1
   

General Won't Appologize For Saying Homosexuality Is Immoral

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 09:30 am
Thomas wrote:
No rush, Cycloptichorn. It's much more important to your homeland security that the Army identify those gay Arabic linguists and fire them.


you know if I hadn't met you personally I would think you were being sarcastic.....but apparently I need to rethink my priorities....
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 09:31 am
Sarcasm requires a sense of humor, which I don't have.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 09:37 am
me neither...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 10:05 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
translation no point in engaging in debate with someone who is only interested in being right no matter what and treats everyone who disagrees with him like an idiot.

You ain't that smart buddy.... I'm no brain surgeon either but I'm not in a bunch about it.... Laughing

Actually, it's you who treats almost everyone who disagrees with him like an idiot, since you typically greet calm, reasoned arguments (right or wrong) with personal insults and mockery. I simply argue my point of view with some enthusiasm like any number of people here. Numerous, numerous people on A2K respond to debate with insults, something I virtually never do unless insulted first. Sorry if you don't like losing arguments, but that doesn't constitute bad behavior on my part.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 10:07 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I have repeatedly stated that a delivery system for nukes could be to smuggle the components into the target country and re-assemble them once inside.


This is not a 'delivery system.' This is what you do when you don't have a delivery system.

Sheesh.....

Cycloptichorn

When I am told that such weapons, even if extant, pose no danger because they cannot be delivered to a target, this shows that they are dangerous because they can be delivered to any country at any distance.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course anyone could try and smuggle things into the US. That's the absolute most difficult way to get a powerful weapon onto a hostile country's soil, especially when they are looking out for it (like we are). A 'delivery system' is a way of getting a weapon somewhere without doing this.

We will never be able to keep people from trying to smuggle chem, nuke, and bio weapons onto our soil. They are just too easy to make to keep all the bad guys from getting one, no matter what force we use. What you are positing is silly, that because we could be threatened by anyone at any time, we have the right to take anyone out at any time.

Sometimes I think you see International Diplomacy as some sort of video game...

Cycloptichorn

My point is that when a particularly odious and untrustworthy dictator is in the act of developing WMD, it is incorrect to say that it's not a big deal because he won't be able to deliver them. We have very little effective defense against smuggling small but deadly weapons in.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 10:10 am
For whatever the arguable value of your comment about insults, i've never seen anyone here "lose" an argument with you. When people here point out the flaws in your argument, and say your thesis is idiotic, you decide to interpret that as having called you an idiot (which is not so), declare that people are insulting you because they can't argue against your thesis, and declare yourself the "winner."

People here consistently shoot down your thesis, so claiming you've been insulted and declaring yourself the winner is all you have left.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 10:11 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I have repeatedly stated that a delivery system for nukes could be to smuggle the components into the target country and re-assemble them once inside.


This is not a 'delivery system.' This is what you do when you don't have a delivery system.

Sheesh.....

Cycloptichorn

When I am told that such weapons, even if extant, pose no danger because they cannot be delivered to a target, this shows that they are dangerous because they can be delivered to any country at any distance.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course anyone could try and smuggle things into the US. That's the absolute most difficult way to get a powerful weapon onto a hostile country's soil, especially when they are looking out for it (like we are). A 'delivery system' is a way of getting a weapon somewhere without doing this.

We will never be able to keep people from trying to smuggle chem, nuke, and bio weapons onto our soil. They are just too easy to make to keep all the bad guys from getting one, no matter what force we use. What you are positing is silly, that because we could be threatened by anyone at any time, we have the right to take anyone out at any time.

Sometimes I think you see International Diplomacy as some sort of video game...

Cycloptichorn

My point is that when a particularly odious and untrustworthy dictator is in the act of developing WMD, it is incorrect to say that it's not a big deal because he won't be able to deliver them. We have very little effective defense against smuggling small but deadly weapons in.


You are correct. Right now there are 20 or so odious dictators who are all trying to develop WMD around the world. We don't even know who all of them are, or what they have. We can't invade them all, and even if we could, should we? The US has developed plenty of WMD in all forms. There's nothing inherently morally wrong with it.

The question is what the best way to deal with such a threat would be; how can we deal with such a threat in a way which causes us to be less threatened by the results of our actions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 12:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I have repeatedly stated that a delivery system for nukes could be to smuggle the components into the target country and re-assemble them once inside.


This is not a 'delivery system.' This is what you do when you don't have a delivery system.

Sheesh.....

Cycloptichorn

When I am told that such weapons, even if extant, pose no danger because they cannot be delivered to a target, this shows that they are dangerous because they can be delivered to any country at any distance.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course anyone could try and smuggle things into the US. That's the absolute most difficult way to get a powerful weapon onto a hostile country's soil, especially when they are looking out for it (like we are). A 'delivery system' is a way of getting a weapon somewhere without doing this.

We will never be able to keep people from trying to smuggle chem, nuke, and bio weapons onto our soil. They are just too easy to make to keep all the bad guys from getting one, no matter what force we use. What you are positing is silly, that because we could be threatened by anyone at any time, we have the right to take anyone out at any time.

Sometimes I think you see International Diplomacy as some sort of video game...

Cycloptichorn

My point is that when a particularly odious and untrustworthy dictator is in the act of developing WMD, it is incorrect to say that it's not a big deal because he won't be able to deliver them. We have very little effective defense against smuggling small but deadly weapons in.


You are correct. Right now there are 20 or so odious dictators who are all trying to develop WMD around the world. We don't even know who all of them are, or what they have. We can't invade them all, and even if we could, should we? The US has developed plenty of WMD in all forms. There's nothing inherently morally wrong with it.

The question is what the best way to deal with such a threat would be; how can we deal with such a threat in a way which causes us to be less threatened by the results of our actions.

Cycloptichorn

Right you are. My belief isn't that no one besides us and our friends should be allowed to possess WMD. What I believe is that there is a small percentage of countries at the extreme end of the spectrum who are so patently dangerous that they simply cannot be permitted to possess weapons of this lethality. You have identified the correct questions. Certainly means other than war are preferrable, but if, realistically, it comes down to a direct choice between allowing a high probability a country of this type will obtain the weapons and stopping them by force, the latter, when feasible, would seem to be a better choice.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2007 12:47 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
translation no point in engaging in debate with someone who is only interested in being right no matter what and treats everyone who disagrees with him like an idiot.

You ain't that smart buddy.... I'm no brain surgeon either but I'm not in a bunch about it.... Laughing

Actually, it's you who treats almost everyone who disagrees with him like an idiot, since you typically greet calm, reasoned arguments (right or wrong) with personal insults and mockery. I simply argue my point of view with some enthusiasm like any number of people here. Numerous, numerous people on A2K respond to debate with insults, something I virtually never do unless insulted first. Sorry if you don't like losing arguments, but that doesn't constitute bad behavior on my part.


I have lost several arguments with several people here but you are not one of them, because I don't argue with you only ridicule your behavior and attitude, which is made all the more easy because you walk around with a bullseye on your back and a chip on your shoulder all the time :wink:
0 Replies
 
michael1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 06:25 am
Sounds like the immoral things the Greeks, Romans, and other major empires promoted just before they fell and were completely destroyed. Now these once great empires are only remembered in history books. Babylon, Persia, the Mayans, Egypt, Spain, and many other countries were also destroyed from Empire greatness due to major promotions of immorality by their governments.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 09:43 am
michael1 wrote:
Sounds like the immoral things the Greeks, Romans, and other major empires promoted just before they fell and were completely destroyed. Now these once great empires are only remembered in history books. Babylon, Persia, the Mayans, Egypt, Spain, and many other countries were also destroyed from Empire greatness due to major promotions of immorality by their governments.


That is stunning in its simplicity (and ignorance of history).
0 Replies
 
bugsygirl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 12:18 pm
I did watch a news interview with the general in wich he was asked his personal view and also asked his knowledge of policy. He seemed to answer both questions. Afterward though the media had a feeding frenzy on it. Personally I feel as the strictness of requirements gets lowered in the milliatary as in any organization, the quality will also reflect that soon enough. Has anyone done a little research into the standards of the millitary before dont ask dont tell, and now? I would be curious to hear more on this. I heard someone speak about the quality of the National Guard. In the middle of all their irelevent facts they stated in passing that the standards required had been lowered in the past couple of decades and the results have also reflected that in poor quality. They never went back and discussed that simple fact again so I turned it off. It seemed another issue where one was throwing points at another but they were actually trying to convince me of what their bottom line was without going over all the points completely. I see the same results however, in government and all other aspects of our lives. Simply put life becomes what you put into it.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jun, 2007 12:26 pm
When they talk about lowering of standards in the military, they're talking about level of education and criminal record. Both of those have been relaxed because they're having trouble getting enough recruits to feed into the cannon's mouth in Iraq. Don't ask don't tell had nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, busygirl, there have been studies done, and one of the casualties of the military's booting of gays is that we've lost a large number of people from the small pool of recruits and potential recruits trained in critical languages (like Arabic) which we desparately need for the war on terror.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2007 06:44 am
Seventy-nine percent of poll respondents said openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. Eighteen percent said they should not.

Quote:
The sampling error for the results released Wednesday, in which the question was asked of a half-sample of 1,029 telephone poll respondents, is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday.

In a poll conducted May 4-6 that dealt with other issues regarding homosexuality, participants were asked whether openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, which currently has a "don't ask-don't tell" policy on homosexuality. Seventy-nine percent of poll respondents said openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. Eighteen percent said they should not.
0 Replies
 
michael1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2007 11:30 am
Your CNN quote:

[/quote]

They conveniently leave out where the poll was taken and who were the participants. It only proves my points the powers that be are flat out lying with propeganda. Yet they're tricky to cover their tracks because they never claimed it was a balanced or legitimate poll. Furthermore it doesn't state who conducted that specific poll, while when mentioning other polls they give the source.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2007 11:33 am


They conveniently leave out where the poll was taken and who were the participants. It only proves my points the powers that be are flat out lying with propeganda. Yet they're tricky to cover their tracks because they never claimed it was a balanced or legitimate poll. Furthermore it doesn't state who conducted that specific poll, while when mentioning other polls they give the source.[/quote]

Why even write this?

If they had given the info on who conducted the poll, and who the participants were, you still wouldn't believe it.

Because you are a hyper-religious zealot, and your belief is more important to you than facts.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jun, 2007 11:33 am
That's a lie.

Had you actually clicked on the link which Revel provided, and had even ordinary reading comprehension skills, you'd have seen that the poll was sponsored by CNN and conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation.

You're not very good at this kind of thing, you know?
0 Replies
 
michael1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2007 11:50 am
So Setanta, you say this article is only talking about one CNN poll, and that is the source of the crazy claim of the article.

Again, all the pro-homosexual delusional zealot activists proven wrong:

Not only is the claim in question not about a CNN poll, there are 5 other polls mentioned by name that were NOT sponsored by CNN:

1. A 2001 Gallup Poll.

2. A 1977 Poll (which was before the CNN was even invented!)

3. A 1998 Time Poll

(notice, so far they all give the SOURCES of the Poll)

4. the story mostly talks about a CNN / **OPINION*** Poll conducted last wednesday. (Opinion means it is not fact)

(notice it is still giving sources, most which are NOT from CNN)

then

# 5. A SEPARATE POLL conducted May 4-6 WITH THE MOST RADICAL CLAIM WHICH THIS POSTER MR. REVEL QUOTES, DOES NOT EVEN LIST A SOURCE.


At least Cycloptichorn admits they dont list the source, and isn't so blinded by his homo-love activism. Yet taking sides with the homosexuals and still supporting this most insane TWISTING of a poll, which CNN should be ashamed of ever using. They've lost all credibility with me. What a SNEAKY , wicked way, to make something look like it isn't! To go along with and support such a wicked act like Cycloptichorn does is sharing in their sins.

You can go take a poll of any group and prove anything, polling these minority groups dont prove anything.

At least they call it an OPINION poll, not a factual or statistical poll, they even leave out the SOURCE of the poll in question. Yet if sheeple such as Setanta have fallen for the false propeganda, not putting on their eye glasses to read clearly, all may be fooled as well. Mind & world control at its best. Gullible , dossile slaves.

revel wrote:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2007 12:00 pm
Quote:

At least Cycloptichorn admits they dont list the source, and isn't so blinded by his homo-love activism.


You just made my sig, congratulations!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2007 04:54 pm
This guy is really out there in la-la land. First he alleges that the article does not name the source of the poll. When i point out that it does indeed name the source poll, he comes out with this "aha! Gotcha" routine as though that's what he meant all along. He is really piss poor at rhetorical exchange.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2025 at 11:21:59