Bigots rejoice! DADT repeal dies in Senate at Republican hands.

[^_^ 5,021]

You couldn't have got that more wrong if you had tried

You probably tried

nul point in the comprehension test

The point (sigh)is that both are considered wrong in much of our society, but one can be talked about in the military and the other can't and that doesn't make sense

Poll underage sex and poll gay marriage and come back to me when they're even close to being equally reviled. I expect to not see you, ever.

[Ban Hammer 13,474]

a battle between two heavyweights.

go ahead, aj, mention nvg's

Edited December 10, 2010 by charles!

[Captain Oates 911]

Poll underage sex and poll gay marriage and come back to me when they're even close to being equally reviled. I expect to not see you, ever.

Quote me on saying they are 'equally reviled ' and I will show my bottom in the Sergeants mess window

You can't because you invented that

Stop making things up to cover up for when you read something wrongly. We all get things wrong and I admit it when I do.

My post was in favor of getting rid of DADT - havent you worked that out yet ?

Read it again and think about it - I am making your point for you - that any number of situations are frowned upon in this society but some are allowed to be admitted and some are not. Sometimes, the ones that can be admitted in the military are really bad (legal child sex for some foreign societies and their soldiers who serve in the US Military), and the ones that cannot be admitted are not bad at all or simply not bad full stop (such as the colonel having a boyfriend in San Diego)

It really isn't that complicated and I am supporting your stance if you could only get it

[SMOKE 1,426]

a battle between two heavyweights.

fat chicks wrestling over a snickers! where?

[The_Dude 1,142]

really nothing should be passed during it either if you want to get technical... imagine an employer telling you that you're fired, but then allowing you to work for an extra couple of months.... That's just begging for trouble.

Bad analogy. It's more like, you've given your employer three months notice. They were elected to serve a specific term. Just because they didn't win re-election doesn't mean they aren't empowered to to their jobs until their employment is officially terminated.

That's one of the stupidest analogies I've read here on VJ. Man, what a whopper.

I've seen worse.

This was a bad idea all the way around, with Blood flowing as it does in War time and Homosexual men being like 50 times more likely to have aids.......Put 2 N 2 together.

Danno, that is pathetic, even by your standards.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Bad analogy. It's more like, you've given your employer three months notice. They were elected to serve a specific term. Just because they didn't win re-election doesn't mean they aren't empowered to to their jobs until their employment is officially terminated.

You have to think of it like this though. They were essentially given a pink slip and told they suck, so we're replacing you.... When one has certain access and certain power, they tend to be a bit spiteful... Sure they are a bit already even without being given the boot, but this just personifies it.

[Captain Oates 911]

Danno, that is pathetic, even by your standards.

Yes that was a beaut about AIDS

It's like saying gay men can't be litter collectors because they will be bending over in the street in front of straight men - and converting them to the dark side

South Carolina stuff

With wild thought patterns like that, I should write lines for Glenn

[The_Dude 1,142]

You have to think of it like this though. They were essentially given a pink slip and told they suck, so we're replacing you.... When one has certain access and certain power, they tend to be a bit spiteful... Sure they are a bit already even without being given the boot, but this just personifies it.

Your analogy is still a null point. They were elected for a specified period of time. I suppose if they just sat on their butts back at their home and did nothing for the final 4 months of their term you'd accuse them of taking their paycheck and not doing anything.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Have any of followed Uganda's -- and thus God's -- position to gays in general?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Heterosexual members of the armed forces are allowed to engage in chatter about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives ... but if a homosexual does it, he or she violates DADT.

Outrageous? Yes, it is.

How would you know what happens? I don't remember you ever mentioning military service.

We had a guy on my ship that everyone knew was gay. No one cared as long he got his job done. If he got kicked out it would have more work for the rest of us in the nuclear Navy.

[Captain Oates 911]

Have any of followed Uganda's -- and thus God's -- position to gays in general?

yes the gays in uganda are going to be bloody well hung (pun intended)

only for repeat offenses - they just get life for the first one

repeat offenses - example:

ah - one

ah - two

ah - three

counts as three offenses and therefore its the gallows for them

Until the Evangelists from C street washington arrived, they were going to be cooked. In former times it was the missionaries who were cooked.

So it's a case of out of the frying pan and into the gallows - but jesus wants to swing em it and it isn't religion interfering because it's a case of separation of neck and State

[^_^ 5,021]

How would you know what happens? I don't remember you ever mentioning military service.

We had a guy on my ship that everyone knew was gay. No one cared as long he got his job done. If he got kicked out it would have more work for the rest of us in the nuclear Navy.

People have been discharged from the military for letting others know they're gay. It's on the record and anyone who can read can know this.

[Captain Oates 911]

Here is a picture of the 'golden rivet' as referred to in the British navy

[alienlovechild 75]

People have been discharged from the military for letting others know they're gay. It's on the record and anyone who can read can know this.

Doesn't that violate DADT when someone else outs another? How come the media never follows up on that question?

[Captain Oates 911]

Doesn't that violate DADT when someone else outs another? How come the media never follows up on that question?

How would they know ?

When George Michael got caught smiling at that police officer in the toilet in california, that was held (no pun intended) to be enough to signal 'intention' to the officer

Could someone be outed on similar conduct without saying anything ?