LeviF Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I personally can live with don't ask, don't tell. It's better than BO's alternative. So what does he mean by serving "openly?" Are they all going to stand up and do the YES dance during mess ( )?
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Not thinking before typing again, I see. Nowhere has a spending freeze on the military been discussed. Actually, Pelosi suggested it yesterday as a way to get the spending freeze Obama wants through the House.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Actually, Pelosi suggested it yesterday as a way to get the spending freeze Obama wants through the House. I am for no spending freeze and repealing don'tr ask dont tell- if we don't have the strongest military, we will be overrun.....we aren't exactly popular.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I personally can live with don't ask, don't tell. It's better than BO's alternative. So you'd rather just see a ban on homosexuals in the military?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 So what does he mean by serving "openly?" Are they all going to stand up and do the YES dance during mess ( )? I wouldn't put it past them.
erynthered Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I understand a gay perosn desire to be able to come out....but I also hope that all the folks pining for dont ask dont tell to go away realize that even HETEROsexual relations in the military will get your ass severely reprimanded. There's a joke here somewhere.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 So you'd rather just see a ban on homosexuals in the military? Why not? Worked for the couple of centuries before Billy-bob Clinton.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 So what does he mean by serving "openly?" Are they all going to stand up and do the YES dance during mess ( )? Body armor will have to come in two models: regular and extra-FABULOUS. I never really understood what "serve openly" was supposed to mean either. Is there something overtly sexual about military service that gays will just have to participate as gays?
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Why not? Worked for the couple of centuries before Billy-bob Clinton. Worked for whom? Certainly not gay people who wanted to join without hiding a major part of their identity. America is supposed to be a society of inclusion, and so should its military as long as a person is physically able to participate. By the way, after reading some of the previous posts I'd recommend that you quit it with the "queer" talk. I realize its a word that gay people have "taken back", but it just sounds ugly to me coming from somebody who's trying to use it in a derogatory or deprecating manner. I don't know, just doesn't seem very nice.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Worked for whom? Certainly not gay people who wanted to join without hiding a major part of their identity. America is supposed to be a society of inclusion, and so should its military as long as a person is physically able to participate. By the way, after reading some of the previous posts I'd recommend that you quit it with the "queer" talk. I realize its a word that gay people have "taken back", but it just sounds ugly to me coming from somebody who's trying to use it in a derogatory or deprecating manner. I don't know, just doesn't seem very nice. Not that I think Joe's any sort of genius or anything...but given that he has served and you're a college kid, I think I'm giving his opinion more weight than yours on this topic, even though I disagree with him.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Body armor will have to come in two models: regular and extra-FABULOUS. I never really understood what "serve openly" was supposed to mean either. Is there something overtly sexual about military service that gays will just have to participate as gays? Oh, come on. It's not about being allowed to act stereotypically gay, it's about being able to tell your fellow men without fear of discrimination. How would you feel if you could lose your job just by revealing something completely innocent about yourself?
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I am for no spending freeze and repealing don'tr ask dont tell- if we don't have the strongest military, we will be overrun.....we aren't exactly popular. Even the WH rebuffed her request. And rest assured, you don't strike me as a Pelosi-loving liberal. Body armor will have to come in two models: regular and extra-FABULOUS. That's funny on about three different levels. Excellent.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 How would you feel if you could lose your job just by revealing something completely innocent about yourself? You mean like how my company would fire me if they knew I'm bipolar? So I can't be "openly bipolar", because I can't tell anyone something about myself that isn't germane to my job or theirs? That's quite simply retarded.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Not that I think Joe's any sort of genius or anything...but given that he has served and you're a college kid, I think I'm giving his opinion more weight than yours on this topic, even though I disagree with him. Don't fall for that logical fallacy...experience has no merit if it doesn't manifest itself by reasonable argument. If Joe told you Irish Americans should be banned because they have the devil's red hair, how much weight would you put into that?
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 You mean like how my company would fire me if they knew I'm bipolar? So I can't be "openly bipolar", because I can't tell anyone something about myself that isn't germane to my job or theirs? That's quite simply retarded. You're bipolar but it doesn't affect your performance at work? I'd definitely argue you should be allowed to be "openly bipolar", if that's the case.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Why not? Worked for the couple of centuries before Billy-bob Clinton. Using weapons made of stone once worked....try that today.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Don't fall for that logical fallacy...experience has no merit if it doesn't manifest itself by reasonable argument. If Joe told you Irish Americans should be banned because they have the devil's red hair, how much weight would you put into that? Kid, someday when you're all growed up and have accomplished something with your life, you'll realize that experience, even without reasonable argument, carries more merit than a classroom gedankenexperiment. Joe may be a bigoted !@#$, but he also has an understanding of military organization and culture and how gays might (or might not) integrate into it. Your "reasonable argument" amounts to "but it's wrong". You completely lack the necessary perspective to make an informed judgement on it. And if you were even a quarter as smart as you think you are, you'd accept that as constructive criticism and go out and expand your knowledge on the subject. More likely you'll just insist you're right because "your collije edjumacated" to the point that you can't perceive the intellectual Skinnerian box you've put yourself in. You're not an idiot because you're wrong (point of fact: Joe's wrong, on several levels. I'd counter his "worked for centuries" BS with the buggery part of "rum, buggery, and the lash"). You're an idiot because you can't even bother to be completely informed.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 You're bipolar but it doesn't affect your performance at work? I'd definitely argue you should be allowed to be "openly bipolar", if that's the case. And how, precisely, am I supposed to be "openly bipolar". That's my point, genius...what does that mean when it's not even relevant? I don't need people to know I'm bipolar, they don't need to know I'm bipolar; I need to do my job, period. "Openness" doesn't begin to enter in to it.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Kid, someday when you're all growed up and have accomplished something with your life, you'll realize that experience, even without reasonable argument, carries more merit than a classroom gedankenexperiment. Joe may be a bigoted !@#$, but he also has an understanding of military organization and culture and how gays might (or might not) integrate into it. Your "reasonable argument" amounts to "but it's wrong". You completely lack the necessary perspective to make an informed judgement on it. And if you were even a quarter as smart as you think you are, you'd accept that as constructive criticism and go out and expand your knowledge on the subject. More likely you'll just insist you're right because "your collije edjumacated" to the point that you can't perceive the intellectual Skinnerian box you've put yourself in. You're not an idiot because you're wrong (point of fact: Joe's wrong, on several levels. I'd counter his "worked for centuries" BS with the buggery part of "rum, buggery, and the lash"). You're an idiot because you can't even bother to be completely informed. I agree with you that Joe has a point about the workings of the military, but there should be no type of sexual relations- homo or hetero going on during combat operations, so it should be a wash. If somebody can perform on the battlefield, we should be using them
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I agree with you that Joe has a point about the workings of the military, but there should be no type of sexual relations- homo or hetero going on during combat operations, so it should be a wash. If somebody can perform on the battlefield, we should be using them Whoa, wait a minute. I said Joe has knowledge. I never said he had a point.
Recommended Posts