0
   

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

 
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:35 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Your hysteria does not address any substantive problems, and you've presented no compelling evidence that homosexuals in the military represent a substantive problem.
Any more ranting declarations of righteousness ? You are allowed to try to support your unilateral declarations with fact you know....whatever fool told you that you are knowledgable in history should be taken out and shot. Oh, wait, that was you wasnt it ? Definitely shot.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 06:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Bullshit....it is inconceivable that the Military would become open to gays and then deny their partners the extensive monetary benefits of marriage. This is way ahead of the society.


So fire departments and police departments can do so but not the military for some strange reason?

Sorry one issue is not the other.



hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:06 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
So fire departments and police departments can do so but not the military for some strange reason?
all governments can, most do not

Quote:
Seven states offer a full range of spousal rights, and four jurisdictions offer more limited spousal rights to same-sex couples

http://www.aascu.org/policy_matters/domestic_partner.htm

The military will be out of step...it is less so if it continues to not recognize gay spousal rights. That will not happen though.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:11 pm
@Ionus,
I've only made any "declarations" with regard to women serving in the Red Army. I have supported that, and when you use a source, you are not making a unilateral statement. I'm not surprised that you don't understand that, though, as i have never known you to provide a single source for your idiocy.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
As there are now, and always have been homosexuals in the military, there is no "social engineering" to be done. As with all of your Chicken Little rants, your pronouncements and conclusions are based on assumptions which you have never established.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye I am coming to the conclusion you are not being honest to yourself and using an odd theory that somehow kicking out train soldiers out of a manpower short military is somehow a benefit to that military.

In fact in your heart of heart it is becoming my opinion that blocking gays winning more rights is worth doing some harm to the military and your claims otherwise is a front you are hiding behind even to yourself.

The military leaderships is coming to look more and more like fools over this matter to the rest of society.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:20 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
As there are now, and always have been homosexuals in the military, there is no "social engineering" to be done. As with all of your Chicken Little rants, your pronouncements and conclusions are based on assumptions which you have never established.
PLEASE....you are not stupid so stop acting like you are. Serving with the legal right to do so is not the same as doing it and getting away with it, the life of a gay in the closet is not the same as for an openly gay person.

You seem to think you can huff and puff and tell me down is up and get away with it. More honesty and less name calling from you would be a refreshing change.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:23 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
In fact in your heart of heart it is becoming my opinion that blocking gays winning more rights is worth doing some harm to the military and your claims otherwise is a front you are hiding behind even to yourself.
considering that my argument is that this should be done but needs to wait for the good of the military,you coming to that conclusion is quite the exercise in gymnastics.

Either that or you are an idiot...right, I already decided that you are.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
I haven't called you any names, you need to look to your asshole buddy Ionus for that.

There was, until quite recently, never a question of whether or not homosexuals could "serve legally." This entire controversy is manufactured by right-wing Chicken Littles. You are essentially following the same pattern. As with you, they provide no substantiation that there is any "cost" in homosexuals serving in the military. You have signally failed to demonstrate that this is the case. Simply saying as much is no more than ipse dixit, and establishes nothing.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:44 pm
@Setanta,
You have supported a few individuals were decorated which could have as much to do with politics as it does with achievement, but even assuming they more than earned the decorations, the overwhelming fact that you have slipped into denial about is that no women served in the combat groups unless they were in segeregated units or were doctors, mechanics etc. It was so rare, that you cant give statistics for how many may have.

Given that there are roughly twice as many percent of women serving in modern armies, that women in the red army served in segregated units, how is that an endorsement for women to serve in mixed combat units these days, or serve in any other than segregated units ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:47 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
As there are now, and always have been homosexuals in the military, there is no "social engineering" to be done.
As there are now, and always have been homosexuals in the civilian sector, there is no "social engineering" to be done. Are you sure about that ?

Quote:
your pronouncements and conclusions are based on assumptions which you have never established.
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy You are always making declarations that are bound to backfire. You mean like your women in mixed combat units ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:53 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hawkeye I am coming to the conclusion you are not being honest to yourself and using an odd theory that somehow kicking out train soldiers out of a manpower short military is somehow a benefit to that military.
Can you be any more stupid ? No, really..it is a serious question....soldiers are outing themselves witha policy that PC thugs like you brought into play. But it is Hawkeye's fault for telling you ?

Quote:
blocking gays winning more rights
It is not a right ! Why cant the mentally and physically handicapped serve ? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RIGHT you brainless prick !

Quote:
The military leaderships is coming to look more and more like fools over this matter to the rest of society
Now dont involve the rest of society in your brainless ideas. You have trouble stringing two words together for your own bigotry.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:58 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I haven't called you any names, you need to look to your asshole buddy Ionus for that.
No, I am pretty sure I didnt call Hawkeye any names.

Quote:
This entire controversy is manufactured by right-wing Chicken Littles.
It was the PC Thugs like you who are never around for the consequences of their stupidity that are the cause of dont ask dont tell.

Quote:
Simply saying as much is no more than ipse dixit, and establishes nothing.
You are using dipsy fixit again. Your favourite word and one on two that you know the meaning of. Do you have any idea of how many times you do the thing you accuse others of ? I can understand why you dont read your own posts, they are nothing but dribble but you think you are an original source. You usually miss the argument by a good couple of miles and wonder why people dont take you seriously.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 08:31 pm
Ionus wrote:
they are nothing but dribble


This usage of "dribble" is archaic. Modern English uses "drivel" in that context.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 08:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
I prefer today's "PC" attitudes to what prevailed during most of the 20th century.

Quote:
Alan Mathison Turing, OBE, FRS (pronounced /ˈtjʊərɪŋ/ TYOOR-ing; 23 June 1912 " 7 June 1954), was an English mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer scientist. He was influential in the development of computer science and providing a formalisation of the concept of the algorithm and computation with the Turing machine, playing a significant role in the creation of the modern computer.[1]

During the Second World War, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking centre. For a time he was head of Hut 8, the section responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. He devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the method of the bombe, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine. After the war he worked at the National Physical Laboratory, where he created one of the first designs for a stored-program computer, the ACE.

Towards the end of his life Turing became interested in chemistry. He wrote a paper on the chemical basis of morphogenesis,[2] and he predicted oscillating chemical reactions such as the Belousov"Zhabotinsky reaction, which were first observed in the 1960s.

Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952"homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time"and he accepted treatment with female hormones, chemical castration, as an alternative to prison. He died in 1954, several weeks before his 42nd birthday, from an apparently self-administered cyanide poisoning, although his mother (and some others) considered his death to be accidental. On 10 September 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for the way in which Turing was treated after the war.[3]
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 10:33 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
This usage of "dribble" is archaic. Modern English uses "drivel" in that context.
It is my preference to use dribble as it has obvious conotations with idiocy.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 10:36 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I prefer today's "PC" attitudes to what prevailed during most of the 20th century.
Are you saying that happened to every homosexual throughout the 20th century ? Or are you beating up fervour with exceptional cases rather than the average ?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 01:39 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON " Senior Pentagon leaders on Friday warned Congress not to tamper with the ban on gays serving openly in the military until they can come up with a plan for dealing with potential opposition in the ranks.

In a strongly worded letter obtained by The Associated Press, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee that forcing policy changes on the military before it's ready would be a mistake.

"Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights and suggestions if we are to carry out this change successfully," Gates and Mullen wrote to the panel's chairman, Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_re_us/us_military_gays;_ylt=AvYXLSlF_YiRZU30_VxAcbms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrNzNwZ3NzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNTAxL3VzX21pbGl0YXJ5X2dheXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwMzBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDbWlsaXRhcnl0ZWxs

AS I have been saying, the military has far more important things to deal with right now.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 04:33 am
@hawkeye10,
Maybe in the next two or three hundreds years we will be ready to act as why press for something that the bigots would not care for?

Seem strange does it not that the very military think tank that you had quoted on this thread yourself have come to the conclusion that open gays servicing is not the end of the world or the military.

What to bet my friend that if we went back to the late 1940s the same statements word for damn word was being generated over allowing blacks to serve in mixed companies of troops?

Hell if we had have the internet then like minded people to you would also had been doing the same postings word for word as you now doing.

Let be honest here you do not wish this policy to be change anytime in the future just as the racists in the 1940s would have been happy to delay blacks soldiers rights to beyond this date in history if they could have.

Sorry but the bigots at whatever position they hold in the military will shortly have to get used to the idea that you can not shut out train troops because you do not care for their sex lives just as their grandfathers got used to the fact that skin color was not a reason to limit black troops service.

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 08:14 am
@BillRM,
Do you have any idea at all what sex is ? Can you see that a white man and a black man will have more in common than a homo-man and a hetero-man ?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 06:50:57