....:doh

Well, maybe you do have some latent homosexual tendencies. I mean, why would you be so uncomfortable around a gay man unless you thought they might elicit feelings of arousal in you?

Equally tired, equally false, but fags & fag lovers always go there as a last line of defense.....
Anyway.....

Fag-lover? Are you in grade school?

How many people are in the military?.....:confused:
Let them VOTE on it......;)
If it is a majority, then so be it.....
However, those who don't like it should be able to opt out immediately.....;)

In case you haven't noticed, I support DADT. Problem is, homophobic dudes like you aren't helping.
 
Back
Top Bottom