Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sonora, Texas
    Posts
    4,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    So we should base our security requirements on what our enemy thinks of us? That is the least compelling reason I can think of to keep DADT.
    What positive reason do you have for not keeping DADT? If your answer has "feelings" anywhere in it, it does not count.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedy View Post
    As far as the Fags in Uniform, I hope that enough Sausage Smokers and Carpet Munchers want to enlist to make up for the ones that will leave the service in disgust. We have seen how disciplined these people are on the Proposition 8 crap.
    Those "fags in uniform" keep you safe at night.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedy View Post
    What positive reason do you have for not keeping DADT? If your answer has "feelings" anywhere in it, it does not count.
    I don't have a position on it either way. I am attempting to determine the validity of the reasons given for keeping it. The "feelings" of our enemies about it do not count.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sonora, Texas
    Posts
    4,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    Those "fags in uniform" keep you safe at night.

    When I was serving in uniform I kept many a "fag" safe at night myself. The same fags who want the military completely out of San Francisco.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedy View Post
    When I was serving in uniform I kept many a "fag" safe at night myself. The same fags who want the military completely out of San Francisco.
    So it's a draw between you and the "fags".

    Now, how about you flesh out a bit about the disruption that is certain to ensue if DADT is revoked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sonora, Texas
    Posts
    4,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    I don't have a position on it either way. I am attempting to determine the validity of the reasons given for keeping it. The "feelings" of our enemies about it do not count.
    So you do not know if it would be a positive, but want the change anyway. Fuck if it hurts unit cohesion and gets someone killed as long as the poor gays do not have to hide. I do not see the problem with DADT. If a gay does not want to serve under those conditions, he does not have to. It is after all a VOLUNTEER force. If he does want to serve, then he puts away his boa, purse and assless chaps and serves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedy View Post
    So you do not know if it would be a positive, but want the change anyway. Fuck if it hurts unit cohesion and gets someone killed as long as the poor gays do not have to hide. I do not see the problem with DADT. If a gay does not want to serve under those conditions, he does not have to. It is after all a VOLUNTEER force. If he does want to serve, then he puts away his boa, purse and assless chaps and serves.
    Why don't you point out to me where I said that.

    Tell me about unit cohesion. How will reversal of the policy affect it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sonora, Texas
    Posts
    4,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    Why don't you point out to me where I said that.

    Tell me about unit cohesion. How will reversal of the policy affect it?
    Because there are soldiers who are serving in elite units, line units who see their service as an extension of being a warrior. Of being a man and would not feel at all comfortable at all with an openly gay soldier in thier midst. Of couorse someone like you would rather have a soldier who felt this way, and had years of training and combat experience leave for being a neanderthal and have some swishy gay green soldier take his place. All for "openess."

    The military is a warrior culture. Soldiers pride themselves on that warrior culture. It defines alot of them. The military in war is a brutal, bloody business and many soldiers define their manhood by it. For a lot of soldiers, the military is one of the last refuges in where conservative values are the norm. To force an openly soldier upon a squad or platoon is going to be a cause of nothing but trouble.

    I could tolerate a gay soldier in my squad if the rest of my squad could. But if they couldn't, it would be a problem, because my squad would more than likely have been working just fine before. The new guy does not get to fuck up my squad just because he can't keep the fact that he smokes a sausage sometimes to himself. I guess it's walking point for you, mister cause when you are way out there in front, we don't have to listen to your shit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedy View Post
    Because there are soldiers who are serving in elite units, line units who see their service as an extension of being a warrior.
    So it's your belief that being gay prohibits one from being a warrior? Why is that? Does the fat that a man is attracted sexually to other men negate all other masculine qualities?

    Of being a man and would not feel at all comfortable at all with an openly gay soldier in thier midst.
    Why is that? What is the discomfort? Is it more or less of a discomfort than knowing that closeted homosexuals may be in their midst?

    Of couorse someone like you would rather have a soldier who felt this way, and had years of training and combat experience leave for being a neanderthal and have some swishy gay green soldier take his place. All for "openess."
    Once again you subscribe positions to me that I have never taken. I've asked only for specifics as to what harm would be caused by reversal of the policy. You have yet to really answer that question, instead preferring to prattle on about what you assume my position to be. Considering that even if I held those positions ascribed to me, they wouldn't have any effect within the military, I'm unclear as to why you are so fixated on my personal opinions, unless it is because you've found yourself to be at a loss to logically argue your point of view. That must be it.

    The military is a warrior culture. Soldiers pride themselves on that warrior culture. It defines alot of them. The military in war is a brutal, bloody business and many soldiers define their manhood by it. For a lot of soldiers, the military is one of the last refuges in where conservative values are the norm.
    Perhaps you can clarify "conservative values" and how they impact on warrior status. I get the country first part of it. I've known quite a few "warriors" who don't believe in God, but certainly believe in family and limited role of government. I'd be interested in hearing how being gay negates those values when it comes to taking up arms on behalf of one's country. I'd also be interested in hearing how belief in small government makes one a better soldier.
    To force an openly soldier upon a squad or platoon is going to be a cause of nothing but trouble.
    Rabbit. Hat.

    I could tolerate a gay soldier in my squad if the rest of my squad could. But if they couldn't, it would be a problem, because my squad would more than likely have been working just fine before. The new guy does not get to fuck up my squad just because he can't keep the fact that he smokes a sausage sometimes to himself. .
    Circular argument. Now you seem to say that it would only effect you if it effected your squad members. So, perhaps there are others like you that could easily adjust to an openly gay squad member and we wouldn't have any problems. Or, are you really saying that you could not accept it and therefore you believe that others are more like you and likewise could not accept it? Which is it? And why?
    I guess it's walking point for you, mister cause when you are way out there in front, we don't have to listen to your shit
    No, I suppose you don't have to listen to my shit when you are out there on the front. Nor do you have to listen to it when you're in federal prison; watching film clips of your girlfriend and her championship volleyball team; or running your gas station. But that's not really part of any valid offer of proof for your position. Want to try again? Or shall we just chalk this up to you not liking "fags" and leave it at that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member zBoots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    378
    DADT is fine. Fags have a tendency to like to flaunt it and throw it in everyones faces and prance around. DADT makes them keep it under wraps. It forces them to have what they dont other wise have, self control. They can flaunt their faggotry when they get out of the service. I think the prop 8 response is a perfect example of the #1 reason to keep DADT.

    "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." -Barack Hussein Obama
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •