• 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!

70% of military believe lifting gay ban would have positive influence

I proved the main point outlined in the main text. The pictures provide, well, background as to what Communism can do and how appalling it is that anybody from a mainstream party can support a cause the USA fought so many years to curb.

And to take this further; had there been a Republican ofice with a picture of Mussolini on the wall, would it be downplayed in such a manner? I think not.
 
Edit pieces:

Your evidence only includes clearly right wing biased youtube videos and cherry picked articles ...attempt[ing] to create a false impression and an appeal to emotion.
Click to expand...

Another liberal gambit - evidence is biased and appealing to emotion. These are just examples.

All these liberals, had they lived different lives, would have made splendid defence lawyers at Nuremberg! Well, they'd have tried!
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
I proved the main point outlined in the main text. The pictures provide, well, background as to what Communism can do and how appalling it is that anybody from a mainstream party can support a cause the USA fought so many years to curb.

And to take this further; had there been a Republican ofice with a picture of Mussolini on the wall, would it be downplayed in such a manner? I think not.
Click to expand...

Are you even aware of the topic of this thread? Are you aware that a poster on a single campaign worker means nothing? Are you aware that you still have not proven a single point in this thread?
 
Are you aware that topics can flow from one to another? Are you aware that Marxism goes all the way up to Obama and that not being convinced by backup evidence isn't the same as not proving something?


Huge stack: marxism democratic party - Google Search
 
Even if not logically impossible, Bush being the personification of a metaphysical concept is rather different than proof of Obama being marinated in Marxist doctrine.

Just a couple of tidbits from the bag. Interesting when at the time the West was locked into the Cold War.


A serious charge from Obama's old room-mate:

He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.

Drew’s viewpoint that a revolution was unrealistic “made me very unpopular that evening. It was considered a reactionary and insensitive thing to argue,” says Drew.
Click to expand...

New Zeal: Obama's College Marxism

Lovable old pastor: YouTube - Rev. Jeremiah Wright Praises Magazine's No Nonsense Marxism


To balance that, I suppose we need quotes from the 'antichrist' bag containing quotes from pro-Bush devil worshippers and Lucifer himself!
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Even if not logically impossible, Bush being the personification of a metaphysical concept is rather different than proof of Obama being marinated in Marxist doctrine.

Just a couple of tidbits from the bag. Interesting when at the time the West was locked into the Cold War.


A serious charge from Obama's old room-mate:



New Zeal: Obama's College Marxism

Lovable old pastor: YouTube - Rev. Jeremiah Wright Praises Magazine's No Nonsense Marxism


To balance that, I suppose we need quotes from the 'antichrist' bag containing quotes from pro-Bush devil worshippers and Lucifer himself!
Click to expand...

A youtube video and a blog, neither of which actually addresses your way off topic claim that Obama is somehow Marxist. Way to go! Do you know what facts are? Reliable sources? Credibility?
 
Redress said:
A youtube video and a blog, neither of which actually addresses your way off topic claim that Obama is somehow Marxist. Way to go! Do you know what facts are? Reliable sources? Credibility?
Click to expand...

He's helped funnel billions of dollars into private insurance companies. How does that NOT scream marxist to you!?

:D
 
Deuce said:
He's helped funnel billions of dollars into private insurance companies. How does that NOT scream marxist to you!?

:D
Click to expand...

Well, for that spin to work, you would still have to change the meaning of the word Marxist to make it work.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Ah, so it's the default position then, happening almost by accident. Bunch of six-year-olds, the lot of you!





So let me see now, raging into people for having views you don't agree with, however strong, will persuade me will it? You do realise that simply saying 'I don't agree with that but horses for courses' would have ended this spitting little outpouring from the Left ages ago? I would have just said my piece and been off.
Click to expand...

In bold. I sincerely doubt that.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Oh right, so I've got to be railroaded. Right, let's forget it. I said my original bits ages ago and got sucked down the liberal u-pipe.
Click to expand...

You sucked yourself down the conservative u-pipe. Whatever a u-pipe is.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Be that the case I learn from the liberal masters Redress, learning from the Liberal masters.

And unlike them I have the links too!



_________________________________________

LIBERAL REPLY TEMPLATE




Blah blah blah, you're a <insert playground name>, yadda yadda how dare you, waffle waffle invalidation, haw haw haw no rights.




Pfft! That's so inconsequential, retarded and right wing that I'm unable to refute it, whilst at the same time smearing who wrote it or where it came from.
Click to expand...

Long time ago, I posted the standard typicaly extreme conservative replies to debate. It was towards another poster who is no longer here. RoP... you just inherited it.

Standard extreme conservative replies to debate. A simple template that is used:

1) I'm right because I said so. Shut up.
2) Prove it? :bolt
3) :2bigcry:
 
A youtube video and a blog, neither of which actually addresses your way off topic claim that Obama is somehow Marxist.
Click to expand...

There's plenty there to reveal that he was. And as I say, which was my point, had there been any revelations of fascist sympathy between conservatives, there'd be a rumpus. We know there'd be so in England.

Still, if my points bother you so much that they're just dismissed out of hand, you can always take it up with the moderators.


cry.gif
Click to expand...

?
 
jamesrage said:
I kind of what this 70% of military is.Is it troops who are in a combat MOS or is it Pogs(pronounced pōg, acronym for persons other than grunts, noncombat troops, civilians in soldiers clothing, if you are a infantry solder then it is everybody who is not a infantry solder)? Most of the pogs I observed pretty much acted like civilians, these are the soldiers who would not be hurt by a lack of unit cohesion nor would their lives be on the line as much those in combat MOSs. They lacked the same discipline as combat soldiers.
Click to expand...

DADT affects everyone in the military, not just combat troops. On top of this, there is no proof anywhere that openly gay Marines or soldiers would affect unit cohesion, morale or discipline. People's actions should be what is taken into account when determining whether someone is negatively affecting any of those things. A servicemember should have to fear discharge or not being allowed to serve in certain units if they have shown that they cannot do the job, won't do the job to their fullest, or if they cause problems with discipline due to their actions, such as sleeping with someone else's wife or even girlfriend or they can't control their alcohol consumption or fighting urges even off duty, things like this. A person should not have to fear discharge or not being able to serve in certain units because others feel that they are not worthy, despite having no evidence to support such views. A person should not have to fear discharge or not being allowed to serve in certain units because others have insecurity issues or cannot put aside their own biases to actually follow orders and/or do their mission.

And how in the heck does a unit being in more danger of putting their life on the line have anything to do with serving with openly gay soldiers/Marines? You need to explain how somone being openly gay will somehow automatically put their unit in more danger.

No one joined the service to feel "comfortable" around everyone they work with. In fact, military life is more likely to change some people's prejudices they held before joining the military because those people are being "forced" to work with people they would otherwise be uncomfortable around. There are racists and sexists in the military. There are also people who are so set in their own religious beliefs, that they are uncomfortable being around others whose beliefs are very different than their own. There are also people who come from different backgrounds and lifestyles, even some that others would consider immoral or disgusting. Almost everyone in the military is forced, at one time or another, to work with people they would rather not work with, including those in combat units.
 
It lloks like DADT will not be repealed by this Congress as they don't have the votes to do it and they sure as hell won't have them next year........
 
Navy Pride said:
It lloks like DADT will not be repealed by this Congress as they don't have the votes to do it and they sure as hell won't have them next year........
Click to expand...

And John McCain is going to win in 2008...you can take that to the bank!
 
Redress said:
Well, for that spin to work, you would still have to change the meaning of the word Marxist to make it work.
Click to expand...

That would be the joke, yes.
 
Redress said:
And John McCain is going to win in 2008...you can take that to the bank!
Click to expand...

Might have been wishful thinking on my part...That said you don't have the votes to repeal DADT, instead of smoking mirrors reply to that please.........Thanks.........
 
Navy Pride said:
It lloks like DADT will not be repealed by this Congress as they don't have the votes to do it and they sure as hell won't have them next year........
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that you believe the Republicans in Congress don't actually care about what is best for the military. If they are not willing to take into consideration this survey and the recommendations of the majority of the military heads and experts, then they are simply voting on their own biases. In fact, the majority of those voting for those Congressmen and women are for repealing DADT. So aren't they just showing how bias they actually are by not voting for what most of the military heads and most of their constituents want, and what most of those affected by this repeal could care less if it happens or not.
 
roguenuke said:
Republicans in Congress don't actually care about what is best for the military.
Click to expand...

This seems correct regardless of what Navy says. The Republicans are blocking a very important, win-win nuclear pact with Russia purely because they want to see Obama fail. There is no justifiable reason for them to hold it up other then for political points. The bad thing is that it is highly damaging to the US not only in military aspects, but in credibility. Who is going to bother asking us for a treaty when the GOP will simply say no, even if it is clearly in our best interest? They are taking McConnell's goal of getting Obama out of office even if it hurts America in the process.
 
roguenuke said:
So, what you're saying is that you believe the Republicans in Congress don't actually care about what is best for the military. If they are not willing to take into consideration this survey and the recommendations of the majority of the military heads and experts, then they are simply voting on their own biases. In fact, the majority of those voting for those Congressmen and women are for repealing DADT. So aren't they just showing how bias they actually are by not voting for what most of the military heads and most of their constituents want, and what most of those affected by this repeal could care less if it happens or not.
Click to expand...

Majority of military heads and "ecperts"? One a different thread poll, 95% of said military is not comfortable with it' probably because of the perverse nonsense happening in Britain. Also, you say those Republicans are just biased, but you forget half of the nation.
 
Wake said:
Majority of military heads and "ecperts"? One a different thread poll, 95% of said military is not comfortable with it' probably because of the perverse nonsense happening in Britain. Also, you say those Republicans are just biased, but you forget half of the nation.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a poll. The two are not equivalent. The 95% number is complete bull****.
 
Deuce said:
That wasn't a poll. The two are not equivalent. The 95% number is complete bull****.
Click to expand...

Don't waste your time. He doesn't understand statistics. He could not tell you why a show of hands of a few thousand soldiers at town hall style meetings in front of commanding officers might be a little less valid of a survey method than an anonymous survey of over 100,000 active duty troops.
 
roguenuke said:
So, what you're saying is that you believe the Republicans in Congress don't actually care about what is best for the military. If they are not willing to take into consideration this survey and the recommendations of the majority of the military heads and experts, then they are simply voting on their own biases. In fact, the majority of those voting for those Congressmen and women are for repealing DADT. So aren't they just showing how bias they actually are by not voting for what most of the military heads and most of their constituents want, and what most of those affected by this repeal could care less if it happens or not.
Click to expand...

I will go with the 4 joint chiefs who are against lifting the ban......The survey sent out was a farce.......It was worded like DADT is a done deal..........Its not........

Either way you don't have the votes now so whether the left likes it or not it will continue.....Your buddy Hussein Obama speaks with a forked tongue on the issue...One one hand he is against DADT on the other he directs his justice dept to fight the repeal......Make sure you vote for him in 2012....:)
 
Deuce said:
That wasn't a poll. The two are not equivalent. The 95% number is complete bull****.
Click to expand...

Yeah because you don't agree with it.........That is the actual men in the Marine Corps speaking to the Commandant........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom