0
   

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Gay soldiers don't out themselves to get out of the army. The usual discharge is because they are outed by others.


Fully realizing that you dont care about facts, I present some anyways so that others might be fully informed that you are talking out of your ass

Quote:
An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law. Although most of the dismissals have been the result of gay service members outing themselves, advocates for repeal of the law say it has been used to drum out capable soldiers who never made their sexuality an issue.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_mchugh_gay_discharges_040110/


Your article doesn't explain what it considers to be outing oneself. An example, The first man to beat DADT. By one standard of evaluation, he had outed himself, otherwise he had been outed by someone else.

Quote:
n 1998, The Navy alleged that he declared his homosexuality on his publicly-available America Online email account[2] with screen name "boysrch".[3] The Navy contacted AOL, pretending to be a friend of McVeigh's, and requested the name behind the screen name "boysrch."[1] AOL confirmed that his profile indicated his marital status was stated as "gay".[2]
McVeigh challenged the U.S. Navy's decision to discharge him on the grounds that his AOL profile did not amount to a declaration of homosexuality, and furthermore that the Navy acted improperly by investigating the AOL account without a court order or a warrant.[2] The federal court held that the government violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the government from discharging McVeigh.[3] The court also determined that the Navy violated its own "Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy.[citation needed]
Ultimately, the case was settled in June 1998. The Navy did not admit any wrongdoing. McVeigh was able to retire at the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer with full benefits and the Navy paid for all of his legal fees.[3] In a separate settlement, AOL agreed to pay damages to McVeigh for having improperly disclosed his identity.[4]
McVeigh said he planned to retire to civilian life before Labor Day 1998.

This is not to be confused with the more notorious Timothy McVeigh.

So do you have any ability to tell me how your article determines someone outing themselves?

DADT has two parts. The part that gets overlooked most often is the part where you don't ask.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Sorry the Dutch are not the only people with open gays serving in their military and I had not hear of any great failures for any reason by the UK forces for example.


LISTEN UP OLD MAN, THIS THREAD WAS NEVER ABOUT GAYS IN THE MILITARY! It was about the unwillingness to face truth, as evidenced by the Dutch unwillingness to face truth, even going so far as to pressure Americans for talking about what the Dutch did wrong.

What did the Dutch do wrong hawkeye? One rash comment made by a retired American General who wasn't even there does not make it true. Your shouting "PC police!" from the tops of the roof to call for sympathy is hardly considerable. The fact that later the retired General was pressured to apologize is also not foul either. He spoke in a capacity which represented the USA, and disrespected the servicemen of the Netherlands. you bet he's going to eat bitter over that. Duh.

T
K
O
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:32 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
So do you have any ability to tell me how your article determines someone outing themselves?


when an Journalist who specializes in military matters and who has nearly 700 stories says that you are wrong, it is up to you to prove that she is wrong. She is the expert, she wins by default if you dont come up with the goods.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=APAB&p_theme=apab&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring="Anne%20Flaherty"&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("Anne%20Flaherty")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
No hawkeye. I'm requesting a citation. It's fair game. I'm sure she's a perfectly fine reporter, I just want to see how she determined her numbers.

You do or don't have a citation.

T
K
O
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:36 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
He spoke in a capacity which represented the USA,

Bullshit, he spoke in the capacity of a military officer. It was his professional opinion, he neither spoke for the US nor was it his personal opinion.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:39 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I just want to see how she determined her numbers


feel free to give her a call if you want to debate her credibility. In the meantime you have none.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:45 pm
The reasons I'm asking hawkeye, is because many homosexuals may have outed themselves in private council where they thought they were exempt from DADT.

Secretary Gates recently explained a change in how DADT will be allowed to be pursued.
Quote:
Certain categories of confidential information, used in discharge cases under "don't ask don't tell," will now be off limits. Service member conversations with lawyers, clergy, therapists and other medical professionals will remain private


source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gays-military-pentagon-announce-humane-approach/story?id=10194160

Previously, a solider could tell their therapist that they were gay and if the military therapist was brought in on a hearing, they could not withhold that information. This would be outing by which standard by your author's standards?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
He spoke in a capacity which represented the USA,

Bullshit, he spoke in the capacity of a military officer. It was his professional opinion, he neither spoke for the US nor was it his personal opinion.

Be more clear here. you're blathering.

Are you saying his personal and professional opinion are not one and the same? Are you saying that him speaking as a military officer is irrelevant to the country he served?

Are you saying that his experience, be it professional, personal, or otherwise is relevant on a situation in which he himself was not present for?

If you are, you're allowing this man a great pass at professionalism. He was not qualified to speak on the matters of the uprising nor assign blame on gay soldiers that he had no knowledge of their performance.

T
K
O
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:51 pm
@BillRM,
As usual you have to make assumptions to go any where near proving a point. His own mother as well as others said he didnt suicide but said it was an accidental overdose.

Quote:
Less see go to jail for a few years and very likely enjoy being rape day in and day out or have chemicals injected into your body for the rest of your life that no only would kill your sex drive but have you growing breasts along with other wonderful side effect.
Your love of sexual fantasies has what to do with the modern military ?

Quote:
Yes I am smiling thinking of you being given those two choices. It would be far fairer to do that to a bigot like you
Because you are in you heart a complete and utter violent sociopath who thinks people should be treated badly, but not homosexuals. Why is that ?

I know english isnt your strong point so I include a definition of bigot...note how you fit the very words ...
Definitions of bigot on the Web:
Quote:
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
(wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Your solution to my disagreeing with you is to treat me as badly as you object to others being treated ?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:57 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Are you saying his personal and professional opinion are not one and the same? Are you saying that him speaking as a military officer is irrelevant to the country he served?


Thank you for your timely illustration that you dont have the first clue what the military is all about. You know nothing about the culture, if you were more wise you would resist talking about it.

Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 08:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Are you saying his personal and professional opinion are not one and the same? Are you saying that him speaking as a military officer is irrelevant to the country he served?


Thank you for your timely illustration that you dont have the first clue what the military is all about. You know nothing about the culture, if you were more wise you would resist talking about it.

You're fleeing again. Answer my questions.

T
K
O
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:01 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
If you was just calling for an investigation of the Netherlands peace keeping forces with no special credit given to the silly and bigot comment concerning gays you did not do a great job of making that clear. The PC police comment in the title also did not help.
The investigation was done. You wouldnt accept the word of a senior military commander because it was politically incorrect.


Quote:
Our group bigot Ionus seem not to had understood your meaning either by the way. Hmm, I can only wonder if Ionus is a bigot when it come to Jews or blacks and think we should keep them out of the military also.
You are the bigot, you just dont think you can be called that because you are trying so hard to be politically correct. Apparently your depth of writing extends also to reading or have you forgotten already what was said previously in this thread ? Why didnt you serve in the military, Miss William ? Quite happy to make politically correct decisions so you can affect others but not yourself ? I bet you say all wondrous things about blacks but would never live next door to one. Bigots like you are a disgrace to humanity and shouldnt be given any credence other than to learn what fools they are...

You are a power mad fool who thinks his knowledge of english enables him to discuss complex matters where he can not enough convey simple messages. And your bigotted attitude is ....everyone must do what you tell them...there are no problems with anything that is politically correct "there cant be problems,,nah nah naha I am not listening....no problems...let someone else do it, just follow my instructions...I am not listening.." Yeah, very clever for a bigot with depusions of grandeur and a total lack of understanding of anything complicated. Engineer my arse...
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:07 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Are you saying his personal and professional opinion are not one and the same? Are you saying that him speaking as a military officer is irrelevant to the country he served?
Of course they are not the same. What do you do ? Push paper ? Your opinion as a paper pusher does not reflect your personal opinion as a bigot. His opinion as a military officer in this matter was based on another countries experience. Try reading previous posts and catch up.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:09 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Be more clear here. you're blathering.
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy I would have stayed well clear of that if I were you...gutsy move, but it will backfire badly...
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:10 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
of a senior military commander because it was politically incorrect.


Would you like me to quote German senior military men after WW1 blaming the German Jewish soldiers?

Should we all grant their opinions respect to?

A bigot is a bigot.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:11 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Are you saying his personal and professional opinion are not one and the same? Are you saying that him speaking as a military officer is irrelevant to the country he served?
Of course they are not the same. What do you do ? Push paper ? Your opinion as a paper pusher does not reflect your personal opinion as a bigot. His opinion as a military officer in this matter was based on another countries experience. Try reading previous posts and catch up.

If it was his personal opinion it is one matter, but if he was offering his professional opinion, his qualification comes from being an officer of the US Military. That has implications on us, so yes it matters.

What you don't get here is that he was completely unqualified to make this statement in the first place. That alone warrants the second statement.

T
K
O
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:16 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Would you like me to quote German senior military men after WW1 blaming the German Jewish soldiers?
Would you like me to quote German Jewish soldiers blaming German senior military men after WW1 ? The aftermath of a war always involves blame. What you have to do Miss William, is think....I know, it will be difficult....but give it a try...

Quote:
Should we all grant their opinions respect to?
We should certainly listen..that is why I tolerate a fool like you...I can learn from the negative, even the bigots.

Quote:
A bigot is a bigot.
And that folks is as complex as Miss William can get.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:20 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
What you don't get here is that he was completely unqualified to make this statement in the first place. That alone warrants the second statement.
I usually have some idea of where you are heading but I am baffled....he had no qualifications to comment ? None ? He was completely unqualified ? You have knowledge of what he read that was classified Top Secret ? Does the CIA know you know ? Or is this an emotional rant way out of your pay grade as when you knew everything about me and soldiering ?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:21 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
The aftermath of a war always involves blame.

So why the **** was a retired American General commenting on blame in a fight in which he was unqualified to speak on?

T
K
O
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 09:25 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
So why the **** was a retired American General commenting on blame in a fight in which he was unqualified to speak on?
wasn't he a NATO commander at the time? The failure of a NATO force in a UN operation is exactly with-in his expertise.

Quote:
Prior to assuming his final duties as Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command on October 31, 1994, General Sheehan served as Director for Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C. General Sheehan retired from the Marine Corps on September 24, 1997.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Sheehan

He was Supreme Allied Commander at the time and according to you he is just another dumb-**** bigot....I wish I could say that I was shocked but this is normal for you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 07:59:26