# Gays in the millitary??  No fair!!



## amrchaos

I have one problem with Gays in the military.  It goes as follows.

Say that I am a soldier.  I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.

On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.


See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.  We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??


That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!!  Why not?   Are you sexist!  A prude.  It is only fair--what do you think?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Did you ever serve?

If so, how many years?

During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?

If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.

Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people

They kicked him out.

An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.

They want to kick him out.

Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.

Just like the straights are expected to do.

Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.

Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".

The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.


----------



## amrchaos

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you ever serve?
> 
> If so, how many years?
> 
> During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.
> 
> Just like the straights are expected to do.
> 
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.



No, I did not serve

But If I did, I would want Strippers in the showers to set the "sexual preference problem" correct.

Excuse me if I am trying to score some R&R for striaght soldiers.  The government is throwing money away on everything else, why not on some Playboy towel girls??


----------



## ABikerSailor

Never served eh?

Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.


----------



## Zona

I heard something the other day and I think its true....

All vets knew of someone who was gay in the service.  I know I did.  I knew a few of them and as long as they did their jobs, no one cared.  

I heard of people "turning in" gays, but I never saw it.


----------



## MajikMyst

Don't ask don't tell needs to be repealed.. And if all you care about is strippers in the bathroom?? You are one sick puppy!! 

And since you haven't served either.. You have no opinion on this issue that really matters.. 

You don't have to be straight to pull a trigger and save lives and serve this nation.. 

End of story!


----------



## amrchaos

MajikMyst said:


> Don't ask don't tell needs to be repealed.. And if all you care about is strippers in the bathroom?? You are one sick puppy!!
> 
> And since you haven't served either.. You have no opinion on this issue that really matters..
> 
> You don't have to be straight to pull a trigger and save lives and serve this nation..
> 
> End of story!



Arf--yes, I am a sick puppy at times!!

Also, why are you concentrating on the gays in the military--why not coed barracks, showers and training instead?  

Then we can just stop worrying about sexuality altogther?  My ideas are far more Libertarian than just repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"!!


----------



## Rudy

amrchaos said:


> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ask don't tell needs to be repealed.. And if all you care about is strippers in the bathroom?? You are one sick puppy!!
> 
> And since you haven't served either.. You have no opinion on this issue that really matters..
> 
> You don't have to be straight to pull a trigger and save lives and serve this nation..
> 
> End of story!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arf--yes, I am a sick puppy at times!!
> 
> Also, why are you concentrating on the gays in the military--why not coed barracks, showers and training instead?
> 
> Then we can just stop worrying about sexuality altogther?  My ideas are far more Libertarian than just repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"!!
Click to expand...


What makes you think your such a stud to where gay guys would want to look at you in the first place?


----------



## theHawk

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you ever serve?
> 
> If so, how many years?
> 
> During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.
> 
> Just like the straights are expected to do.
> 
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.



OK so you knew alot of gays while you were in the Navy (why doesn't that surprise me).  Sounds to me like they have been, and currently are, able to serve.  So enough with the phoney outrage and the false accusation that gays aren't allowed to serve as the laws are now, because they can and do.

Pulling out random examples of gays being thrown out doesn't mean jack shit.  Those gays knew they weren't supposed to flaunt their homosexuality.  How can you be certain they didn't "out themselves" on purpose so they could get discharged?  Is it really that hard for homosexuals to not tell everyone that they are homosexuals?  Like you said, most of us that served could care less, so why would they need to to tell everyone?


----------



## Rudy

theHawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever serve?
> 
> If so, how many years?
> 
> During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.
> 
> Just like the straights are expected to do.
> 
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you knew alot of gays while you were in the Navy (why doesn't that surprise me).  Sounds to me like they have been, and currently are, able to serve.  So enough with the phoney outrage and the false accusation that gays aren't allowed to serve as the laws are now, because they can and do.
> 
> Pulling out random examples of gays being thrown out doesn't mean jack shit.  Those gays knew they weren't supposed to flaunt their homosexuality.  How can you be certain they didn't "out themselves" on purpose so they could get discharged?  Is it really that hard for homosexuals to not tell everyone that they are homosexuals?  Like you said, most of us that served could care less, so why would they need to to tell everyone?
Click to expand...


DADT has turned into a McCarthyism-type witch hunt at times.  If you haven't heard some of the individual stories then maybe you need to turn off Fox News and watch another station.  

But why should a serviceman lie to his entire unit just to be a part of it in the first plact?


----------



## amrchaos

Rudy said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ask don't tell needs to be repealed.. And if all you care about is strippers in the bathroom?? You are one sick puppy!!
> 
> And since you haven't served either.. You have no opinion on this issue that really matters..
> 
> You don't have to be straight to pull a trigger and save lives and serve this nation..
> 
> End of story!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arf--yes, I am a sick puppy at times!!
> 
> Also, why are you concentrating on the gays in the military--why not coed barracks, showers and training instead?
> 
> Then we can just stop worrying about sexuality altogther?  My ideas are far more Libertarian than just repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think your such a stud to where gay guys would want to look at you in the first place?
Click to expand...




Excuse me??

Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??

Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.


----------



## Rudy

amrchaos said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arf--yes, I am a sick puppy at times!!
> 
> Also, why are you concentrating on the gays in the military--why not coed barracks, showers and training instead?
> 
> Then we can just stop worrying about sexuality altogther?  My ideas are far more Libertarian than just repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell"!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think your such a stud to where gay guys would want to look at you in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me??
> 
> Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??
> 
> Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.
Click to expand...


A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.  

You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.


As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .


----------



## amrchaos

Rudy said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think your such a stud to where gay guys would want to look at you in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me??
> 
> Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??
> 
> Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.
> 
> You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.
Click to expand...




Well--we now know your opinion


Anybody else is against co-ed barracks?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think your such a stud to where gay guys would want to look at you in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me??
> 
> Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??
> 
> Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.
> 
> You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.
Click to expand...


Great, another liberal fagtard trying to give the impression that gays are the personification of perfection when it comes to being a good troop. Regardless of whether the faggots are objectifying or not, a straight male should not be forced to thinking that his feeling of being uncomfortable in an open shower with men who crave the rectums of other is homophobia. Would a black person in a room full of skinheads be anti-white for feeling feeling uncomfortable around a bunch of people who hate for blacks and non-whites is the one thing they share in common regardless of whether they show it outright or not?


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .



You served as a peon officer.  We need to get that straight.  The officers at the top of the chain of command for the entire military see things different.  
I did serve if you are wondering.  I served with a few gay Marines as well.  We all knew about one of them.. but nobody had issues with it because he performed when he was expected to.  We gave him a hard time.. we called him names.. but it was all in good fun.  

The gay Marines with whom I served all knew they were in the military to serve their country.. not to score some ass with another Marine.  They also knew where the line was drawn and they never crossed it.  

The problem with the men under your command wasn't their own personal feelings towards homosexuals in their ranks. The problem was they had a man leading them who probably encouraged harassment towards any gay veterans under his command.  

If you were an officer.. and you would take such a stance.. then your service is shit.   You are exactly like the ass holes who gave the exact same argument against racial integration in the military.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me??
> 
> Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??
> 
> Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.
> 
> You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, another liberal fagtard trying to give the impression that gays are the personification of perfection when it comes to being a good troop. Regardless of whether the faggots are objectifying or not, a straight male should not be forced to thinking that his feeling of being uncomfortable in an open shower with men who crave the rectums of other is homophobia. Would a black person in a room full of skinheads be anti-white for feeling feeling uncomfortable around a bunch of people who hate for blacks and non-whites is the one thing they share in common regardless of whether they show it outright or not?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry old man, but the generations coming up behind you in the service don't have such hate-filled emotions running through their body.  Since when are you concerned about your troops feeling a little uncomfortable.  This isn't a fucking church summer camp.  You are talking about men and women who are trained killers.  

Maybe we can hold group sensitivity classes for all you salty fucks still living in the 60's.


----------



## amrchaos

Rudy

You are a homosexual, are you not?


----------



## Rudy

Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served as a peon officer.  We need to get that straight.  The officers at the top of the chain of command for the entire military see things different.
> I did serve if you are wondering.  I served with a few gay Marines as well.  We all knew about one of them.. but nobody had issues with it because he performed when he was expected to.  We gave him a hard time.. we called him names.. but it was all in good fun.
> 
> The gay Marines with whom I served all knew they were in the military to serve their country.. not to score some ass with another Marine.  They also knew where the line was drawn and they never crossed it.
> 
> The problem with the men under your command wasn't their own personal feelings towards homosexuals in their ranks. The problem was they had a man leading them who probably encouraged harassment towards any gay veterans under his command.
> 
> If you were an officer.. and you would take such a stance.. then your service is shit.   You are exactly like the ass holes who gave the exact same argument against racial integration in the military.
Click to expand...



Lower level commanders along with NCOs are the backbone of the US military because they make things, not the top heavy brass who sit in jobs that are most of the time not even needed. The lovel level commanders and NCOs are the ones who  are going to actually have to deal problems in the units, not the top brass. 

There is practically comparison between the racism blacks faced and the pro-faggot movement to openly serve as leatherdaddies, a black soldiers can't keep his "blackness" to himself and again like now, the issue of color wasn't a problem at the lower level, the problem was retards at the top trying to make the military a spitting image of the racial retardology that exists outside of the military, which incidentally is the same thing faggots are trying to do.


----------



## amrchaos

Rudy said:


> Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.



So, the idea of co-ed barracks is totally unacceptable, but the idea of having a couple of gay guys in the Bathroom with a couple of straight guys is okay??


The pretense that men will catcall women in the showers is a reason to gaurd against such situation(notice--no one talks about women cat calling men!!  It happens!) but the possiblity of a gay man cat calling a fellow soldier is so remote that no one has to worry about it is an excuse to allow gays in the military.


I call Bullshit.  You sound like a self-righteous homosexual.  Damn you!!


----------



## Rudy

amrchaos said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of co-ed barracks is totally unacceptable, but the idea of having a couple of gay guys in the Bathroom with a couple of straight guys is okay??
> 
> 
> The pretense that men will catcall women in the showers is a reason to gaurd against such situation(notice--no one talks about women cat calling men!!  It happens!) but the possiblity of a gay man cat calling a fellow soldier is so remote that no one has to worry about it is an excuse to allow gays in the military.
> 
> 
> I call Bullshit.  You sound like a self-righteous homosexual.  Damn you!!
Click to expand...


Your argument is dead.  Come up with something else or move on.


----------



## Jay Canuck

*




*

*"In some respects, it actually violates **the natural law upon which the equality ** of all human beings is grounded and by **which it is guaranteed."* 
     -- Pope Benny, on Britain's proposed gay equal rights law,    *Link* 

   Coming from a man who heads an organization of young boy rapists.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charles Bass wasn't an officer, he was a REMF who stayed in the States because he was scared to go on the front lines.

His excuse was diabetes, which ensured a nice cushy desk job.

Bass Hole, you're not an officer, you're one of those cowards that think his rank matters.  If you didn't make it past O-3, you didn't matter any more than a 3rd class enlisted did.

And, there's also the fact that you're a bigoted coward........


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You served as a peon officer.  We need to get that straight.  The officers at the top of the chain of command for the entire military see things different.
> I did serve if you are wondering.  I served with a few gay Marines as well.  We all knew about one of them.. but nobody had issues with it because he performed when he was expected to.  We gave him a hard time.. we called him names.. but it was all in good fun.
> 
> The gay Marines with whom I served all knew they were in the military to serve their country.. not to score some ass with another Marine.  They also knew where the line was drawn and they never crossed it.
> 
> The problem with the men under your command wasn't their own personal feelings towards homosexuals in their ranks. The problem was they had a man leading them who probably encouraged harassment towards any gay veterans under his command.
> 
> If you were an officer.. and you would take such a stance.. then your service is shit.   You are exactly like the ass holes who gave the exact same argument against racial integration in the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lower level commanders along with NCOs are the backbone of the US military because they make things, not the top heavy brass who sit in jobs that are most of the time not even needed. The lovel level commanders and NCOs are the ones who  are going to actually have to deal problems in the units, not the top brass.
Click to expand...


That's where you got it wrong Colonel Sanders.  NCS's are the backbone of the US military unit.  Without them, and good leadership coming from them, you were and are nothing.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charles Bass wasn't an officer, he was a REMF who stayed in the States because he was scared to go on the front lines.
> 
> His excuse was diabetes, which ensured a nice cushy desk job.
> 
> Bass Hole, you're not an officer, you're one of those cowards that think his rank matters.  If you didn't make it past O-3, you didn't matter any more than a 3rd class enlisted did.
> 
> And, there's also the fact that you're a bigoted coward........




Bikerfaggot, don't make false presumptions about the Bass, the Bass left the military because he no longer wanted to be a part of this current military being ran by idiots who misuse troops for political gain. The current crop of leaders they're turning out are substandard compared to the oldschool leaders of the past.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You served as a peon officer.  We need to get that straight.  The officers at the top of the chain of command for the entire military see things different.
> I did serve if you are wondering.  I served with a few gay Marines as well.  We all knew about one of them.. but nobody had issues with it because he performed when he was expected to.  We gave him a hard time.. we called him names.. but it was all in good fun.
> 
> The gay Marines with whom I served all knew they were in the military to serve their country.. not to score some ass with another Marine.  They also knew where the line was drawn and they never crossed it.
> 
> The problem with the men under your command wasn't their own personal feelings towards homosexuals in their ranks. The problem was they had a man leading them who probably encouraged harassment towards any gay veterans under his command.
> 
> If you were an officer.. and you would take such a stance.. then your service is shit.   You are exactly like the ass holes who gave the exact same argument against racial integration in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lower level commanders along with NCOs are the backbone of the US military because they make things, not the top heavy brass who sit in jobs that are most of the time not even needed. The lovel level commanders and NCOs are the ones who  are going to actually have to deal problems in the units, not the top brass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you got it wrong Colonel Sanders.  NCS's are the backbone of the US military unit.  Without them, and good leadership coming from them, you were and are nothing.
Click to expand...



Stupid, lower level officers and NCOS are the ones who predominately carry out military policy, perhaps if you were in the military you would know this.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Bass wasn't an officer, he was a REMF who stayed in the States because he was scared to go on the front lines.
> 
> His excuse was diabetes, which ensured a nice cushy desk job.
> 
> Bass Hole, you're not an officer, you're one of those cowards that think his rank matters.  If you didn't make it past O-3, you didn't matter any more than a 3rd class enlisted did.
> 
> And, there's also the fact that you're a bigoted coward........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bikerfaggot, don't make false presumptions about the Bass, the Bass left the military because he no longer wanted to be a part of this current military being ran by idiots who misuse troops for political gain. The current crop of leaders they're turning out are substandard compared to the oldschool leaders of the past.
Click to expand...


You mean........you quit the military because you were afraid that they were going to send your diabetic stupid REMF ass to Iraq, and you are a scared little pussy.

Admit it or not, everyone already knows.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Way to take a joke thread WAAAAAAAAAYYYY too seriously.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lower level commanders along with NCOs are the backbone of the US military because they make things, not the top heavy brass who sit in jobs that are most of the time not even needed. The lovel level commanders and NCOs are the ones who  are going to actually have to deal problems in the units, not the top brass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you got it wrong Colonel Sanders.  NCS's are the backbone of the US military unit.  Without them, and good leadership coming from them, you were and are nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, lower level officers and NCOS are the ones who predominately carry out military policy, perhaps if you were in the military you would know this.
Click to expand...


Wrong you stupid hack Bass Hole.  It's the NCO's that run the military.  Almost every OIC and Captain that I'd ever served under would believe the word of an E-4 or above over the word of an O-3 or below.  Why?  Most of the time, the O-3 and below personnel had not yet been on a cruise, and therefore were ignorant of how things were done at sea.

But then again, an overblown ego like yours would probably think they actually had a say in the military.

REMF.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-faggot side is still *arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts*. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .



Funny I don't see any relevant facts just a bunch of insults and deflections.

There's no good reason to keep DADT. College kids can handle living with gays, you honestly believe soldiers couldn't?


----------



## Father Time

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.
> 
> You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, another liberal fagtard trying to give the impression that gays are the personification of perfection when it comes to being a good troop. Regardless of whether the faggots are objectifying or not, a straight male should not be forced to thinking that his feeling of being uncomfortable in an open shower with men who crave the rectums of other is homophobia. Would a black person in a room full of skinheads be anti-white for feeling feeling uncomfortable around a bunch of people who hate for blacks and non-whites is the one thing they share in common regardless of whether they show it outright or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry old man, but the generations coming up behind you in the service don't have such hate-filled emotions running through their body.  Since when are you concerned about your troops feeling a little uncomfortable.  This isn't a fucking church summer camp.  You are talking about men and women who are trained killers.
> 
> Maybe we can hold group sensitivity classes for all you salty fucks still living in the 60's.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, another liberal fagtard trying to give the impression that gays are the personification of perfection when it comes to being a good troop. Regardless of whether the faggots are objectifying or not, a straight male should not be forced to thinking that his feeling of being uncomfortable in an open shower with men who crave the rectums of other is homophobia. Would a black person in a room full of skinheads be anti-white for feeling feeling uncomfortable around a bunch of people who hate for blacks and non-whites is the one thing they share in common regardless of whether they show it outright or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry old man, but the generations coming up behind you in the service don't have such hate-filled emotions running through their body.  Since when are you concerned about your troops feeling a little uncomfortable.  This isn't a fucking church summer camp.  You are talking about men and women who are trained killers.
> 
> Maybe we can hold group sensitivity classes for all you salty fucks still living in the 60's.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Group sensitivity classes for what, for straight men not to be so 'uncomfortable' in a shower full of sodomites? How the hell is it hate to be a straight man being in an open shower full of men that are attracted to men? The logic of both of you retards just doesn't follow.


----------



## editec

amrchaos said:


> I have one problem with Gays in the military. It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier. I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem. Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not. That is totally unfair. We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!! Why not? Are you sexist! A prude. It is only fair--what do you think?


 
Our military, in fact every military is now and always will be a place where homosexuals serve honorably.

If you actually ever served in the military, you couldn't possibly not know that, unless you are completely and utterly clueless.


----------



## RadiomanATL

editec said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one problem with Gays in the military. It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier. I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem. Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not. That is totally unfair. We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!! Why not? Are you sexist! A prude. It is only fair--what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our military, in fact every military is now and always will be a place where homosexuals serve honorably.
> 
> If you actually ever served in the military, you couldn't possibly not know that, unless you are completely and utterly clueless.
Click to expand...


Goddammitsomuch.

He's joking. He's going for the cheap laughs with the co-ed humor. It wasn't exactly subtle, highbrow or very witty humor, but humor nonetheless.


Jebus H Kee-rist. Some of youse guys need to take an online course in humor recognition.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lower level commanders along with NCOs are the backbone of the US military because they make things, not the top heavy brass who sit in jobs that are most of the time not even needed. The lovel level commanders and NCOs are the ones who  are going to actually have to deal problems in the units, not the top brass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you got it wrong Colonel Sanders.  NCS's are the backbone of the US military unit.  Without them, and good leadership coming from them, you were and are nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, lower level officers and NCOS are the ones who predominately carry out military policy, perhaps if you were in the military you would know this.
Click to expand...


90% of the missions in which I participated were led by someone without a shine on his collar.  The only times we did have an officer join us was when there was a possibility to pick up an extra ribbon.  

I seriously doubt that you represented the "good leadership" you speak of however.  Officers know how to sit behind a desk and how to make everyone's life miserable as a matter of convenience.. Officers' jobs do not include taking care of the troops under them... Officers are there simply to ensure mission accomplishment.  The NCO's are the ones who watch out for the junior-level individuals. 

  Doubt my service all you want to grandpa.. but I know one thing for sure.  The support I had from the guys under me and the quality of the relationship we had with each other were not dependent on sexual preference. But you wouldn't know anything about true camaraderie would you?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you got it wrong Colonel Sanders.  NCS's are the backbone of the US military unit.  Without them, and good leadership coming from them, you were and are nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, lower level officers and NCOS are the ones who predominately carry out military policy, perhaps if you were in the military you would know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the missions in which I participated were led by someone without a shine on his collar.  The only times we did have an officer join us was when there was a possibility to pick up an extra ribbon.
> 
> I seriously doubt that you represented the "good leadership" you speak of however.  Officers know how to sit behind a desk and how to make everyone's life miserable as a matter of convenience.. Officers' jobs do not include taking care of the troops under them... Officers are there simply to ensure mission accomplishment.  The NCO's are the ones who watch out for the junior-level individuals.
> 
> Doubt my service all you want to grandpa.. but I know one thing for sure.  The support I had from the guys under me and the quality of the relationship we had with each other were not dependent on sexual preference. But you wouldn't know anything about true camaraderie would you?
Click to expand...



Good officers just don't sit back behind a desk and be lazy and just sign paperwork, perhaps you have it wrong. Commanders mostly have admin duties and meet with higher level officers, but at the unit level their job as well as the job of other officers is to back the NCOs up and ensure that whatever is needed to accomplish the mission the NCOs and troops are provided that. Officers also give out non-judicial punishments and remove and or reassign those who are a nuisance and disruption in the unit, this is done of course with recommendation from NCOs.


No where in any of these Bass' posts has he ever downplayed the value of NCOs in the management of the military, all he said was that NCOs and officers at the lower levels[your basic military battery, troop, flight and or company] are largely the ones that will have to deal with the problems that will come with lifting DADT should it happen, the brass at the top will not.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid, lower level officers and NCOS are the ones who predominately carry out military policy, perhaps if you were in the military you would know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the missions in which I participated were led by someone without a shine on his collar.  The only times we did have an officer join us was when there was a possibility to pick up an extra ribbon.
> 
> I seriously doubt that you represented the "good leadership" you speak of however.  Officers know how to sit behind a desk and how to make everyone's life miserable as a matter of convenience.. Officers' jobs do not include taking care of the troops under them... Officers are there simply to ensure mission accomplishment.  The NCO's are the ones who watch out for the junior-level individuals.
> 
> Doubt my service all you want to grandpa.. but I know one thing for sure.  The support I had from the guys under me and the quality of the relationship we had with each other were not dependent on sexual preference. But you wouldn't know anything about true camaraderie would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where in any of these Bass' posts has he ever downplayed the value of NCOs in the management of the military, all he said was that NCOs and officers at the lower levels[your basic military battery, troop, flight and or company] are largely the ones that will have to deal with the problems that will come with lifting DADT should it happen, the brass at the top will not.
Click to expand...


I think Rudy's post made it VERY clear he was downplaying the value of officers in management of the military.  If you fucks just got our of our way things would be done a lot quicker.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the missions in which I participated were led by someone without a shine on his collar.  The only times we did have an officer join us was when there was a possibility to pick up an extra ribbon.
> 
> I seriously doubt that you represented the "good leadership" you speak of however.  Officers know how to sit behind a desk and how to make everyone's life miserable as a matter of convenience.. Officers' jobs do not include taking care of the troops under them... Officers are there simply to ensure mission accomplishment.  The NCO's are the ones who watch out for the junior-level individuals.
> 
> Doubt my service all you want to grandpa.. but I know one thing for sure.  The support I had from the guys under me and the quality of the relationship we had with each other were not dependent on sexual preference. But you wouldn't know anything about true camaraderie would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where in any of these Bass' posts has he ever downplayed the value of NCOs in the management of the military, all he said was that NCOs and officers at the lower levels[your basic military battery, troop, flight and or company] are largely the ones that will have to deal with the problems that will come with lifting DADT should it happen, the brass at the top will not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Rudy's post made it VERY clear he was downplaying the value of officers in management of the military.  If you fucks just got our of our way things would be done a lot quicker.
Click to expand...


The Bass thinks Rudy is mighty stupid for downplaying the role of officers as if they do nothing but sit behind desks all day and stay lazy. NCOs have their lane to stay in and Officers have their lane to stay, as long as neither crosses into the others lane the military will be ran smooth. The problem with some NCOs is that some haven't learned to separate themselves from the troops they're supposed to take care, instead some like the idea of getting paid like a SSgt while continuing to act like out of control airmen. In short, some of you NCOs need to grow up. The Bass generally speaking only took advice from E-7 and above, senior NCOs since they almost always have their heads screwed on right, today's E-5s are just overpaid airmen.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still *arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts*. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I don't see any relevant facts just a bunch of insults and deflections.
> 
> There's no good reason to keep DADT. College kids can handle living with gays, you honestly believe soldiers couldn't?
Click to expand...


The military is where people put their lives on the line in a combat, not party atmosphere like college, there's a clear difference between the two and quit assuming that all troops are going to accept faggots and or that they don't think this matters because it does. In college you either attend and pass or you don't, in the military failure is not an option. In college you go and return as you please, in the military there is none of that.There's no reason for faggots to serve openly and make their sexuality a condition for them serving.

The ones doing the insults in this thread are the pro-faggots, not the Bass.


----------



## amrchaos

RadiomanATL said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one problem with Gays in the military. It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier. I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem. Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not. That is totally unfair. We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!! Why not? Are you sexist! A prude. It is only fair--what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our military, in fact every military is now and always will be a place where homosexuals serve honorably.
> 
> If you actually ever served in the military, you couldn't possibly not know that, unless you are completely and utterly clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goddammitsomuch.
> 
> He's joking. He's going for the cheap laughs with the co-ed humor. It wasn't exactly subtle, highbrow or very witty humor, but humor nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Jebus H Kee-rist. Some of youse guys need to take an online course in humor recognition.
Click to expand...




Forget it--I stopped posting on this thread a long time ago.

It is apparent that some of these posters possess some serious psychological scars concerning DADT.  I did not know that the Homosexual community were so sensitive about gays in the military.  OH--and their (wink wink) "suporters".

Those damn self righteous Homosexuals can go to hell.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry old man, but the generations coming up behind you in the service don't have such hate-filled emotions running through their body.  Since when are you concerned about your troops feeling a little uncomfortable.  This isn't a fucking church summer camp.  You are talking about men and women who are trained killers.
> 
> Maybe we can hold group sensitivity classes for all you salty fucks still living in the 60's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Group sensitivity classes for what, for straight men not to be so 'uncomfortable' in a shower full of sodomites? How the hell is it hate to be a straight man being in an open shower full of men that are attracted to men? The logic of both of you retards just doesn't follow.
Click to expand...


What is this middle school? So they might be a bit uncomfortable boohoo. Gay soldiers are still bound by sexual harassment rules so there's really nothing to worry about.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still *arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts*. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> As for Bikerfaggot, the military loses more people because of better paying jobs and less restrictive working conditions in the civilian sector than the faggots who get kicked out for being in violation of military regulations against homosexuality, these faggots knew for a fact that hgomosexuality is against the regulation before they joined, so their frustration at being unable to serve openly as a penis jockey in the military is self inflicted .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I don't see any relevant facts just a bunch of insults and deflections.
> 
> There's no good reason to keep DADT. College kids can handle living with gays, you honestly believe soldiers couldn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military is where people put their lives on the line in a combat, not party atmosphere like college, there's a clear difference between the two
Click to expand...


Yeah but both involve the possibility of bunking with gays and if college kids can handle that...



Charlie Bass said:


> and quit assuming that all troops are going to accept faggots and or that they don't think this matters because it does.



Same was said about blacks, also once again they're there to be hardened soldiers if they can't handle a few gay men being there methinks they may not be suitable for combat.



Charlie Bass said:


> There's no reason for faggots to serve openly and make their sexuality a condition for them serving.



There's no reason to kick them out, so you may live with people that make you feel uncomfortable that's life. If they aren't harassing them then I really don't care about their feelings.


----------



## Father Time

I wonder why the Bass thinks so lowly of troops that he thinks they can't handle a few gays being in their unit.

If they can handle the abuse of drill sergeants why should gays be any sort of problem?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny I don't see any relevant facts just a bunch of insults and deflections.
> 
> There's no good reason to keep DADT. College kids can handle living with gays, you honestly believe soldiers couldn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military is where people put their lives on the line in a combat, not party atmosphere like college, there's a clear difference between the two
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but both involve the possibility of bunking with gays and if college kids can handle that...
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> and quit assuming that all troops are going to accept faggots and or that they don't think this matters because it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same was said about blacks, also once again they're there to be hardened soldiers if they can't handle a few gay men being there methinks they may not be suitable for combat.
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason for faggots to serve openly and make their sexuality a condition for them serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to kick them out, so you may live with people that make you feel uncomfortable that's life. If they aren't harassing them then I really don't care about their feelings.
Click to expand...


There's nothing worse than a bunch of liberal retards who attack people who are being made to accepted something they shouldn't have to accept.


Again, there is a world of difference between college and the damn military, one cannot assume that whatever is good and works for college students can/should work in the military.


The Bass has seen not statistics which state that most college students have no problem bunking up and taking showering in open showers with gays. And again, straight men who feel uncomfortable being in an open shower with men who are attracted to other men are not the ones with the problem, telling them to shut up and just accept it isn't the answer either.


If gays can't keep their homosexuality to themselves and DADT bothers them so damn much *THEY* are the ones who need to leave the military because straight people are not the ones who have a problem with DADT. Perhaps it is the faggots who are not suitable for combat.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> I wonder why the Bass thinks so lowly of troops that he thinks they can't handle a few gays being in their unit.
> 
> If they can handle the abuse of drill sergeants why should gays be any sort of problem?



Idiot, you're the one who thinks low of troops who would feel uncomfortable around people who are attracted to people of the same sex.

Comparing faggots to drill sergeants is a piss poor comparison thats beyond retarded, drill sergeants have a job to integrate new recruits to the standards and life in military so that they  know the basics, what sort of purpose do faggots serve that you could even compare them to drill sergeants.

One could likewise make the argument that gays are weak people because if they can handle being yell at in basic training and having to hold back their emotions why can't they keep their homosexuality to themselves? Likewise if blacks can abuse by drill sergeants they should have no problem with racist commanders and NCOs therefore racists should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Your logic is totally damn stupid.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> If gays can't keep their homosexuality to themselves and DADT bothers them so damn much *THEY* are the ones who need to leave the military because straight people are not the ones who have a problem with DADT. Perhaps it is the faggots who are not suitable for combat.



That's not how it works if they find out a soldier's gay off he goes.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the Bass thinks so lowly of troops that he thinks they can't handle a few gays being in their unit.
> 
> If they can handle the abuse of drill sergeants why should gays be any sort of problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, you're the one who thinks low of troops who would feel uncomfortable around people who are attracted to people of the same sex.
Click to expand...


No I think low of the people who demand they be fired for no good reason other than 'I feel uncomfortable by his very existence'. Suck it up.



Charlie Bass said:


> Comparing faggots to drill sergeants is a piss poor comparison thats beyond retarded,



That's not what I did, all I'm saying is if they can handle drill sergeant abuse why the fuck can't they handle the knowledge that there's a gay in their midst?



Charlie Bass said:


> One could likewise make the argument that gays are weak people because if they can handle being yell at in basic training and having to hold back their emotions why can't they keep their homosexuality to themselves?



Again they can do that and still be fired anyway. It's a stupid system.



Charlie Bass said:


> Likewise if blacks can abuse by drill sergeants they should have no problem with racist commanders and NCOs therefore racists should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Your logic is totally damn stupid.


So being gay is the same as being bigoted? Your logic is nonexistant.


----------



## Bezukhov

Anyone ever heard of these guys?:Sacred Band of Thebes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## blu

amrchaos said:


> I have one problem with Gays in the military.  It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier.  I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.  We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!!  Why not?   Are you sexist!  A prude.  It is only fair--what do you think?





a bet if a dude hit on you when drunk you would be bent over in no time or on your knees


----------



## ABikerSailor

Bass Hole is such a pussy that he'd end up getting his ass kicked by a girlie flamer.


----------



## Yukon

amrchaos said:


> I have one problem with Gays in the military.  It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier.  I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.  We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!!  Why not?   Are you sexist!  A prude.  It is only fair--what do you think?




I bet the thought of showering with naked men sexually arouses you. Doesn't it? ou really are a closet homosexual and want people to give you feedback to arouse your perversions further.

How long have you been homosexual...were you born that way or did it just develop over time? You should seek professional help and pray that you can be healed. I will pray for you at Mass my child.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Bass Hole is such a pussy that he'd end up getting his ass kicked by a girlie flamer.




The Bass has got to hand it to the pro-homosexual camp on USMB, their debating methods are cutting edge  and their arguments for lifting DADT are ground breaking and thought provoking. Its as simple as belittling the straight men to supress their feelings of being uncomfortable in an open shower full of gay men in order to support equal rights for gays. You didn't know that people? The liberal way of promoting "equal rights" is always to do it via denying rights to others. The next logical step is to have DADT for straight people who feel uncomfortable for gays, Touche! Cutting edge indeed!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> No I think low of the people who demand they be fired for no good reason other than 'I feel uncomfortable by his very existence'. Suck it up.



The demand is that they keep their homosexuality to themselves and not openly profess anything and feeling uncomfortable in a shower full of faggots when you're a straight man isn't saying a person is uncomfortable with the existence of faggots, it relates totally to the above situation put forth. On the flip side, why can't faggots just suck it up and keep their homosexuality to themselves? 





> That's not what I did, all I'm saying is if they can handle drill sergeant abuse why the fuck can't they handle the knowledge that there's a gay in their midst?



A drill sergeant barking insults at a recruit and a straight man in a shower with gay men are two different things, that was a totally dumb comparison and again, if a gay recruit can handle being yelled by a drill sergeant why can't they keep their homosexuality to themselves?



> Again they can do that and still be fired anyway. It's a stupid system.



The rule is don't ask don't tell and keep your sex life to yourself, not stupid system at all. The only ones stupid are the faggots stupid enough to break the rules and or get caught.


----------



## Father Time

So telling straights to suck it up= evil. Telling gays to suck it up=OK.

Why should gays have to be silent about their sexuality when heteros don't?

The straights may be uncomfortable but I'd give them a week.


----------



## Father Time

Do you even have any stats on how many soldiers will be uncomfortable with gays or not?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Do you even have any stats on how many soldiers will be uncomfortable with gays or not?



Do you even have any stats that state that most soldiers have a problem with the current DADT policy? The policy only seems problematic for gays.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bass Hole is such a pussy that he'd end up getting his ass kicked by a girlie flamer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass has got to hand it to the pro-homosexual camp on USMB, their debating methods are cutting edge  and their arguments for lifting DADT are ground breaking and thought provoking. Its as simple as belittling the straight men to supress their feelings of being uncomfortable in an open shower full of gay men in order to support equal rights for gays. You didn't know that people? The liberal way of promoting "equal rights" is always to do it via denying rights to others. The next logical step is to have DADT for straight people who feel uncomfortable for gays, Touche! Cutting edge indeed!
Click to expand...


Hey there you fucking REMF...........

First off, if you actually WERE an officer, you would know that out of the 26 NATO countries, 25 of them allow gays to serve openly.  The only one that doesn't?  The US.

Britain and Australia have both BEER and GAYS!  What is that all about eh?  Personally?  I think the US Navy should allow both (they get 1 pint/meal/day).

Next, you would also understand (if you had 2 synapses to rub together), that it's not about what or whom someone finds sexually attractive, it's how well the unit works together to make sure that everyone else comes home.

By the way, when Army Lt. Dan Cho came out to his squad?  They asked when they would be allowed to meet his boyfriend.

Only ignorant racist homophobic assholes like yourself see it as an issue.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even have any stats on how many soldiers will be uncomfortable with gays or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even have any stats that state that most soldiers have a problem with the current DADT policy? The policy only seems problematic for gays.
Click to expand...


So if most soldiers don't mind it must be a good policy?

You have any real arguments instead of appeal to majority?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> So telling straights to suck it up= evil. Telling gays to suck it up=OK.[7quote]
> 
> People in the military have to suck up a lot and to ask them to suck up feeling uncomfortable in a communal shower full of people that are attracted to people of the same sex is retarded and violates their privacy. You liberals are under the false impression that lifting DADT is going to go real smooth without any problems despite not nearing the majority of the troops voice their opinions on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should gays have to be silent about their sexuality when heteros don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heteros don't make openly professing their sexuality a big deal, most don't even discuss, what good is it going to do the military and gays if they're allowed to say they're gay? Its of no benefit to the military whatsoever. The military id an organization thats suppose to protect our country, not a proving ground for gay activism. gays know the rules, if they can't follow the rules they shouldn't join, end of story, the military is not a democracy and those of us who have joined and served in the military know this. Everyone, gay and straight, that joins the military joins with the understanding that for the time they will be serving they will have to give up and forfeit a number of freedoms that are not permissible once they swear in. Once you swear in you're bound to a contract and you have already agreed to obey every rule and regulation that comes with it, so its the faggots that need to suck it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The straights may be uncomfortable but I'd give them a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what? Someone needs to smack you up out of that liberal fantasy world you live in. Assuming that you're not gay you cannot sit here and say that you would feel ok in a communal shower full of open gay men.
Click to expand...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hetero people don't talk about sex?

Are you SURE you served in the military rather than the Boy Scouts?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even have any stats on how many soldiers will be uncomfortable with gays or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even have any stats that state that most soldiers have a problem with the current DADT policy? The policy only seems problematic for gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if most soldiers don't mind it must be a good policy?
> 
> You have any real arguments instead of appeal to majority?
Click to expand...


The Bass' argument is simple, DADT is not causing the military any problems, its only problematic for faggots that want to tell everyone and their mama that they're gay but what about those troops who don't want to know?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Hetero people don't talk about sex?
> 
> Are you SURE you served in the military rather than the Boy Scouts?




Hetero troops don't wear their sexuality on their foreheads you jackass, most troops served and do their jobs and don't use their sexuality as activism. Faggots will not. They already have the option to serve and keep their homosexuality to themselves, thats what the rules are and they know this when they signed up. All people who join the service have to forfeit and sacrifice something when they join because they are no longer a part of the civilian world, if faggots can't do it they don't need to join, simple and plain.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> So telling straights to suck it up= evil. Telling gays to suck it up=OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People in the military have to suck up a lot and to ask them to suck up feeling uncomfortable in a communal shower full of people that are attracted to people of the same sex is retarded and violates their privacy.
Click to expand...


 You're getting desperate. Especially when you keep insisting that if it was repealed suddenly it would be full of gay man. How exactly does the current system not violate their privacy?



Charlie Bass said:


> You liberals are under the false impression that lifting DADT is going to go real smooth without any problems despite not nearing the majority of the troops voice their opinions on the matter.



What proof do you have that most troops would hate it as much as you do?



Charlie Bass said:


> Heteros don't make openly professing their sexuality a big deal, most don't even discuss, what good is it going to do the military and gays if they're allowed to say they're gay? Its of no benefit to the military whatsoever.



Except they'd have more troops and translators.



Charlie Bass said:


> The military id an organization thats suppose to protect our country, not a proving ground for gay activism.



Straw man. You know that's not what it would make it.



Charlie Bass said:


> gays know the rules, if they can't follow the rules they shouldn't join, end of story,



No, we can always try to change the warrantless rules.



Charlie Bass said:


> the military is not a democracy and those of us who have joined and served in the military know this.



Non-Sequiter. Stop trying to deflect.



Charlie Bass said:


> Everyone, gay and straight, that joins the military joins with the understanding that for the time they will be serving they will have to give up and forfeit a number of freedoms that are not permissible once they swear in. Once you swear in you're bound to a contract and you have already agreed to obey every rule and regulation that comes with it, so its the faggots that need to suck it up



So we should just blindly follow the rules that are there? There's a name for thickies like you.

Lawful Stupid - Television Tropes & Idioms

You're whole argument of why we should keep the rules basically amounts to a.troops will feel uncomfortable (how many, you won't say, nor any indication on how much). and b. That it's all ready a rule.

You're starting to sound more and more like the fuckers who didn't want blacks in the military either.




Charlie Bass said:


> The straights may be uncomfortable but I'd give them a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
Click to expand...


Based on the fact that most soldiers are not as obsessed over homosexuals as you are and that they're not as weak as you'd take them for.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hetero people don't talk about sex?
> 
> Are you SURE you served in the military rather than the Boy Scouts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hetero troops don't wear their sexuality on their foreheads you jackass, most troops served and do their jobs and don't use their sexuality as activism. Faggots will not. They already have the option to serve and keep their homosexuality to themselves, thats what the rules are and they know this when they signed up. All people who join the service have to forfeit and sacrifice something when they join because they are no longer a part of the civilian world, if faggots can't do it they don't need to join, simple and plain.
Click to expand...


Really?  Hetero troops don't wear their sexuality on their foreheads?  

Shit........that means all the really hot chicks I was stationed with were all wrong then, as most of them kinda did that very same thing if they were single.

Oh yeah........let's talk about the integration of women in the military to combat units.  Remember the problems that caused?  Shit........for a while, it was kinda being worn on their sleeves douchebag.

Then..........there's the times that I've gone and gotten in a contest with some of my fellow sailors to see who could get laid the most times while in the red light district.

In Alicante Spain, I held the record.  7 times in one night, between sunset and 4 am.

Then........there's the single dudes who talk about all the ass they'd gotten over the weekend......

Like I said, are you SURE you were in the military and not the Cub Scouts?


----------



## Yukon

Mr Bass and the GayBiker can't even spell it correctly. It's HETRO not "hetero". Both of you are obviously products of the failed public schiool system. Mr Bass has an excuse in that he is a Negro and the majority of Negro people have great difficulty spelling words that don't start with the phrase "Hey man...". On the other hand the GayBiker is just plain mentally incompetent.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yukon said:


> Mr Bass and the GayBiker can't even spell it correctly. It's HETRO not "hetero". Both of you are obviously products of the failed public schiool system. Mr Bass has an excuse in that he is a Negro and the majority of Negro people have great difficulty spelling words that don't start with the phrase "Hey man...". On the other hand the GayBiker is just plain mentally incompetent.



Yeah...........you're a hell of a spokesperson..........considering that this observation is being made by a gay pedophile priest who was kicked out of the church, and is now hiding out in Canada.

Sure.......you're really mentally competent.

By the way, why the rift with Chucked Ass?  He refuse to blow you last nite?


----------



## HUGGY

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even have any stats that state that most soldiers have a problem with the current DADT policy? The policy only seems problematic for gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if most soldiers don't mind it must be a good policy?
> 
> You have any real arguments instead of appeal to majority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bass' argument is simple, DADT is not causing the military any problems, its only problematic for faggots that want to tell everyone and their mama that they're gay but what about those troops who don't want to know?
Click to expand...


Third person references to one's self are gay.... just sayin ...  It's queer.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Third person references were originally used by royalty, as they didn't want to have any connection to the peasants, and so they referred to themselves in the third person, to keep themselves apart from the conversation.

Eventually, here in America, it started to be used by the top 5 percent of the people, as they considered themselves royalty.

Nowadays?  Its used exclusively by third rate douchebags who are doing the rest of us a favor, by keeping their douchebaggery to themselves.

Chucking Ass is the self proclaimed King of Douchebaggery!  All hail Chucked Ass, Douchebag King for Life!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I guess the question is would you rather KNOW who is gay in the shower or do you want to GUESS who is gay?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Personally?  I'd like to know who is and isn't.

That way, if I was a homophobic racist asshole like Ass Chucker, I could avoid the shower when they were in there.

I think the reason he doesn't like the policy, is because now, his bullshit is gonna be known by everyone.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Personally?  I'd like to know who is and isn't.
> 
> That way, if I was a homophobic racist asshole like Ass Chucker, I could avoid the shower when they were in there.
> 
> I think the reason he doesn't like the policy, is because now, his bullshit is gonna be known by everyone.



Personal attack, personal attack, thats all you can muster up. Perhaps you want DADT lifted to mnake up for your 20 years of pent up frustration.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

HUGGY said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if most soldiers don't mind it must be a good policy?
> 
> You have any real arguments instead of appeal to majority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass' argument is simple, DADT is not causing the military any problems, its only problematic for faggots that want to tell everyone and their mama that they're gay but what about those troops who don't want to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Third person references to one's self are gay.... just sayin ...  It's queer.
Click to expand...


More personal attacks, the Bass rests his case, until you faggots and faggot lovers come up with a convicing argument other than liberal BS propaganda and gay activism the Bass will not waste his time chastise grown adults incapable of putting up a valid argument.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Yukon said:


> Mr Bass and the GayBiker can't even spell it correctly. It's HETRO not "hetero". Both of you are obviously products of the failed public schiool system. Mr Bass has an excuse in that he is a Negro and the majority of Negro people have great difficulty spelling words that don't start with the phrase "Hey man...". On the other hand the GayBiker is just plain mentally incompetent.



Have you went to professional help to cure your pedophilia?


----------



## Yukon

In the "new" politically correct USA Mr Bass, being a Negro, is a member of the "protected" race of people.  White Americans are just plain old people with no special privileges. Too bad.............


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass' argument is simple, DADT is not causing the military any problems, its only problematic for faggots that want to tell everyone and their mama that they're gay but what about those troops who don't want to know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third person references to one's self are gay.... just sayin ...  It's queer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More personal attacks, the Bass rests his case, until you faggots and faggot lovers come up with a convicing argument other than liberal BS propaganda and gay activism the Bass will not waste his time chastise grown adults incapable of putting up a valid argument.
Click to expand...


When you consider that all other NATO countries allow openly gay people to serve, then couple that with the fact that we currently have a war with Saudi speaking people, and some of the gays they want to kick out are Arabic language experts, of which we have only 500 in the military.

Compound that to the fact there are 2 wars on, and it takes a lot of manpower, which means allowing gays to serve openly, so that we don't need to institute another draft.

Oh yeah.........never mind the fact that it would make our military just that much stronger, because racist douchebag homophobic people such as yourself would get out, taking along their old standards and ancient mores with them.

Yep.........getting rid of racists and homophobic people is a good start in my opinion.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> You're getting desperate. Especially when you keep insisting that if it was repealed suddenly it would be full of gay man. How exactly does the current system not violate their privacy?



Sounds like someone is very unfamiliar with the military and was talking out of their anus. The military probably has a lot of faggots and as long as they're not openly serving and letting everyone know.





> What proof do you have that most troops would hate it as much as you do?



What proof do have that its not going to cause any problems and that troops wouldn't care? The Bass was in the military and you have not served so don't you think the bass is speaking from experience?





> Except they'd have more troops and translators.



The military can get more troops and translators all they like, they're not exactly starving for them. Anyone that violates the regulation is subject to separation anyways and more people get put out for reasons other than being gay, so whats the point?





> Straw man. You know that's not what it would make it.



Thats what they are making it and have already done so, but when you head is stuck in the sand its not hard to realize why you can't see it.





> No, we can always try to change the warrantless rules.



To join the military is a choice and the military is not subject to change anything to accommodate anyone, most people who serve realize this, lazy, fat civilians don't know. The military is not a democracy.





> Non-Sequiter. Stop trying to deflect.



Stop trolling and accept the facts, the military is not a democracy, all people who join must adapt and conform to it, those who can't must be separated for failure to adapt.





> So we should just blindly follow the rules that are there? There's a name for thickies like you.



When you sign up thats what you're supposed to do, again, the military is not subject to change its rules for the benefit of others, it changes only for the benefit of itself.






> Based on the fact that most soldiers are not as obsessed over homosexuals as you are and that they're not as weak as you'd take them for.



Most troops are not as tolerant of homosexuals as you stupid liberals think, but hey, you liberals have a history of shoving your progressive BS onto others, BS that not even you believe would work, just as long as you all don't have to deal with it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Third person references to one's self are gay.... just sayin ...  It's queer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More personal attacks, the Bass rests his case, until you faggots and faggot lovers come up with a convicing argument other than liberal BS propaganda and gay activism the Bass will not waste his time chastise grown adults incapable of putting up a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you consider that all other NATO countries allow openly gay people to serve, then couple that with the fact that we currently have a war with Saudi speaking people, and some of the gays they want to kick out are Arabic language experts, of which we have only 500 in the military.
> 
> Compound that to the fact there are 2 wars on, and it takes a lot of manpower, which means allowing gays to serve openly, so that we don't need to institute another draft.
> 
> Oh yeah.........never mind the fact that it would make our military just that much stronger, because racist douchebag homophobic people such as yourself would get out, taking along their old standards and ancient mores with them.
> 
> Yep.........getting rid of racists and homophobic people is a good start in my opinion.
Click to expand...


The US military is unique and way more disciplined than all the other NATO countries and whats works best for them may not work best for the US military because different countries equal different cultures. Some NATO countries allow their troops to have strippers and drink alcohol while deployed, should the US military follow suit just because they do it? Real leaders and people who set bar lead from the front, not follow. Allowing faggots to serve openly is not going to make the world's greatest military any stronger, faggots are not the glue that holds the military together, they are not the heart and soul of the military.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Actually Ass Chucker, ALL NATO countries (ours included) allow our sailors, Marines and soldiers to "have strippers and drink beer".

Ever actually BEEN in a military town?  Lots of strip clubs dude.  Lots of bars as well.

I really wonder if you ever did serve?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually Ass Chucker, ALL NATO countries (ours included) allow our sailors, Marines and soldiers to "have strippers and drink beer".
> 
> Ever actually BEEN in a military town?  Lots of strip clubs dude.  Lots of bars as well.
> 
> I really wonder if you ever did serve?



No, the other NATO countries allow their troops to drink alcohol have strippers while deployed, not that ship cruise crap you faggoty squids have. A fellow officer of mine who was in Bosnia 1996-1997 observed German and Danish soldiers having strippers and alcohol and being allowed to visit prostitutes while deployed, US troops are not allowed to do such undisciplined acts and the US military leads from the front, we don't follow others you stupid Bikerfaggot.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting desperate. Especially when you keep insisting that if it was repealed suddenly it would be full of gay man. How exactly does the current system not violate their privacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone is very unfamiliar with the military and was talking out of their anus. The military probably has a lot of faggots and as long as they're not openly serving and letting everyone know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have that most troops would hate it as much as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What proof do have that its not going to cause any problems and that troops wouldn't care? The Bass was in the military and you have not served so don't you think the bass is speaking from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military can get more troops and translators all they like, they're not exactly starving for them. Anyone that violates the regulation is subject to separation anyways and more people get put out for reasons other than being gay, so whats the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what they are making it and have already done so, but when you head is stuck in the sand its not hard to realize why you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To join the military is a choice and the military is not subject to change anything to accommodate anyone, most people who serve realize this, lazy, fat civilians don't know. The military is not a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trolling and accept the facts, the military is not a democracy, all people who join must adapt and conform to it, those who can't must be separated for failure to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we should just blindly follow the rules that are there? There's a name for thickies like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you sign up thats what you're supposed to do, again, the military is not subject to change its rules for the benefit of others, it changes only for the benefit of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the fact that most soldiers are not as obsessed over homosexuals as you are and that they're not as weak as you'd take them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most troops are not as tolerant of homosexuals as you stupid liberals think, but hey, you liberals have a history of shoving your progressive BS onto others, BS that not even you believe would work, just as long as you all don't have to deal with it.
Click to expand...


Source. It's your whole argument that soldiers won't like them so I would like a source.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting desperate. Especially when you keep insisting that if it was repealed suddenly it would be full of gay man. How exactly does the current system not violate their privacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone is very unfamiliar with the military and was talking out of their anus. The military probably has a lot of faggots and as long as they're not openly serving and letting everyone know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do have that its not going to cause any problems and that troops wouldn't care? The Bass was in the military and you have not served so don't you think the bass is speaking from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military can get more troops and translators all they like, they're not exactly starving for them. Anyone that violates the regulation is subject to separation anyways and more people get put out for reasons other than being gay, so whats the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what they are making it and have already done so, but when you head is stuck in the sand its not hard to realize why you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To join the military is a choice and the military is not subject to change anything to accommodate anyone, most people who serve realize this, lazy, fat civilians don't know. The military is not a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trolling and accept the facts, the military is not a democracy, all people who join must adapt and conform to it, those who can't must be separated for failure to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sign up thats what you're supposed to do, again, the military is not subject to change its rules for the benefit of others, it changes only for the benefit of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the fact that most soldiers are not as obsessed over homosexuals as you are and that they're not as weak as you'd take them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most troops are not as tolerant of homosexuals as you stupid liberals think, but hey, you liberals have a history of shoving your progressive BS onto others, BS that not even you believe would work, just as long as you all don't have to deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source. It's your whole argument that soldiers won't like them so I would like a source.
Click to expand...


Why don't you post sources since you are the idiot that wants to do away with DADT, no one in the military in complaining about DADT except for gays and you have posted no evidence that suggests that if it did change the troops would willingly accept it and no problems would be caused. You have no served in the military and know nothing about how it functions, which is why you made the stupid suggestion that whatever is acceptable in college dorms should also be ok and accepted in the military when the two cannot logically be compared. Only an idiot who has never served in the military would make such a comparison.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Ass Chucker, ALL NATO countries (ours included) allow our sailors, Marines and soldiers to "have strippers and drink beer".
> 
> Ever actually BEEN in a military town?  Lots of strip clubs dude.  Lots of bars as well.
> 
> I really wonder if you ever did serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the other NATO countries allow their troops to drink alcohol have strippers while deployed, not that ship cruise crap you faggoty squids have. A fellow officer of mine who was in Bosnia 1996-1997 observed German and Danish soldiers having strippers and alcohol and being allowed to visit prostitutes while deployed, US troops are not allowed to do such undisciplined acts and the US military leads from the front, we don't follow others you stupid Bikerfaggot.
Click to expand...


You DO realize that with every post on this thread, your credibility as a member of the United States Armed Forces goes down a bit, right?

I believe the 2 countries that you're talking about is England and Australia.  Both allow alcohol in the form of beer on their ships.  The quota is 1 pint/meal/3x a day.

As far as allowing strippers onboard?  Did either you or your buddy ever figure that they may have been their wives or girlfriends?  And, you are not allowed on a warship unless you have permission to board her, and when asking permission, they WILL ask for your ID.

As far as the being allowed to visit prostitutes?  Really?  Because on the quarterdeck (on/off point of the ship), our doc (and just about every other Navy doc), placed a BIG bowl of condoms for the guys to take with them, just to be safe.

In Alicante Spain, I had sex with seven different women from sunset on a summer day until 4 am.  Some of my officers remarked on my stamina, and from that point on, I was a legend on the ship.

Incidentally, they've done that for a LONG time.

Are you SURE you served in the military and not the National Guard?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like someone is very unfamiliar with the military and was talking out of their anus. The military probably has a lot of faggots and as long as they're not openly serving and letting everyone know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do have that its not going to cause any problems and that troops wouldn't care? The Bass was in the military and you have not served so don't you think the bass is speaking from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military can get more troops and translators all they like, they're not exactly starving for them. Anyone that violates the regulation is subject to separation anyways and more people get put out for reasons other than being gay, so whats the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what they are making it and have already done so, but when you head is stuck in the sand its not hard to realize why you can't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To join the military is a choice and the military is not subject to change anything to accommodate anyone, most people who serve realize this, lazy, fat civilians don't know. The military is not a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trolling and accept the facts, the military is not a democracy, all people who join must adapt and conform to it, those who can't must be separated for failure to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sign up thats what you're supposed to do, again, the military is not subject to change its rules for the benefit of others, it changes only for the benefit of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most troops are not as tolerant of homosexuals as you stupid liberals think, but hey, you liberals have a history of shoving your progressive BS onto others, BS that not even you believe would work, just as long as you all don't have to deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source. It's your whole argument that soldiers won't like them so I would like a source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you post sources since you are the idiot that wants to do away with DADT, no one in the military in complaining about DADT except for gays and you have posted no evidence that suggests that if it did change the troops would willingly accept it and no problems would be caused. You have no served in the military and know nothing about how it functions, which is why you made the stupid suggestion that whatever is acceptable in college dorms should also be ok and accepted in the military when the two cannot logically be compared.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to miss the point? College kids are tough enough to handle living with gays. Soldiers are (or should be) tougher than your average college kid. Therefore soldiers should be tough enough to handle living with gays.


----------



## Yukon

The US military has a bad habit of shooting and bombing their allies. Gep clear of them because most of the time they are either high or drunk.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey "The Bass" would you rather have a well trained GAY US SERVICEMAN covering your back or would you rather be out there ALONE with nobody to help you? I would think that when the bullets start flying it really wouldn't matter what a person's religion, gender, sexual persuasion is only the fact that he/she is a US SEVICEMAN and willing to trust you with their lives and willing to GIVE THEIR OWN to protect YOURS!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yukon said:


> The US military has a bad habit of shooting and bombing their allies. Gep clear of them because most of the time they are either high or drunk.








What a STUPID comment.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yukon said:


> The US military has a bad habit of shooting and bombing their allies. Gep clear of them because most of the time they are either high or drunk.



WRONG!!!!!

You know Yakking One, you are really getting stupider with each post.  By the way douchebag, is that your real picture in your avi?  If so, you are one ugly bald fucker.

As far as the drugs?  In 1983, the military instituted their piss test program.  Used to be (from '83 until '86), you could fuck up 1 or 2 times, but then, after that?  It was gonzo for Bubba.

In the late 80's, the policy was reduced to 1 time equals gone.  They then took alcohol and did the same thing.

In the early 90's, you could go to alcohol rehab up to 3 times before they kicked you out.  In '93 they reduced the number to one.  Get drunk after 1 rehab?  Go home.  Wanna know how I know this?  I was sent to rehab 2 times (inpatient).  Was told that if I fucked up again, I would be gone.

Got my shit together then, and the last 10 years of my career were great.  I was a superstar that walked on water and got lots of awards and positive letters from Admirals and Captains.  Used my experiences from my first 10 years and became a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor, and was sober for over 12 years.

So no........yet another thing that the pedophile priest who was kicked out of the Catholic church for fondling children who is currently hiding out in Canada like a pussy is wrong about.

Go fuck yourself.  Repeatedly.  And.....maybe instead of your usual dildo, you could use broken glass.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US military has a bad habit of shooting and bombing their allies. Gep clear of them because most of the time they are either high or drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!!!!!
> 
> You know Yakking One, you are really getting stupider with each post.  By the way douchebag, is that your real picture in your avi?  If so, you are one ugly bald fucker.
> 
> As far as the drugs?  In 1983, the military instituted their piss test program.  Used to be (from '83 until '86), you could fuck up 1 or 2 times, but then, after that?  It was gonzo for Bubba.
> 
> In the late 80's, the policy was reduced to 1 time equals gone.  They then took alcohol and did the same thing.
> 
> In the early 90's, you could go to alcohol rehab up to 3 times before they kicked you out.  In '93 they reduced the number to one.  Get drunk after 1 rehab?  Go home.  Wanna know how I know this?  I was sent to rehab 2 times (inpatient).  Was told that if I fucked up again, I would be gone.
> 
> Got my shit together then, and the last 10 years of my career were great.  I was a superstar that walked on water and got lots of awards and positive letters from Admirals and Captains.  Used my experiences from my first 10 years and became a Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor, and was sober for over 12 years.
> 
> So no........yet another thing that the pedophile priest who was kicked out of the Catholic church for fondling children who is currently hiding out in Canada like a pussy is wrong about.
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  Repeatedly.  And.....maybe instead of your usual dildo, you could use broken glass.
Click to expand...



Bikerfailure once again showing his low IQ beast mind demonstrating lack of ability to sustain any rational and objective debate. He thinks bombarding the opposition with insults refutes the other person's position, now thats what the Bass calls cutting edge debate skills.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Oh wait.......forgot the dumb fucker that smiles like a donut known as the fag queen Chucked Ass can't read facts when they are presented.

What part of the Navy's drug and alcohol policy, as well as the years they changed and got tougher did you miss?

Oh.......wait...........forgot.........Bass Hole can't hear anything else other than the hot escape of his own gas, because it would fuck with the fragile world he's built around himself.


----------



## Colin

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US military has a bad habit of shooting and bombing their allies. Gep clear of them because most of the time they are either high or drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a STUPID comment.
Click to expand...


What else would you expect from Yukon? Getting anything intelligent out of that twat is harder than squeezing blood out of a stone!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey "The Bass" would you rather have a well trained GAY US SERVICEMAN covering your back or would you rather be out there ALONE with nobody to help you? I would think that when the bullets start flying it really wouldn't matter what a person's religion, gender, sexual persuasion is only the fact that he/she is a US SEVICEMAN and willing to trust you with their lives and willing to GIVE THEIR OWN to protect YOURS!!!



Are you trying that all faggot service members are better than service members who are not faggots?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey "The Bass" would you rather have a well trained GAY US SERVICEMAN covering your back or would you rather be out there ALONE with nobody to help you? I would think that when the bullets start flying it really wouldn't matter what a person's religion, gender, sexual persuasion is only the fact that he/she is a US SEVICEMAN and willing to trust you with their lives and willing to GIVE THEIR OWN to protect YOURS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying that all faggot service members are better than service members who are not faggots?
Click to expand...


Most of the time, yes.  Why?  Because 1 aw shit will wipe out 1000 atta boys.  Gay soldiers tend to do their job much better than most, because they don't want anyone examining their life too closely.

You really are a dumb fucker ain't you?  Are you sure your service wasn't with a National Guard or reserve outfit, because for someone who claims to have served, you sure as fuck don't know shit about the service.

And..........from all the crap you've posted you dumb cock smoking idiot, I really doubt that you were an officer.

Probably just made your service record by reading wikipedia.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey "The Bass" would you rather have a well trained GAY US SERVICEMAN covering your back or would you rather be out there ALONE with nobody to help you? I would think that when the bullets start flying it really wouldn't matter what a person's religion, gender, sexual persuasion is only the fact that he/she is a US SEVICEMAN and willing to trust you with their lives and willing to GIVE THEIR OWN to protect YOURS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying that all faggot service members are better than service members who are not faggots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the time, yes.  Why?  Because 1 aw shit will wipe out 1000 atta boys.  Gay soldiers tend to do their job much better than most, because they don't want anyone examining their life too closely.
> 
> You really are a dumb fucker ain't you?  Are you sure your service wasn't with a National Guard or reserve outfit, because for someone who claims to have served, you sure as fuck don't know shit about the service.
> 
> And..........from all the crap you've posted you dumb cock smoking idiot, I really doubt that you were an officer.
> 
> Probably just made your service record by reading wikipedia.
Click to expand...


Cut the BS and show and prove that faggots service members are better than straight service members and post hard facts, because the Bass doesn't give a damn what you think, you liberal retards are masters at overselling your causes with exaggerated BS.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying that all faggot service members are better than service members who are not faggots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time, yes.  Why?  Because 1 aw shit will wipe out 1000 atta boys.  Gay soldiers tend to do their job much better than most, because they don't want anyone examining their life too closely.
> 
> You really are a dumb fucker ain't you?  Are you sure your service wasn't with a National Guard or reserve outfit, because for someone who claims to have served, you sure as fuck don't know shit about the service.
> 
> And..........from all the crap you've posted you dumb cock smoking idiot, I really doubt that you were an officer.
> 
> Probably just made your service record by reading wikipedia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cut the BS and show and prove that faggots service members are better than straight service members and post hard facts, because the Bass doesn't give a damn what you think, you liberal retards are masters at overselling your causes with exaggerated BS.
Click to expand...


This proves that you've never served, because if you actually were an officer, you would understand that releasing someone's evaluation scores to someone not authorized to receive them is against military law.

Never mind that sexual preference is something that isn't written down anywhere in a person's service record.

Even though I did work in admin for a while, that isn't something that I would release to a racist cock smoker such as yourself.

Besides, I don't need to go to jail, freedom suits me just fine.

Face it Bass Hole, you've been pwned.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw]YouTube - Steers and Queers come from Texas[/ame]


----------



## Yukon

If minority negro people can serve in the armed forces why cant minority homosexuals serve?


----------



## Flaylo

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying that all faggot service members are better than service members who are not faggots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time, yes.  Why?  Because 1 aw shit will wipe out 1000 atta boys.  Gay soldiers tend to do their job much better than most, because they don't want anyone examining their life too closely.
> 
> You really are a dumb fucker ain't you?  Are you sure your service wasn't with a National Guard or reserve outfit, because for someone who claims to have served, you sure as fuck don't know shit about the service.
> 
> And..........from all the crap you've posted you dumb cock smoking idiot, I really doubt that you were an officer.
> 
> Probably just made your service record by reading wikipedia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cut the BS and show and prove that faggots service members are better than straight service members and post hard facts, because the Bass doesn't give a damn what you think, you liberal retards are masters at overselling your causes with exaggerated BS.
Click to expand...



Charlie I'm sorry to break the news to you but ABikerSailor is right. I don't know if you're familiar with the U.S. Army, but when we got to war we deploy straight soldiers and secretly we deploy gay soldiers from a covert unit of elite troops from a secret unit of all gay commandos. We leave the straight soldiers inside wire while these elite all gay commandos Pink go out and fight the toughest battles in war and let me tell you Charlie, they were some real commandos bud. The straight soldiers that died during their deployments died because of non combat related injuries, but the homophobic media lies and say its due to combat to cover up the fact that these elite all-gay commandos are the best and most highly motivated and efficent soldiers. After their deployment ends these elite all-gay commandos go back to their secret garrison and the straight soldiers get all the credit.

What I just told you is Top Scecret-Sensitive Compartmented Information that should not have leaked out. Please inform the Army that a serious security breach has occured.


----------



## Yukon

Do the homosexual soldiers wear Green Berets?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Dogshit Pile said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time, yes.  Why?  Because 1 aw shit will wipe out 1000 atta boys.  Gay soldiers tend to do their job much better than most, because they don't want anyone examining their life too closely.
> 
> You really are a dumb fucker ain't you?  Are you sure your service wasn't with a National Guard or reserve outfit, because for someone who claims to have served, you sure as fuck don't know shit about the service.
> 
> And..........from all the crap you've posted you dumb cock smoking idiot, I really doubt that you were an officer.
> 
> Probably just made your service record by reading wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the BS and show and prove that faggots service members are better than straight service members and post hard facts, because the Bass doesn't give a damn what you think, you liberal retards are masters at overselling your causes with exaggerated BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie I'm sorry to break the news to you but ABikerSailor is right. I don't know if you're familiar with the U.S. Army, but when we got to war we deploy straight soldiers and secretly we deploy gay soldiers from a covert unit of elite troops from a secret unit of all gay commandos. We leave the straight soldiers inside wire while these elite all gay commandos Pink go out and fight the toughest battles in war and let me tell you Charlie, they were some real commandos bud. The straight soldiers that died during their deployments died because of non combat related injuries, but the homophobic media lies and say its due to combat to cover up the fact that these elite all-gay commandos are the best and most highly motivated and efficent soldiers. After their deployment ends these elite all-gay commandos go back to their secret garrison and the straight soldiers get all the credit.
> 
> What I just told you is Top Scecret-Sensitive Compartmented Information that should not have leaked out. Please inform the Army that a serious security breach has occured.
Click to expand...



Good post, the Bass was thinking precisely the same thing, the only way the pro-faggots can make a case for faggots is to make the straights look substandard. BTW, welcome to USMB.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

No they wear Rasberry Berets.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey "the Bass" I guess you can't read very well can ya. The POINT I made was would you prefer to be ALONE against enemy forces or have a GAY soldier backing you up? I said NOTHING about the Gay soldier being SUPERIOR by with your LITTLE DICK syndrome on high I can see how your masculinity would be threatened by my question.


I am going to go out on a limb here and say that "The Bass" is a closet gay who LOATHS himself. It really explains a LOT about the way he posts. I have NEVER seen a more homophobic moron than "The Bass". 

Yep "The Bass" is DEFINATELY GAY! Sorry "The Bass" but you outed yourself.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey "the Bass" I guess you can't read very well can ya. The POINT I made was would you prefer to be ALONE against enemy forces or have a GAY soldier backing you up? I said NOTHING about the Gay soldier being SUPERIOR by with your LITTLE DICK syndrome on high I can see how your masculinity would be threatened by my question.
> 
> 
> I am going to go out on a limb here and say that "The Bass" is a closet gay who LOATHS himself. It really explains a LOT about the way he posts. I have NEVER seen a more homophobic moron than "The Bass".
> 
> Yep "The Bass" is DEFINATELY GAY! Sorry "The Bass" but you outed yourself.



No, the Bass doesn't want a gay soldier "backing him up," not by any stretch of your imagination.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Charlie Bass said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey "the Bass" I guess you can't read very well can ya. The POINT I made was would you prefer to be ALONE against enemy forces or have a GAY soldier backing you up? I said NOTHING about the Gay soldier being SUPERIOR by with your LITTLE DICK syndrome on high I can see how your masculinity would be threatened by my question.
> 
> 
> I am going to go out on a limb here and say that "The Bass" is a closet gay who LOATHS himself. It really explains a LOT about the way he posts. I have NEVER seen a more homophobic moron than "The Bass".
> 
> Yep "The Bass" is DEFINATELY GAY! Sorry "The Bass" but you outed yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bass doesn't want a gay soldier "backing him up," not by any stretch of your imagination.
Click to expand...





"The Bass" is a pole smoking FAGGOT that is FOR SURE!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey "the Bass" I guess you can't read very well can ya. The POINT I made was would you prefer to be ALONE against enemy forces or have a GAY soldier backing you up? I said NOTHING about the Gay soldier being SUPERIOR by with your LITTLE DICK syndrome on high I can see how your masculinity would be threatened by my question.
> 
> 
> I am going to go out on a limb here and say that "The Bass" is a closet gay who LOATHS himself. It really explains a LOT about the way he posts. I have NEVER seen a more homophobic moron than "The Bass".
> 
> Yep "The Bass" is DEFINATELY GAY! Sorry "The Bass" but you outed yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bass doesn't want a gay soldier "backing him up," not by any stretch of your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is a pole smoking FAGGOT that is FOR SURE!
Click to expand...


If you believe the Bass is a faggot you're just as homophobic as you claim the Bass to be. Like the Bass said, you pro-sodomites are cutting edge when it comes to proving your arguments.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

"The Bass" proves what a FAGGOT he is on a DAILY basis.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> "The Bass" proves what a FAGGOT he is on a DAILY basis.



Are you duking it out with Bikerfaggot and Shogun for the award of King Retard for USMB?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Are you duking it out to be the biggest FAGGOT on the USMB? Cause you are WINNING you big faggoty pole smoker!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Are you duking it out to be the biggest FAGGOT on the USMB? Cause you are WINNING you big faggoty pole smoker!



Ok, you're losing your mind because you have no valid arguments to offer, projection isn't the way to make an argument either.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Sorry there is no other "argument" necessary other than you are the most FAGGOTY fag fag on this board!


----------



## xotoxi

amrchaos said:


> But If I did, I would want Strippers in the showers to set the "sexual preference problem" correct.
> 
> Excuse me if I am trying to score some R&R for striaght soldiers. The government is throwing money away on everything else, why not on some Playboy towel girls??


 
Alternatively, they could install shower stalls and people could use towels.

But that would make too much sense.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Sorry there is no other "argument" neccasary other than you are the most FAGGOTY fag fag on this board!




Super Genius? Who the hell are you kidding!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I don't HAVE to be a Super Genius to out wit the WITLESS "The Bass". I know EXACTELY who and WHAT you are. You are a SELF LOATHING FAGGOT nothing MORE nothing LESS!


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you duking it out to be the biggest FAGGOT on the USMB? Cause you are WINNING you big faggoty pole smoker!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you're losing your mind because you have no valid arguments to offer, projection isn't the way to make an argument either.
Click to expand...


What valid arguments have you brought to the table Bass?
That seems to be the more important question.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you duking it out to be the biggest FAGGOT on the USMB? Cause you are WINNING you big faggoty pole smoker!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you're losing your mind because you have no valid arguments to offer, projection isn't the way to make an argument either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What valid arguments have you brought to the table Bass?
> That seems to be the more important question.
Click to expand...


Go back and read it stupid, just look at the situations and scenarios the Bass put forth. What are the justifications for lifting DADT other than faggots wanting everyone else that they're in the military? faggots are the most self centered in the world, before they're human they're gay in their own eyes.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I don't HAVE to be a Super Genius to out wit the WITLESS "The Bass". I know EXACTELY who and WHAT you are. You are a SELF LOATHING FAGGOT nothing MORE nothing LESS!



The Bass didn't know retards are capable outwitting people smarter than them, maybe your above post was an attempt.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you're losing your mind because you have no valid arguments to offer, projection isn't the way to make an argument either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What valid arguments have you brought to the table Bass?
> That seems to be the more important question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read it stupid, just look at the situations and scenarios the Bass put forth. What are the justifications for lifting DADT other than faggots wanting everyone else that they're in the military? faggots are the most self centered in the world, before they're human they're gay in their own eyes.
Click to expand...


And *THAT* is what you call a "valid argument"???


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What valid arguments have you brought to the table Bass?
> That seems to be the more important question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read it stupid, just look at the situations and scenarios the Bass put forth. What are the justifications for lifting DADT other than faggots wanting everyone else that they're in the military? faggots are the most self centered in the world, before they're human they're gay in their own eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And *THAT* is what you call a "valid argument"???
Click to expand...



Go back a little bit in this thread stupid, the Bass isn't going to play taperecorder.


----------



## Rudy

I did.. but the arguments you make seem to be more based on emotion than actual facts.  

Do you agree with the McCarthyism-style witch hunts that have led to many good soldiers being kicked out under the DADT policy?  

Do you have a problem with the Army allowing convicted felons to serve but not homosexuals?  How about convicted rapists... or murderers?  Would you rather have a child-molester or a homosexual fighting next to you?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

"The Bass" what a DOUCHE!


----------



## Yukon

Rudy said:


> I did.. but the arguments you make seem to be more based on emotion than actual facts.
> 
> Do you agree with the McCarthyism-style witch hunts that have led to many good soldiers being kicked out under the DADT policy?
> 
> Do you have a problem with the Army allowing convicted felons to serve but not homosexuals?  How about convicted rapists... or murderers?  Would you rather have a child-molester or a homosexual fighting next to you?



Does it matter? Homos are sick, child-molestors are criminals, and most rapists are victims of disgruntled women.


----------



## Rudy

Yukon said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did.. but the arguments you make seem to be more based on emotion than actual facts.
> 
> Do you agree with the McCarthyism-style witch hunts that have led to many good soldiers being kicked out under the DADT policy?
> 
> Do you have a problem with the Army allowing convicted felons to serve but not homosexuals?  How about convicted rapists... or murderers?  Would you rather have a child-molester or a homosexual fighting next to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter? Homos are sick, child-molestors are criminals, and most rapists are victims of disgruntled women.
Click to expand...


If you agree that child molesters and rapists are just as bad or worse than homosexuals then why is nobody bitching about the military enlisting people with pretty bad criminal backgrounds?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> I did.. but the arguments you make seem to be more based on emotion than actual facts.
> 
> Do you agree with the McCarthyism-style witch hunts that have led to many good soldiers being kicked out under the DADT policy?
> 
> Do you have a problem with the Army allowing convicted felons to serve but not homosexuals?  How about convicted rapists... or murderers?  Would you rather have a child-molester or a homosexual fighting next to you?



Jackass, nobody in the military is conducting widespread witchunts for fags and most would prefer if faggots kept their homosexuality to themselves. The only time someone investigates fags is when they do something stupid to get themselves caught, other than that nobody is witchhunting fags. 


The military today almost never allows convicted felons to serve.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did.. but the arguments you make seem to be more based on emotion than actual facts.
> 
> Do you agree with the McCarthyism-style witch hunts that have led to many good soldiers being kicked out under the DADT policy?
> 
> Do you have a problem with the Army allowing convicted felons to serve but not homosexuals?  How about convicted rapists... or murderers?  Would you rather have a child-molester or a homosexual fighting next to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackass, nobody in the military is conducting widespread witchunts for fags and most would prefer if faggots kept their homosexuality to themselves. The only time someone investigates fags is when they do something stupid to get themselves caught, other than that nobody is witchhunting fags.
> 
> 
> The military today almost never allows convicted felons to serve.
Click to expand...


That's an example of where you rely on emotion rather than looking at the facts.  Read up on some old news stories and you will see many cases of individuals being discharged after a thorough investigation was conducted including threatening other servicemen with jail time if they did not come clean about the individual soldier in question. 

As for the military enlisting convicted felons:

More Convicted Felons Allowed to Enlist - AOL News

There's plenty more out there if you don't simply rely on your "Conservative values" 

Fucking putz


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rudy said:


> Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.



Then you go live with and shower with a group of openly gay troops, I would rather not, thank you.


----------



## Rudy

SFC Ollie said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you go live with and shower with a group of openly gay troops, I would rather not, thank you.
Click to expand...


Fine.. if you're still in the military you are welcome to get the fuck out.  The military will be better without people like you. 

However.. I NEVER remember a time when I saw an E7 living and showering in open squadbays and showers.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did.. but the arguments you make seem to be more based on emotion than actual facts.
> 
> Do you agree with the McCarthyism-style witch hunts that have led to many good soldiers being kicked out under the DADT policy?
> 
> Do you have a problem with the Army allowing convicted felons to serve but not homosexuals?  How about convicted rapists... or murderers?  Would you rather have a child-molester or a homosexual fighting next to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackass, nobody in the military is conducting widespread witchunts for fags and most would prefer if faggots kept their homosexuality to themselves. The only time someone investigates fags is when they do something stupid to get themselves caught, other than that nobody is witchhunting fags.
> 
> 
> The military today almost never allows convicted felons to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an example of where you rely on emotion rather than looking at the facts.  Read up on some old news stories and you will see many cases of individuals being discharged after a thorough investigation was conducted including threatening other servicemen with jail time if they did not come clean about the individual soldier in question.
> 
> As for the military enlisting convicted felons:
> 
> More Convicted Felons Allowed to Enlist - AOL News
> 
> There's plenty more out there if you don't simply rely on your "Conservative values"
> 
> Fucking putz
Click to expand...


Your link is almost two years old dumb ass. Today Feb of 2010 you will not enlist if you have a felony on your record.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you go live with and shower with a group of openly gay troops, I would rather not, thank you.
Click to expand...


 You think they're interested in you?


----------



## SFC Ollie

bodecea said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Just not a self-centered egotistical asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you go live with and shower with a group of openly gay troops, I would rather not, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think they're interested in you?
Click to expand...


Hope not, I'm old and got some of that middle spread going on. Still don't want to shower with them.


----------



## Rudy

SFC Ollie said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jackass, nobody in the military is conducting widespread witchunts for fags and most would prefer if faggots kept their homosexuality to themselves. The only time someone investigates fags is when they do something stupid to get themselves caught, other than that nobody is witchhunting fags.
> 
> 
> The military today almost never allows convicted felons to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an example of where you rely on emotion rather than looking at the facts.  Read up on some old news stories and you will see many cases of individuals being discharged after a thorough investigation was conducted including threatening other servicemen with jail time if they did not come clean about the individual soldier in question.
> 
> As for the military enlisting convicted felons:
> 
> More Convicted Felons Allowed to Enlist - AOL News
> 
> There's plenty more out there if you don't simply rely on your "Conservative values"
> 
> Fucking putz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link is almost two years old dumb ass. Today Feb of 2010 you will not enlist if you have a felony on your record.
Click to expand...


You're right.. as of April of last year the military stopped accepting "moral waivers" for new-joins.  But what about all of the convicted felons that are already in?  Why don't you have a problem with that?  

Oh.... that's right.. its morally acceptable to give a felon a chance.. but not a dick sucker. 

Fuck you and your values.


----------



## Rudy

SFC Ollie said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you go live with and shower with a group of openly gay troops, I would rather not, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think they're interested in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope not, I'm old and got some of that middle spread going on. Still don't want to shower with them.
Click to expand...


I doubt there are many people... men and women... straight and gay.. who would want to see your fat-ass naked.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rudy said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an example of where you rely on emotion rather than looking at the facts.  Read up on some old news stories and you will see many cases of individuals being discharged after a thorough investigation was conducted including threatening other servicemen with jail time if they did not come clean about the individual soldier in question.
> 
> As for the military enlisting convicted felons:
> 
> More Convicted Felons Allowed to Enlist - AOL News
> 
> There's plenty more out there if you don't simply rely on your "Conservative values"
> 
> Fucking putz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is almost two years old dumb ass. Today Feb of 2010 you will not enlist if you have a felony on your record.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.. as of April of last year the military stopped accepting "moral waivers" for new-joins.  But what about all of the convicted felons that are already in?  Why don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Oh.... that's right.. its morally acceptable to give a felon a chance.. but not a dick sucker.
> 
> Fuck you and your values.
Click to expand...


Actually asswipe I do have a problem with that. I was against it when they did it but the left of this country was teaching our young men and women that they shouldn't join the military and go to an illegal fucking war. So the military did what it had to do.

Now fuck you and your lack of values. Go on argue the military with me some more. I love handing you punks your own ass.


----------



## Rudy

SFC Ollie said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is almost two years old dumb ass. Today Feb of 2010 you will not enlist if you have a felony on your record.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.. as of April of last year the military stopped accepting "moral waivers" for new-joins.  But what about all of the convicted felons that are already in?  Why don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Oh.... that's right.. its morally acceptable to give a felon a chance.. but not a dick sucker.
> 
> Fuck you and your values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually asswipe I do have a problem with that. I was against it when they did it but the left of this country was teaching our young men and women that they shouldn't join the military and go to an illegal fucking war. So the military did what it had to do.
> 
> Now fuck you and your lack of values. Go on argue the military with me some more. I love handing you punks your own ass.
Click to expand...


You've been out for 20 years grandpa.. You have no idea what today's military is like.


----------



## eagleseven

SFC Ollie said:


> I was against it when they did it but the left of this country was teaching our young men and women that they shouldn't join the military and go to an illegal fucking war. So the military did what it had to do.


So you support the homosexuals who ignored the leftist propaganda to volunteer to defend freedom?


----------



## Yukon

Rudy said:


> If you agree that child molesters and rapists are just as bad or worse than homosexuals then why is nobody bitching about the military enlisting people with pretty bad criminal backgrounds?



The US military is desperate for cannon-fodder. They hire independent contractors to fight, they enlist retarded and homosexual people - they will take anyone foolish enough to fight in a war that cannot be won. Witness the latest idea re. negotiating with the Taliban, typical American way to win a war.


----------



## Rudy

Yukon said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree that child molesters and rapists are just as bad or worse than homosexuals then why is nobody bitching about the military enlisting people with pretty bad criminal backgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US military is desperate for cannon-fodder. They hire independent contractors to fight, they enlist retarded and homosexual people - they will take anyone foolish enough to fight in a war that cannot be won. Witness the latest idea re. negotiating with the Taliban, typical American way to win a war.
Click to expand...


Shit... it worked in Iraq.  Why not?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rudy said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.. as of April of last year the military stopped accepting "moral waivers" for new-joins.  But what about all of the convicted felons that are already in?  Why don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Oh.... that's right.. its morally acceptable to give a felon a chance.. but not a dick sucker.
> 
> Fuck you and your values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually asswipe I do have a problem with that. I was against it when they did it but the left of this country was teaching our young men and women that they shouldn't join the military and go to an illegal fucking war. So the military did what it had to do.
> 
> Now fuck you and your lack of values. Go on argue the military with me some more. I love handing you punks your own ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been out for 20 years grandpa.. You have no idea what today's military is like.
Click to expand...


I stay as connected as possible. When was the last time you made work call formation? And actually it's only been 16 years so far. And I am on a Military base at a minimum of once a month. And I have contact with other veterans at least twice a week. I'm not as disconnected as you would like.


----------



## SFC Ollie

eagleseven said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was against it when they did it but the left of this country was teaching our young men and women that they shouldn't join the military and go to an illegal fucking war. So the military did what it had to do.
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the homosexuals who ignored the leftist propaganda to volunteer to defend freedom?
Click to expand...


Under the confines of DADT, yes. That is the law, and the regulation, It actually started about the time I retired If I remember right, just a few months before.


----------



## Flaylo

Charlie Bass said:


> Good post, the Bass was thinking precisely the same thing, the only way the pro-faggots can make a case for faggots is to make the straights look substandard. BTW, welcome to USMB.



You homophobic piece of black shit, when Obama removes the ban on gays in the military and gays start openly serving in my beloved United States Army the Army is going to get even better because homosexuality mixed with army training and values makes the army stronger. Homosexuality is that missing piece that is going to make the military more lethal as we head deeper into the 21st century. It was the secret weapon we tested in World Wars I and II and we kicked ass in those wars. We kicked ass with homosexuality in the last two Gulf Wars, but the enemy caught on to the fact that it was closet homosexuality. Open homosexuality is the next stage.


ABikerSailor knows what he's talking about Charlie, he's the best example of what I'm talking about. He spent presumably 20 years in the Navy using this hidden formula of success so he speaks from firsthand experience.


----------



## Flaylo

Rudy said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree that child molesters and rapists are just as bad or worse than homosexuals then why is nobody bitching about the military enlisting people with pretty bad criminal backgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US military is desperate for cannon-fodder. They hire independent contractors to fight, they enlist retarded and homosexual people - they will take anyone foolish enough to fight in a war that cannot be won. Witness the latest idea re. negotiating with the Taliban, typical American way to win a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit... it worked in Iraq.  Why not?
Click to expand...



Yukon is a dumb fucktard Rudy, we soldiers spend 95% of our time looking to see who's gay in our units, it takes precedence over thing else. When we have in ranks inspections our platoon sergeants check for ID cards, dogtags, proper wear of the uniform, neat appearance and makes us pull our pants down and checks our assholes to see if we're gay. The war in Afghanistan, rising suicide rates, the rising number of broken families and PTSD are all second fiddle to finding out who's gay in our units.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Tell ya what Cold, arguing with the Bass Hole is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

It will only frustrate you, and usually annoys the pig.


----------



## Flaylo

On a serious note, I'm in the Army, have been so for 14 years and I have no problem with the current system with DADT. I really don't like the idea of civilians telling me what is best for me when they are not in the military and haven't the slightest clue about the life soldiers live. I'm against anything that will ruin unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.


----------



## eagleseven

Flaylo said:


> I really don't like the idea of civilians telling me what is best for me when they are not in the military and haven't the slightest clue about the life soldiers live.


Then I suggest you join a military junta. Military subordination to civilian authority is fundamental to American Democracy and the Constitution.


----------



## MajikMyst

I guess what bothers me about this whole gays in the military issue.. It is ignoring a resource for no reason.. Everyone has talent and skills to offer the military.. I know this one guy in the marines.. He is a sniper... He can shoot a fly in the ass at 300 yards.. He is also a total flamer when he is on leave.. This is a person that can change the course of an entire battle.. Save the lives of hundreds of men with a single shot.. Do we really want to kick him out because he is gay?? He has a steady hand and a dead eye.. One of the best marksmen in his unit.. The funny thing about him though?? He is arabic and speaks fluent Arabic.. Which in some cases makes him the perfect scout.. 

To the arguement of a coed barracks.. I think just about every ship in the Navy more or less has a coed baracks.. I mean.. How far can you go on a boat?? And we all know there are women in the Navy.. I have heard stories of men and women meeting on a boat and eventually getting married.. There is nothing wrong with that.. As for the shower thing?? Well, if a gay man wants to look at my tight little ass and fantasize about it.. What ever.. Who is to say that I am not fantasizing about the NCO with the big boobies that is about to burst from her shirt?? Or the chicky that is on her knees scrubbing the deck and her nice ass swaying back and forth.. 

Have any of you even been in the military?? Coed military is awsome!! The last thing I worry about is some dude checking out my stuff.. As long as he does his job, that is all that matters.. When we are working it is all business.. We don't have time to sit and chat and meet people.. In most cases your shower is only like 3 minutes anyway.. Especially when you are at sea.. Shower and hit the rack for your 8 hour of shut eye.. If you even get that long.. You are to busy to think about anything else.. And so is he.. 

Get a grip people.. You are handicapping our military by forcing homosexuals out.. As I said before.. Unless you have served.. You don't have much to say on the issue..


----------



## JW Frogen

Well Yukon if you premis is true, the war can not be won (I do not concur) then certainly one should try to negotiate their way out of it? If you can not win it, you may be able to talk your way out of it and to victory, just like North Veitnam?


----------



## JW Frogen

eagleseven said:


> Then I suggest you join a military junta. Military subordination to civilian authority is fundamental to American Democracy and the Constitution.



I would but I can't find a decent junta these days. Where are the best juntas to be found Mr. Eagle? South America has went all crazy and democratic and Africa can't even organise a junta.

PS. I hate people that say the word junta and pronouce the J as a J and not an H.

In my personal j(HHHHHHHHHH)unta they would die.


----------



## Yukon

Flaylo said:


> You homophobic piece of black shit, when Obama removes the ban on gays in the military and gays start openly serving in my beloved United States Army the Army is going to get even better because homosexuality mixed with army training and values makes the army stronger. Homosexuality is that missing piece that is going to make the military more lethal as we head deeper into the 21st century. It was the secret weapon we tested in World Wars I and II and we kicked ass in those wars. We kicked ass with homosexuality in the last two Gulf Wars, but the enemy caught on to the fact that it was closet homosexuality. Open homosexuality is the next stage.
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor knows what he's talking about Charlie, he's the best example of what I'm talking about. He spent presumably 20 years in the Navy using this hidden formula of success so he speaks from firsthand experience.




Flatulance,

Obviously you are homosexual. That being said I do believe your "secret weapon" idea is outrageous. WWI and WWII were won because the USA was involved with allies who would not negotiate. Americans are famous for trying to get out of a war without winning. You tried to win in Vietnam and were handily trounced and humiliated by gook peasants.

As for the GayBiker, he is not a vet. The only place he fought was in his little mind and that was about his sexuality - the homo side won.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yukon said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You homophobic piece of black shit, when Obama removes the ban on gays in the military and gays start openly serving in my beloved United States Army the Army is going to get even better because homosexuality mixed with army training and values makes the army stronger. Homosexuality is that missing piece that is going to make the military more lethal as we head deeper into the 21st century. It was the secret weapon we tested in World Wars I and II and we kicked ass in those wars. We kicked ass with homosexuality in the last two Gulf Wars, but the enemy caught on to the fact that it was closet homosexuality. Open homosexuality is the next stage.
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor knows what he's talking about Charlie, he's the best example of what I'm talking about. He spent presumably 20 years in the Navy using this hidden formula of success so he speaks from firsthand experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flatulance,
> 
> Obviously you are homosexual. That being said I do believe your "secret weapon" idea is outrageous. WWI and WWII were won because the USA was involved with allies who would not negotiate. Americans are famous for trying to get out of a war without winning. You tried to win in Vietnam and were handily trounced and humiliated by gook peasants.
> 
> As for the GayBiker, he is not a vet. The only place he fought was in his little mind and that was about his sexuality - the homo side won.
Click to expand...


I've already proven several times where you can find info about me.  Amarillo MEPS from 1999 until 2002.  They'll even tell ya that my retirement ceremony was there, as well as will many people who came to my retirement party at Boondocks, as well as the radio station that announced free drinks at Boondocks here in Amarillo.  I was well liked by my friends.

As far as pointing to WWI and WWII?  You obviously chose to ignore that gays served in the military then as well.  

By the way Puke-On........'splain it to me again..........what the fuck can a pedophile bald ass ugly former priest who was kicked out of the Catholic church for fondling little boys, so his cowardly ass went to Canada to hide out POSSIBLY hope to offer vets who have been in war zones, and traveled to far off lands, to meet new and interesting people, learn about their culture and heritage.........and then kill them by delivering ordnance and ammo, on target, and on time, to destroy things and kill people in pursuit of the ideals of the United States?

I'm guessing not much other than a sloppy hand job.


----------



## Yukon

GayBiker,

You never served in anything other than McDonalds. You are bogus and I suspect homosexual.


----------



## ABikerSailor

How much money you wanna lay on it, and more's the point..........how much can you afford to lose?

I can back my shit up with my DD Form 2N(Retired) Blue ID card, as well as my 214, my co-workers who know me at the MEPS..........oh yeah........there are several women in Amarillo who will attest to my being exceedingly hetero.

What you got baldy?


----------



## HUGGY

Yukon said:


> GayBiker,
> 
> You never served in anything other than McDonalds. You are bogus and I suspect homosexual.



Would you please take this pointless argument over to "The List".  I could use a few extra replies!


----------



## Yukon

HUGGY said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> GayBiker,
> 
> You never served in anything other than McDonalds. You are bogus and I suspect homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please take this pointless argument over to "The List".  I could use a few extra replies!
Click to expand...


This is not a pointless argument as you infer. The GayBiker is a phony and must be exposed. He never served in the military as by claiming so he disrespect those of us who served honourably.


----------



## Douger

Gomer Pyle was a rump ranger and they didn't kick him out 

Likely beacause he was more intelligent than his superiors 

Funny how the drunks wont give the "trained killers" a loaded gun or artillery shells but they sure will kick your ass for dirty boots or a bad shave.

Yeah. Army. Korea, mid seventies.Drunks guiding druggies..........and those avoiding jail.
.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yukon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> GayBiker,
> 
> You never served in anything other than McDonalds. You are bogus and I suspect homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please take this pointless argument over to "The List".  I could use a few extra replies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a pointless argument as you infer. The GayBiker is a phony and must be exposed. He never served in the military as by claiming so he disrespect those of us who served honourably.
Click to expand...


Hey you sphincter slurping pedophile of little boys...........what outfit, what service, and where did you serve?

I mean, besides in the asses of the altar boys?  Like I said cum dumpster, I can back my shit up.

Can you?

As far as gays in the military, you DO realize there are 2 wars being fought, right?

Matter of fact, fuck it........lets have a draft and send all the politicians kids to fight so that the gays can stay home and decorate.  We'll have a nice party while the rest of you sexist racist pricks are getting killed off.


----------



## Hawk

Fags must be discharged from our armed forces.They are filthy perverts who must stay outside the normal society as well as criminals,junkies,prostitutes.
Romans 1:26-32.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hawk said:


> Fags must be discharged from our armed forces.They are filthy perverts who must stay outside the normal society as well as criminals,junkies,prostitutes.
> Romans 1:26-32.



Yet another moonbat disciple of Charles Bass comes to the messageboards.

Welcome to the boards you lunatic fuck.  Forget to take your meds this morning?


----------



## Yukon

Hawk said:


> Fags must be discharged from our armed forces.They are filthy perverts who must stay outside the normal society as well as criminals,junkies,prostitutes.
> Romans 1:26-32.



Hawk,

I have exposed the  GayBiker  for the fraud that he is. I KNOW he never served in the military and it hurts me deeply to read lies posted by homosexual cowards. He offends the bravery of us who did serve.


----------



## Hawk

ABikerSailor said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fags must be discharged from our armed forces.They are filthy perverts who must stay outside the normal society as well as criminals,junkies,prostitutes.
> Romans 1:26-32.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another moonbat disciple of Charles Bass comes to the messageboards.
> 
> Welcome to the boards you lunatic fuck.  Forget to take your meds this morning?
Click to expand...

Because you hate God and ignore His Laws He stated.Leviticus 18:22.GLBT are nothing but sick and perverted heathens who are equal to dogs and pigs who live on their vomit and feces.Deal with it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You DO realize that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that of treating guests badly, right?

By the way Fucked One..........I already told you how to verify my service.  Call Amarillo MEPS and ask about PO1 Murphy.


----------



## Hawk

ABikerSailor said:


> You DO realize that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that of treating guests badly, right?
> 
> By the way Fucked One..........I already told you how to verify my service.  Call Amarillo MEPS and ask about PO1 Murphy.



Fags like you attempt to justify those cremated filthy towns that their sodomites were so-called innocent.Perhaps there were greed mentioned in The Book of Ezekiel,but those filthy fags paid the same and they are in Hell now.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You also realize that eventually, everyone gets out of hell, right?

Even dumb fuckers like you Chicken Hawk.


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fags must be discharged from our armed forces.They are filthy perverts who must stay outside the normal society as well as criminals,junkies,prostitutes.
> Romans 1:26-32.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another moonbat disciple of Charles Bass comes to the messageboards.
> 
> Welcome to the boards you lunatic fuck.  Forget to take your meds this morning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you hate God and ignore His Laws He stated.Leviticus 18:22.GLBT are nothing but sick and perverted heathens who are equal to dogs and pigs who live on their vomit and feces.Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Why do Christians get to pick and choose which Bible verses are relevant? 

Try reading the rest of Leviticus bitch... then come back and keep passing judgment on people who have no significant influence in your hypocritical and pathetic life.


----------



## Hawk

Rudy said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another moonbat disciple of Charles Bass comes to the messageboards.
> 
> Welcome to the boards you lunatic fuck.  Forget to take your meds this morning?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate God and ignore His Laws He stated.Leviticus 18:22.GLBT are nothing but sick and perverted heathens who are equal to dogs and pigs who live on their vomit and feces.Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do Christians get to pick and choose which Bible verses are relevant?
> 
> Try reading the rest of Leviticus bitch... then come back and keep passing judgment on people who have no significant influence in your hypocritical and pathetic life.
Click to expand...

Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You also realize that Leviticus was a book for the tribe of Levi, which happened to be the Priests of Israel, right?

Are you a Christian, or are you Jewish?


----------



## Hawk

ABikerSailor said:


> You also realize that Leviticus was a book for the tribe of Levi, which happened to be the Priests of Israel, right?
> 
> Are you a Christian, or are you Jewish?



I am a Christian,Calvinist Baptist.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Then don't use Leviticus.  It's not your book dipshit.


----------



## Hawk

It is his fate for disobeying Leviticus 18:19 and Romans 1:26-32.Matt is in Hell!


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate God and ignore His Laws He stated.Leviticus 18:22.GLBT are nothing but sick and perverted heathens who are equal to dogs and pigs who live on their vomit and feces.Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians get to pick and choose which Bible verses are relevant?
> 
> Try reading the rest of Leviticus bitch... then come back and keep passing judgment on people who have no significant influence in your hypocritical and pathetic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.
Click to expand...


Are you really trying to use a Bible verse to justify ignoring OTHER Bible verses?


----------



## Hawk

Rudy said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians get to pick and choose which Bible verses are relevant?
> 
> Try reading the rest of Leviticus bitch... then come back and keep passing judgment on people who have no significant influence in your hypocritical and pathetic life.
> 
> 
> 
> Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to use a Bible verse to justify ignoring OTHER Bible verses?
Click to expand...

The accurate Bible is King James Version.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to use a Bible verse to justify ignoring OTHER Bible verses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accurate Bible is King James Version.
Click to expand...


First off Chicken Hawk.......who the fuck is Matt, and why did your sorry ass put him in Hell?

I thought only God was allowed to do that, not some douche named Chicken Hawk.

Second.........ever hear if the Nicene council?  It was where the Romans (who stole the Torah from the Jews), took that, along with the OT, and the best of the fairy tales from the NT.

THAT is where the KJV Bible comes from.

Then...........there are the other things that the Catholics have done to bastardize the teachings of Yeshua..........Easter and Christmas being turned into pagan rituals for starters.  Know why they included the pagans?  Because Rome was a pagan country.

Now, a quick question................if over 40 percent of your original "bible" was either censored, or just plain edited out, how accurate do you REALLY think your interpretations of it are gonna be to the real thing?

I'm guessing not much.

Go away little boy, you bother me.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

There is no place in the Bible where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted by God, the Bass is not catholic and could give a damn about some Nicene Council, you sodomite lovers are arguing about nothing, trying to make people who believe in the unchanging Word of God slaves to what is socially acceptable to men. We who are true Christians follow God and His Word, not what men want us to follow or what men are sympathetic to.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to use a Bible verse to justify ignoring OTHER Bible verses?
> 
> 
> 
> The accurate Bible is King James Version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off Chicken Hawk.......who the fuck is Matt, and why did your sorry ass put him in Hell?
> 
> I thought only God was allowed to do that, not some douche named Chicken Hawk.
> 
> Second.........ever hear if the Nicene council?  It was where the Romans (who stole the Torah from the Jews), took that, along with the OT, and the best of the fairy tales from the NT.
> 
> THAT is where the KJV Bible comes from.
> 
> Then...........there are the other things that the Catholics have done to bastardize the teachings of Yeshua..........Easter and Christmas being turned into pagan rituals for starters.  Know why they included the pagans?  Because Rome was a pagan country.
> 
> Now, a quick question................if over 40 percent of your original "bible" was either censored, or just plain edited out, how accurate do you REALLY think your interpretations of it are gonna be to the real thing?
> 
> I'm guessing not much.
> 
> Go away little boy, you bother me.
Click to expand...



What is your point? Are you trying to convince Hawk, The Bass and Christians who are against homosexuality that the current Bible altered but the unaltered version permitted and allowed homosexuality and or showed that God was accepting of homosexuality? If not there is no damn reason for you to bring up this pointless nonsense.


There is nothing in the Bible that indicates any acceptance of homosexuality by God nor is there anything that says Christians should accept and love **HOMOSEXUALITY**, stop all of this activist tapdancing and face the facts you stupid sodomite loving squid, who are *YOU* to question anyone's religion?


----------



## Hawk

The sodomites want to equate their filthy perversions with races,nations,and other human moral dignities.They ignore to realize that homosexuality is the abomination before God,Romans 1:26-32,and in God's moral statndarts is never equal to races or nations.It is equal to crime,filth,whordoms,drugs,and other perversions.Fags attempt to secularize American society and by their shameless activist judges and greedy lawyers attempt legitimatize their filthy life choices.They are fools who are on their way to Hell.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> There is no place in the Bible where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted by God, the Bass is not catholic and could give a damn about some Nicene Council, you sodomite lovers are arguing about nothing, trying to make people who believe in the unchanging Word of God slaves to what is socially acceptable to men. We who are true Christians follow God and His Word, not what men want us to follow or what men are sympathetic to.



So tolerating gays =slavery.


----------



## Hawk

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no place in the Bible where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted by God, the Bass is not catholic and could give a damn about some Nicene Council, you sodomite lovers are arguing about nothing, trying to make people who believe in the unchanging Word of God slaves to what is socially acceptable to men. We who are true Christians follow God and His Word, not what men want us to follow or what men are sympathetic to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tolerating gays =slavery.
Click to expand...


Tolerating gays= hating God and disobeying His Commandmends.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hawk said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no place in the Bible where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted by God, the Bass is not catholic and could give a damn about some Nicene Council, you sodomite lovers are arguing about nothing, trying to make people who believe in the unchanging Word of God slaves to what is socially acceptable to men. We who are true Christians follow God and His Word, not what men want us to follow or what men are sympathetic to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tolerating gays =slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tolerating gays= hating God and disobeying His Commandmends.
Click to expand...


Yeah........sure......let's go with that.......

Anyone else feel the love radiating from this quaint little douchebag?


----------



## Father Time

Hawk said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no place in the Bible where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted by God, the Bass is not catholic and could give a damn about some Nicene Council, you sodomite lovers are arguing about nothing, trying to make people who believe in the unchanging Word of God slaves to what is socially acceptable to men. We who are true Christians follow God and His Word, not what men want us to follow or what men are sympathetic to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tolerating gays =slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tolerating gays= hating God and disobeying His Commandmends.
Click to expand...


Which commandment was that?

And where did Jesus preach hate?


----------



## ABikerSailor

I think it was from Chicken Hawk's KJV Bible..........you know, the parable about not getting mounted?  

They called that sermon "No Screwing Gays during the Sermon on the Mount".


----------



## Hawk

ABikerSailor said:


> I think it was from Chicken Hawk's KJV Bible..........you know, the parable about not getting mounted?
> 
> They called that sermon "No Screwing Gays during the Sermon on the Mount".


Talking to ignorant perverts like you=talking to the tree.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Anyone who is KJV-only does not deserve to be taken seriously.


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was from Chicken Hawk's KJV Bible..........you know, the parable about not getting mounted?
> 
> They called that sermon "No Screwing Gays during the Sermon on the Mount".
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to ignorant perverts like you=talking to the tree.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you are affiliated with Fred Phelps aren't you?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah............trying to understand religion via only the KJV Bible is a lot like trying to understand how to fix ALL cars with just 1 Chilton's manual...........namely one for a '95 Yugo.

And.............it's possible that using just 1 perspective on God is kinda dangerous.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no place in the Bible where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted by God, the Bass is not catholic and could give a damn about some Nicene Council, you sodomite lovers are arguing about nothing, trying to make people who believe in the unchanging Word of God slaves to what is socially acceptable to men. We who are true Christians follow God and His Word, not what men want us to follow or what men are sympathetic to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tolerating gays =slavery.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Oscar Wao said:


> Anyone who is KJV-only does not deserve to be taken seriously.



Anyone who believes two men or two women screwing each other equals=normal and should be accepted the same heterosexual sex doesn't deserve to be taken serious.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is KJV-only does not deserve to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes two men or two women screwing each other equals=normal and should be accepted the same heterosexual sex doesn't deserve to be taken serious.
Click to expand...


So you are now the Sexual Morality Police?  Exactly why do you give a fuck anyway?  Exactly how does two homosexuals screwing each other behind their own closed doors impact your daily life?


----------



## Hawk

Rudy said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is KJV-only does not deserve to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes two men or two women screwing each other equals=normal and should be accepted the same heterosexual sex doesn't deserve to be taken serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are now the Sexual Morality Police?  Exactly why do you give a fuck anyway?  Exactly how does two homosexuals screwing each other behind their own closed doors impact your daily life?
Click to expand...

I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
The Puritan revolution might be the answer.


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes two men or two women screwing each other equals=normal and should be accepted the same heterosexual sex doesn't deserve to be taken serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now the Sexual Morality Police?  Exactly why do you give a fuck anyway?  Exactly how does two homosexuals screwing each other behind their own closed doors impact your daily life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
Click to expand...


That's great.. now how about answering my question:

I'll rephrase it for you...

Is Fred Phelps a relative of yours?


----------



## Hawk

Rudy said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now the Sexual Morality Police?  Exactly why do you give a fuck anyway?  Exactly how does two homosexuals screwing each other behind their own closed doors impact your daily life?
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great.. now how about answering my question:
> 
> I'll rephrase it for you...
> 
> Is Fred Phelps a relative of yours?
Click to expand...

Actually not.


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.. now how about answering my question:
> 
> I'll rephrase it for you...
> 
> Is Fred Phelps a relative of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
Click to expand...


Are you affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church in any way whatsoever?


----------



## Hawk

Rudy said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.. now how about answering my question:
> 
> I'll rephrase it for you...
> 
> Is Fred Phelps a relative of yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church in any way whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Yes I am.


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church in any way whatsoever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.
Click to expand...


Figures.  Fucking ****.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church in any way whatsoever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.
Click to expand...





Then you are a PSYCHOPATH! AND you hate your country so why don't you move to Afghanistan?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes two men or two women screwing each other equals=normal and should be accepted the same heterosexual sex doesn't deserve to be taken serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now the Sexual Morality Police?  Exactly why do you give a fuck anyway?  Exactly how does two homosexuals screwing each other behind their own closed doors impact your daily life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
Click to expand...


Puritan revolution may be the answer eh?  Like they did with the Salem Witch Trials which were just cover ups because the town's elders didn't want to get caught fucking the single women.

Or, if you prefer, we can do another Inquisition a la Torquemada.

Tell ya what........all you little puritan bastards can get together in a big hall, decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to live, based on your standards.

I'm betting that you won't be able to live up to the very rules you draw up, kinda like the tea party.

But, I'd solve it quicker than you would............figure a MOAB right on top of the stadium that you're in should do the trick.


----------



## Rudy

Somebody got very quiet.  What's wrong Hawk?  Do you always run when you are exposed?  

Be sure to let me know when you get down to Birmingham, Alabama.. I'll be here to greet you with thousands of real Americans.


----------



## Rudy

ABikerSailor said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now the Sexual Morality Police?  Exactly why do you give a fuck anyway?  Exactly how does two homosexuals screwing each other behind their own closed doors impact your daily life?
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puritan revolution may be the answer eh?  Like they did with the Salem Witch Trials which were just cover ups because the town's elders didn't want to get caught fucking the single women.
> 
> Or, if you prefer, we can do another Inquisition a la Torquemada.
> 
> Tell ya what........all you little puritan bastards can get together in a big hall, decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to live, based on your standards.
> *
> I'm betting that you won't be able to live up to the very rules you draw up, kinda like the tea party.*
> 
> But, I'd solve it quicker than you would............figure a MOAB right on top of the stadium that you're in should do the trick.
Click to expand...


Let's not try to make this a political issue... 

I think its pretty safe to say that people on both sides of the political spectrum can come together and agree that WBC does not parallel any agenda or movement of any political party.  

I have a $425 voucher from Southwest Airlines that I am saving for when Fred Phelps finally kicks the bucket.  I will most likely be meeting many people at the bastard's doorstep.. republicans, democrats, independents, tea partiers, ACORN, etc... we will all be joined together for one purpose: To show the fucks of Westboro a taste of their own medicine.  

Hopefully we can all do that here for the member who celebrates the deaths of our servicemen and women.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rudy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan revolution may be the answer eh?  Like they did with the Salem Witch Trials which were just cover ups because the town's elders didn't want to get caught fucking the single women.
> 
> Or, if you prefer, we can do another Inquisition a la Torquemada.
> 
> Tell ya what........all you little puritan bastards can get together in a big hall, decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to live, based on your standards.
> *
> I'm betting that you won't be able to live up to the very rules you draw up, kinda like the tea party.*
> 
> But, I'd solve it quicker than you would............figure a MOAB right on top of the stadium that you're in should do the trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not try to make this a political issue...
> 
> I think its pretty safe to say that people on both sides of the political spectrum can come together and agree that WBC does not parallel any agenda or movement of any political party.
> 
> I have a $425 voucher from Southwest Airlines that I am saving for when Fred Phelps finally kicks the bucket.  I will most likely be meeting many people at the bastard's doorstep.. republicans, democrats, independents, tea partiers, ACORN, etc... we will all be joined together for one purpose: To show the fucks of Westboro a taste of their own medicine.
> 
> Hopefully we can all do that here for the member who celebrates the deaths of our servicemen and women.
Click to expand...


Tell me when and I might even show up.  Would be good to watch those stupid sonsabitches experiencing the same thing they tried to visit on our soldiers.

Personally?  I'd be a very happy man if a sinkhole opened up under that church while it was holding a service and swallowed the whole bunch of 'em.

Good riddance to bad garbage I'd say.


----------



## Father Time

Rudy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tell you the truth.Till the 60s and 70s all fags were kicked from The US Military and the civilian fags were quet and stayed in their fecal communities like this modern Sodom El Castro District in San Francisco,CA.Today those scat nibbling brutes are out of control.
> The Puritan revolution might be the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan revolution may be the answer eh?  Like they did with the Salem Witch Trials which were just cover ups because the town's elders didn't want to get caught fucking the single women.
> 
> Or, if you prefer, we can do another Inquisition a la Torquemada.
> 
> Tell ya what........all you little puritan bastards can get together in a big hall, decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to live, based on your standards.
> *
> I'm betting that you won't be able to live up to the very rules you draw up, kinda like the tea party.*
> 
> But, I'd solve it quicker than you would............figure a MOAB right on top of the stadium that you're in should do the trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not try to make this a political issue...
> 
> I think its pretty safe to say that people on both sides of the political spectrum can come together and agree that WBC does not parallel any agenda or movement of any political party.
> 
> I have a $425 voucher from Southwest Airlines that I am saving for when Fred Phelps finally kicks the bucket.  I will most likely be meeting many people at the bastard's doorstep.. republicans, democrats, independents, tea partiers, ACORN, etc... we will all be joined together for one purpose: To show the fucks of Westboro a taste of their own medicine.
> 
> Hopefully we can all do that here for the member who celebrates the deaths of our servicemen and women.
Click to expand...


Reminds me of a plan amongst gamers (well Ok a plan I suggested that I wished had gained steam) of a Dance Dance Revolution Contest over the grave of the most despicable lying weasly, ambulance chasing game critic out there. It was put on permanent haitus though when the guy was disbarred and became insignificant.

Anyway normally I'd say we shouldn't do that because it'd just be sinking us down to their level, it would look slightly hypocritical etc. But there's no way me or a group can convince enough people to not do it so that no one shows up and acting like the bigger man will not work with the WBC. So with that in mind go for it.


----------



## Hawk

Rudy said:


> Somebody got very quiet.  What's wrong Hawk?  Do you always run when you are exposed?
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you get down to Birmingham, Alabama.. I'll be here to greet you with thousands of real Americans.



What re.Birmingam,AL?What is special in there?I can't understant this statement you made.


----------



## ABikerSailor

That's because you're a bird brained bimbo bitch whose boyfriend is a dog and a jar of peanut butter.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Rudy said:


> Somebody got very quiet.  What's wrong Hawk?  Do you always run when you are exposed?
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you get down to Birmingham, Alabama.. I'll be here to greet you with thousands of real Americans.



Well the Bass is not a follower of Fred Phelps and his heretical Westboro church, and the Bass follows no man, he follows the Bible only so what are you going to do about that, tell the Bass that he's wrong and try to convince him that two men shagging each other is right? Forget it.


Sodomites should not openly serve in the military because people of the same sex who don't share the perverted attractions of sodomites lose their right to privacy.


----------



## Hawk

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church in any way whatsoever?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are a PSYCHOPATH! AND you hate your country so why don't you move to Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

I hate the decay and unrepentant people who led America into doom.America needs to repent and return to her old God blessed Judeo-Christian glory as she was before the 60s.Pro-life,pro-family,pro-church,anti-GLBT.
I am American,but I am originally from Ukraine(Russian).


----------



## xotoxi

Hawk said:


> I am American,but I am originally from Ukraine(Russian).


 
You are NOT American.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hawk said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are a PSYCHOPATH! AND you hate your country so why don't you move to Afghanistan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate the decay and unrepentant people who led America into doom.America needs to repent and return to her old God blessed Judeo-Christian glory as she was before the 60s.Pro-life,pro-family,pro-church,anti-GLBT.
> I am American,but I am originally from Ukraine(Russian).
Click to expand...


There it is.........she got tired of being oppressed in her original country, so she came to the land of the free, just so she could oppress others.

America needs to repent?  What can some jane come lately tell a native born citizen?  I actually KNOW the history of this country (troubled as it is at times), and can tell you that you really don't have a clue.

Wanna go back to things like they were before the 60's?  Were you alive then, and if so, were you here or there?

Because here wasn't all that great.........housewifes on pills (Vicodin, mother's little helper), racist beliefs, civil rights unrest, big business dictating wars (Korea anyone?), as well as women being paid only half of what their male counterparts were (if they were even given jobs).

Right........things were so much better back then.  Quit drinking the tea party Kool Aid ya stupid bitch.


----------



## Hawk

ABikerSailor said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are a PSYCHOPATH! AND you hate your country so why don't you move to Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> I hate the decay and unrepentant people who led America into doom.America needs to repent and return to her old God blessed Judeo-Christian glory as she was before the 60s.Pro-life,pro-family,pro-church,anti-GLBT.
> I am American,but I am originally from Ukraine(Russian).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There it is.........she got tired of being oppressed in her original country, so she came to the land of the free, just so she could oppress others.
> 
> America needs to repent?  What can some jane come lately tell a native born citizen?  I actually KNOW the history of this country (troubled as it is at times), and can tell you that you really don't have a clue.
> 
> Wanna go back to things like they were before the 60's?  Were you alive then, and if so, were you here or there?
> 
> Because here wasn't all that great.........housewifes on pills (Vicodin, mother's little helper), racist beliefs, civil rights unrest, big business dictating wars (Korea anyone?), as well as women being paid only half of what their male counterparts were (if they were even given jobs).
> 
> Right........things were so much better back then.  Quit drinking the tea party Kool Aid ya stupid bitch.
Click to expand...

As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it.But regarding the old American Judeo-Christian days,before the 60s  yes life was sane.There were wasn't a genocide against the preborn kids,there was a small number of divorces/remarriages,fags were in their closets,kids were obedient to parents and respected the elderly,prayers were at schools and schools weren't a bloody gang grounds.Billy Sunday was a great preacher and many people loved him.There was life.Now we got modern Babylon that soon will fall.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

There can be no doubt that America has gotten morally deteriorated over the years and this trend is not going to stop, what the faithful need to do is come to God and separated themselves from the wicked, simple and plain. The increased acceptance of homosexuality is further proof that America is morally deteriorating, eventhough homosexuality is rejected by the majority of Americans.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Hawk said:


> As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it.But regarding the old American Judeo-Christian days,before the 60s  yes life was sane.There were wasn't a genocide against the preborn kids,there was a small number of divorces/remarriages,fags were in their closets,kids were obedient to parents and respected the elderly,prayers were at schools and schools weren't a bloody gang grounds.Billy Sunday was a great preacher and many people loved him.There was life.Now we got modern Babylon that soon will fall.



Hawk, you mind as well quit trying to preach to these sodomite loving sinners, when they accept and embrace homosexuality they reject God and His commandments. The Word has been given to these sodomite lovers just as it was given to the Jews and just as God rejected Saul and his family and cut them off from His blessings so shall it be of these wicked sodomite lovers who deceive and defile people from accepting God and His Word.


----------



## Hawk

Charlie Bass said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it.But regarding the old American Judeo-Christian days,before the 60s  yes life was sane.There were wasn't a genocide against the preborn kids,there was a small number of divorces/remarriages,fags were in their closets,kids were obedient to parents and respected the elderly,prayers were at schools and schools weren't a bloody gang grounds.Billy Sunday was a great preacher and many people loved him.There was life.Now we got modern Babylon that soon will fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk, you mind as well quit trying to preach to these sodomite loving sinners, when they accept and embrace homosexuality they reject God and His commandments. The Word has been given to these sodomite lovers just as it was given to the Jews and just as God rejected Saul and his family and cut them off from His blessings so shall it be of these wicked sodomite lovers who deceive and defile people from accepting God and His Word.
Click to expand...

You are very right!They are sodomites who waltz themselves into Hell.Let God be their Judge now.


----------



## ABikerSailor

I thought God was always supposed to be the judge of others.

Not retarded ass clowns like you and Bass Hole.


----------



## Hawk

ABikerSailor said:


> I thought God was always supposed to be the judge of others.
> 
> Not retarded ass clowns like you and Bass Hole.[/QUOTE
> No we are not retards.You're a hellbound fool. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.


----------



## Rudy

Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody got very quiet.  What's wrong Hawk?  Do you always run when you are exposed?
> 
> Be sure to let me know when you get down to Birmingham, Alabama.. I'll be here to greet you with thousands of real Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Bass is not a follower of Fred Phelps and his heretical Westboro church, and the Bass follows no man, he follows the Bible only so what are you going to do about that, tell the Bass that he's wrong and try to convince him that two men shagging each other is right? Forget it.
Click to expand...


Whether or not it is right is not the question.  You are speaking from a moral standing taken from a verse(s) from a Book whose content contradicts itself in many cases.  But if you are using the Bible that's fine... but you can only make that argument if you don't ignore the other thousands and thousands of other verses contained within. 

Their thorn... your plank...


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate the decay and unrepentant people who led America into doom.America needs to repent and return to her old God blessed Judeo-Christian glory as she was before the 60s.Pro-life,pro-family,pro-church,anti-GLBT.
> I am American,but I am originally from Ukraine(Russian).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is.........she got tired of being oppressed in her original country, so she came to the land of the free, just so she could oppress others.
> 
> America needs to repent?  What can some jane come lately tell a native born citizen?  I actually KNOW the history of this country (troubled as it is at times), and can tell you that you really don't have a clue.
> 
> Wanna go back to things like they were before the 60's?  Were you alive then, and if so, were you here or there?
> 
> Because here wasn't all that great.........housewifes on pills (Vicodin, mother's little helper), racist beliefs, civil rights unrest, big business dictating wars (Korea anyone?), as well as women being paid only half of what their male counterparts were (if they were even given jobs).
> 
> Right........things were so much better back then.  Quit drinking the tea party Kool Aid ya stupid bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it.But regarding the old American Judeo-Christian days,before the 60s  yes life was sane.There were wasn't a genocide against the preborn kids,there was a small number of divorces/remarriages,fags were in their closets,kids were obedient to parents and respected the elderly,prayers were at schools and schools weren't a bloody gang grounds.Billy Sunday was a great preacher and many people loved him.There was life.Now we got modern Babylon that soon will fall.
Click to expand...



You know what else didn't happen before the 60's?  

People didn't picket the funerals of our soldiers who died overseas.  

Just that very small aspect of your faith is enough to discredit anything that comes from you. You have held a sign that says "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" while the family of a dead soldier is looking on.  

Fuck you.. Fuck Ol' Man Phelps... and fuck your entire Church.  I hope to see you at Daddy Phelps's funeral.


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate the decay and unrepentant people who led America into doom.America needs to repent and return to her old God blessed Judeo-Christian glory as she was before the 60s.Pro-life,pro-family,pro-church,anti-GLBT.
> I am American,but I am originally from Ukraine(Russian).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is.........she got tired of being oppressed in her original country, so she came to the land of the free, just so she could oppress others.
> 
> America needs to repent?  What can some jane come lately tell a native born citizen?  I actually KNOW the history of this country (troubled as it is at times), and can tell you that you really don't have a clue.
> 
> Wanna go back to things like they were before the 60's?  Were you alive then, and if so, were you here or there?
> 
> Because here wasn't all that great.........housewifes on pills (Vicodin, mother's little helper), racist beliefs, civil rights unrest, big business dictating wars (Korea anyone?), as well as women being paid only half of what their male counterparts were (if they were even given jobs).
> 
> Right........things were so much better back then.  Quit drinking the tea party Kool Aid ya stupid bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it..
Click to expand...


So when you protested outside of the Holocaust Museum you weren't being racist?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Rudy said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is.........she got tired of being oppressed in her original country, so she came to the land of the free, just so she could oppress others.
> 
> America needs to repent?  What can some jane come lately tell a native born citizen?  I actually KNOW the history of this country (troubled as it is at times), and can tell you that you really don't have a clue.
> 
> Wanna go back to things like they were before the 60's?  Were you alive then, and if so, were you here or there?
> 
> Because here wasn't all that great.........housewifes on pills (Vicodin, mother's little helper), racist beliefs, civil rights unrest, big business dictating wars (Korea anyone?), as well as women being paid only half of what their male counterparts were (if they were even given jobs).
> 
> Right........things were so much better back then.  Quit drinking the tea party Kool Aid ya stupid bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it.But regarding the old American Judeo-Christian days,before the 60s  yes life was sane.There were wasn't a genocide against the preborn kids,there was a small number of divorces/remarriages,fags were in their closets,kids were obedient to parents and respected the elderly,prayers were at schools and schools weren't a bloody gang grounds.Billy Sunday was a great preacher and many people loved him.There was life.Now we got modern Babylon that soon will fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know what else didn't happen before the 60's?
> 
> People didn't picket the funerals of our soldiers who died overseas.
> 
> Just that very small aspect of your faith is enough to discredit anything that comes from you. You have held a sign that says "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" while the family of a dead soldier is looking on.
> 
> Fuck you.. Fuck Ol' Man Phelps... and fuck your entire Church.  I hope to see you at Daddy Phelps's funeral.
Click to expand...


Hate it when i have to agree with you.


----------



## Rudy

SFC Ollie said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Christian I agree that racism in America was a dark chapter in the past,so was slavery.Yes,it was deadly wrong at those times.The Bible never says that you must not be white or black.Racism is sin and I am against it.But regarding the old American Judeo-Christian days,before the 60s  yes life was sane.There were wasn't a genocide against the preborn kids,there was a small number of divorces/remarriages,fags were in their closets,kids were obedient to parents and respected the elderly,prayers were at schools and schools weren't a bloody gang grounds.Billy Sunday was a great preacher and many people loved him.There was life.Now we got modern Babylon that soon will fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what else didn't happen before the 60's?
> 
> People didn't picket the funerals of our soldiers who died overseas.
> 
> Just that very small aspect of your faith is enough to discredit anything that comes from you. You have held a sign that says "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" while the family of a dead soldier is looking on.
> 
> Fuck you.. Fuck Ol' Man Phelps... and fuck your entire Church.  I hope to see you at Daddy Phelps's funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate it when i have to agree with you.
Click to expand...


Why? We don't need to see eye to eye on everything in order to respect eachother's opinions.


----------



## Hawk

You people are ignorant and hate God.If you were people of Faith,you would do everything according to God's biblical laws of moral standarts which Giod gave to people by Moses and the rest of sons of Israel.You ignore God and hate His standarts.You deny God's Svereignty,you say it is ok to kill the preborn,it is ok to divorce/remarry and fornicate.You say its is ok to kiss a fag ass,it is ok to be gay and say that fags are "victims of discrimination". As Bass and I say,talking to you as talking to a tree.You will go to Hell and spend your eternity there.


----------



## Father Time

I am umoved by your threats.


----------



## del

Hawk said:


> You people are ignorant and hate God.If you were people of Faith,you would do everything according to God's biblical laws of moral standarts which Giod gave to people by Moses and the rest of sons of Israel.You ignore God and hate His standarts.You deny God's Svereignty,you say it is ok to kill the preborn,it is ok to divorce/remarry and fornicate.You say its is ok to kiss a fag ass,it is ok to be gay and say that fags are "victims of discrimination". As Bass and I say,talking to you as talking to a tree.You will go to Hell and spend your eternity there.



i think it's okay if you go fuck yourself.

does that make me a sinner in your eyes?


----------



## Rudy

Hawk said:


> You people are ignorant and hate God.If you were people of Faith,you would do everything according to God's biblical laws of moral standarts which Giod gave to people by Moses and the rest of sons of Israel.You ignore God and hate His standarts.You deny God's Svereignty,you say it is ok to kill the preborn,it is ok to divorce/remarry and fornicate.You say its is ok to kiss a fag ass,it is ok to be gay and say that fags are "victims of discrimination". As Bass and I say,talking to you as talking to a tree.You will go to Hell and spend your eternity there.



But if I'm not mistaken... Shirley Phelps (the daughter of Freddie) had a son out of wedlock... 

And whatever happened to Debbie Valgos?  Don't think people haven't forgotten about her.  If you don't remember, she was the hippie chick who married Freddie Jr. after running away from the homestead for a drug/sex crazed vacation.   

Long story short: Grandpa found his son and brought him back home at gunpoint.  A few months later Mrs Valgos was found dead.  

Exactly why do you belong to that cult?  I will pray for you but I'm pretty sure there is a special place in hell reserved just for you.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hawk said:


> You people are ignorant and hate God.If you were people of Faith,you would do everything according to God's biblical laws of moral standarts which Giod gave to people by Moses and the rest of sons of Israel.You ignore God and hate His standarts.You deny God's Svereignty,you say it is ok to kill the preborn,it is ok to divorce/remarry and fornicate.You say its is ok to kiss a fag ass,it is ok to be gay and say that fags are "victims of discrimination". As Bass and I say,talking to you as talking to a tree.You will go to Hell and spend your eternity there.







Oh yeah you REALLY follow ALL of God's biblical laws don't you? NOT!!! You are a HYPOCRITE of the 10th degree so maybe you should STFU and READ your Bible rather than THUMPING it.


----------



## bodecea

Hawk said:


> You people are ignorant and hate God.If you were people of Faith,you would do everything according to God's biblical laws of moral standarts which Giod gave to people by Moses and the rest of sons of Israel.You ignore God and hate His standarts.You deny God's Svereignty,you say it is ok to kill the preborn,it is ok to divorce/remarry and fornicate.You say its is ok to kiss a fag ass,it is ok to be gay and say that fags are "victims of discrimination". As Bass and I say,talking to you as talking to a tree.You will go to Hell and spend your eternity there.


Yawn.....tell it to my gods.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hawk said:


> You people are ignorant and hate God.If you were people of Faith,you would do everything according to God's biblical laws of moral standarts which Giod gave to people by Moses and the rest of sons of Israel.You ignore God and hate His standarts.You deny God's Svereignty,you say it is ok to kill the preborn,it is ok to divorce/remarry and fornicate.You say its is ok to kiss a fag ass,it is ok to be gay and say that fags are "victims of discrimination". As Bass and I say,talking to you as talking to a tree.You will go to Hell and spend your eternity there.



You know Chickie Hawk, you peanut butter dog lover.........lemmie explain some of your falsehoods.......

First off, it was HaShem who gave the Laws to Moshe (Moses), in the form of the 10 Commandments.  Not "giod".  If you're going to tout yourself as an intelligent person, at least learn how to spell the person's name who you claim to worship.  Otherwise, it's just bad form.

Which one is it that says "thou shalt not be gay"?

Of course it's okay to divorce, remarry and fornicate.  Where do you think kids come from?  Fornication.  And.......you do realize that there are procedures IN THE BIBLE, which allow for divorce?

By the way......you DO realize that the only one who is eternal is HaShem, right?  You also realize that Yeshua (Jesus to you bible nazis), stated in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting (not eternal) life". 

You can't be eternal if you have a beginning, you can only be forever.

So, exactly how is it that you can go to hell for eternity?  You can't, because there was a point in time before your existence, so therefore, nobody burns for eternity.

Try again.

Want to know what the Torah states about people?  They're not "human" until the 40 day mark.  Interestingly enough, that is the time that the embryo develops a nervous system.


----------



## amrchaos

But what about us non-believers

Do you really think that all of us are pro-homosexual in all their endeavors just because we do not believe in God.  You do not know me at all, MR Bass.

When I started this thread, I tried to introduce the idea of a co-ed army--deeply co-ed (actually, more of the idea of an army with a professional harem attachment, but the co-ed idea was the main topic starter.)

The arguments against such an idea, to me, is similiar to why gays should not be in the army.  You know--ideas such as "it is unclean"(why?)  "It is unnatural"(why?)  "They would become distracted!!(in the beginning, but later it would not be noticable.  If you ever lived with a large number of women you are not romantic with, you would understand)

Now this arguement has deteriorated to Is homosexuality normal or nott.  Let me point something out--because something occurs naturally does not make it normal!!

Examples are as follows--Snowing in the south east is natural--not normal.  Hurricanes in Miami is natural--not normal.  Men that had the ability to develop sexual desires for other men do occur naturally in the population--but is not normal.


What you homosexuals do not understand is very simple.  You are born insane. Many of you and your supporters may become upset over this revelation, but I can show you that it is true through a series of questions.


1)*What purpose does homosexuality serve in nature?*
Before we can go into the understanding homosexuals--we must ask what does the homosexual do.  

a)The homosexual provides addition competition to breeders. 
This can lead to population suppression if allowed to dominate the population

b) Can actively invoke confusion in non-homosexuals due to their natural personalities/characteristics.
This can lead to identity crisis in Heterosexuals

c)The Homosexual trait can signal the end of a family line if the homosexual is the only child.
If this is the case, it leads to the destruction of the continued identity of  the homosexual and his family branch.  In many ways, we can refer to the homosexual as a "dead-ender" in terms of continuing the family bloodline. This therefore leads to the final point

d)The homosexual is a questionable use of consumable resources.
We have yet to figure out what benefits the homosexual grants to their family/species.

This does not mean that homosexuals should be put to death due to their backsliding behaviors(pun is intended!!), but it does raise troubling questions into how is the general species suppose to treat the homosexual in general. 

(to be continued....)


----------



## Bass v 2.0

If you support homosexuals in any way as it relates to their perverted lifestyle you are a prohomosexual, 100% butthole shagging supporting sinner lover.


----------



## Qball

Until opponents of DADT can show how allowing gays will have a positive benefit on the military, DADT should remain intact. We have a volunteer military, but don't think for a second they just want any ol' body who shows up. There are any number of policies in the military that could hinder you from ever joining or being kicked out that one could call arbitrary. At the end of the day, we need the best military we can get. Not the most socially progressive.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know, those of you that state gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly are just beating the same tired old drum......

We don't want blacks to serve with us, they're not smart enough.

We don't want gays to serve with us, they will mess up the military.

We don't want women to serve in war zones, they aren't suited for combat.

All of those have been proven to be false, it's just that the rest of you idiots haven't come around to the gays yet.  I've know of a gay service member (males and females) on every duty station I ever served at.  

They didn't bug me about sex, and I didn't bug them.  Matter of fact, learned quite a bit from some of 'em..........2 lesbians in Norfolk taught me more about a healthy relationship than I've ever seen, and they were better together than most hetero couples.

One at my first duty station named Paul taught me how to dress in the big city (as a country boy from Montana, jeans, flannel shirts, and logging boots) and look stylish so that I could possibly get a girlfriend in places that were 10 dudes for every woman (and if you've been to a military town, you know what I'm talking about).

Oh yeah.......whenever we were overseas?  He was the dude to party with because all the chicks in the town we were at flocked to him, and he sent them to me.

Got a lot of ladies that way..........


----------



## actsnoblemartin

First of all, whats wrong with co-ed showers?

if (mostly) men are gonna risk their lives, why not let um have a release for god sakes.

Second, why this arrogance that only people who have served are allowed to have an opinion, are only lawyers allowed to have an opinion of the law?

Third, why is this being framed as pro or anti gay.

This is about whats best for our country, maybe some see it as a partisanship fight i dont.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

bullshit, gays are just as likely to objectify a man, ans a straight man to a straight woman



Rudy said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think your such a stud to where gay guys would want to look at you in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me??
> 
> Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??
> 
> Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.
> 
> You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.
Click to expand...


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I dont understand the gay superiority complex here.

I thought gays wanted to be equal not better.




Charlie Bass said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me??
> 
> Why not coed Barracks?  et cetera Et cetera??
> 
> Man, you guys are extra sensitive about gay issues!! If you re-read my posts, you will see the angle I am aim at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay soldier won't objectify his peers in the showers like a bunch of straight guys cat-calling to the hot blonde taking off her shower robe.  I'm not being "extra sensitive," I'm just calling bullshit when I see it.
> 
> You most likely wouldn't be able to hack it in the service even if you were assigned to live and train with a bunch of females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, another liberal fagtard trying to give the impression that gays are the personification of perfection when it comes to being a good troop. Regardless of whether the faggots are objectifying or not, a straight male should not be forced to thinking that his feeling of being uncomfortable in an open shower with men who crave the rectums of other is homophobia. Would a black person in a room full of skinheads be anti-white for feeling feeling uncomfortable around a bunch of people who hate for blacks and non-whites is the one thing they share in common regardless of whether they show it outright or not?
Click to expand...


----------



## actsnoblemartin

RadiomanATL said:


> Way to take a joke thread WAAAAAAAAAYYYY too seriously.



sounds like some of the people in this thread have a serious stick shoved deep in their


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> If you support homosexuals in any way as it relates to their perverted lifestyle you are a prohomosexual, 100% butthole shagging supporting sinner lover.



Your obsession with anal sex is unhealthy please seek help.

And do tell me how their lifestyle hurts others. It seems you are just obsessing over other people's personal life for no good reason.


----------



## Father Time

Qball said:


> Until opponents of DADT can show how allowing gays will have a positive benefit on the military, DADT should remain intact. We have a volunteer military, but don't think for a second they just want any ol' body who shows up. There are any number of policies in the military that could hinder you from ever joining or being kicked out that one could call arbitrary. At the end of the day, we need the best military we can get. Not the most socially progressive.



Ok being gay has absolutely no effect on their ability to serve, so under DADT we are firing perfectly good troops for no good reason. Therefore it's a terrible policy and we should get rid of it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Interestingly enough, Daniel Cho, who was a LT in the US Army as a squad leader as well as spoke Arabic (of which there are only 500 fluent speakers in the US military), had no detrimental effect on his squad when they found out he was gay.

However........the Army did kick him out for being gay, and in so doing, lost a combat experienced asset that could speak Arabic.

Tell me again how there is no negative impact of allowing DADT to stand.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

dadt is a great policy


----------



## amrchaos

DADT will soon no longer exits

It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.


But in truth, there was a possible good that  DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!

Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread.  An example is this one



ABikerSailor said:


> ...........  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> ...................................
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.




I agree.  Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys??  I say no!! The Ax does work.

Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers?  This thread is littered with them!!  In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:  

*Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??*

Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military.  Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!!  And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.  

Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence??  Of course you do!! 

It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!!  Why end it??


----------



## Father Time

amrchaos said:


> DADT will soon no longer exits
> 
> It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.
> 
> 
> But in truth, there was a possible good that  DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!
> 
> Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread.  An example is this one
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...........  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> ...................................
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys??  I say no!! The Ax does work.
> 
> Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers?  This thread is littered with them!!  In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:
> 
> *Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??*
> 
> Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military.  Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!!  And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.
> 
> Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence??  Of course you do!!
> 
> It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!!  Why end it??
Click to expand...


Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.

How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?

Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Father Time said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> DADT will soon no longer exits
> 
> It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.
> 
> 
> But in truth, there was a possible good that  DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!
> 
> Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread.  An example is this one
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...........  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> ...................................
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys??  I say no!! The Ax does work.
> 
> Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers?  This thread is littered with them!!  In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:
> 
> *Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??*
> 
> Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military.  Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!!  And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.
> 
> Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence??  Of course you do!!
> 
> It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!!  Why end it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.
> 
> How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?
> 
> Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...


So it still comes back to the actual facts. Being homosexual is by definition sexual orientation. So we use sexual orientation to separate the male and female soldiers. How do we treat these known gay soldiers? Men cannot shower with women so since a gay male is sexually attracted to other males he can only shower with the women? And only one gay at a time as we wouldn't want them to shower with anyone they would be or could be sexually attracted to. Of course I know that those of you who are gay or support this move will simply say that's homophobic. But isn't this still the facts?

Is this not a sexual thing?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The gay supporters are arguing in circles, unable to separate their emotional gay activism thats based on emotion as opposed to concentrating on what are the real facts to be considered, they seem to think that lifting DADT is going to be easy and everything after that is going to be ok, *WRONG*, it isn't that simple and as the military is finding out its going to be more difficult to undo it. A lot of things have to be considered and accounted, not just what the fags want, thats what the progays fail to realize, their logic is "Lets be all for the gay and lets the straights just adapt and suck it up".


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until opponents of DADT can show how allowing gays will have a positive benefit on the military, DADT should remain intact. We have a volunteer military, but don't think for a second they just want any ol' body who shows up. There are any number of policies in the military that could hinder you from ever joining or being kicked out that one could call arbitrary. At the end of the day, we need the best military we can get. Not the most socially progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok being gay has absolutely no effect on their ability to serve, so under DADT we are firing perfectly good troops for no good reason. Therefore it's a terrible policy and we should get rid of it.
Click to expand...


Since it has no effect on their work performance[mainly because they're not allowed to openly say they're fags, you dunce], why can't they just shut up and continue to serve without making their sexual practices public? They're putting their gay activism before duty to their country first which is wrong. The military is not adversely affected by DADT, there is no evidence of this, the only people affected adversely are fags because they can't openly say they fags, woooow, thats so damn adverse.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Why?  Simple.......sometimes in the military there are petty assholes who are looking to make someone else's life miserable, and one way that they can do that is to blow the whistle on someone who is gay.

If they were allowed to serve openly, that would disappear, and they wouldn't feel so much under the gun.


----------



## eagleseven

SFC Ollie said:


> Being homosexual is by definition sexual orientation.


Indeed.



SFC Ollie said:


> So we use sexual orientation to separate the male and female soldiers.


No we don't. Homosexual women are mixed with straight women, and homosexual men are mixed with straight men. 

We segregate based upon _gender_, not orientation.



SFC Ollie said:


> How do we treat these known gay soldiers? Men cannot shower with women so since a gay male is sexually attracted to other males he can only shower with the women? And only one gay at a time as we wouldn't want them to shower with anyone they would be or could be sexually attracted to. Of course I know that those of you who are gay or support this move will simply say that's homophobic. But isn't this still the facts?


Why don't we ask Israel, and adopt their policy? It's worked for them since 1992...


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Why?  Simple.......sometimes in the military there are petty assholes who are looking to make someone else's life miserable, and one way that they can do that is to blow the whistle on someone who is gay.
> 
> If they were allowed to serve openly, that would disappear, and they wouldn't feel so much under the gun.



No one is blowing the whistle on faggots, they often do stupid stuff to out themselves so its their fault.


----------



## amrchaos

Father Time said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> DADT will soon no longer exits
> 
> It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.
> 
> 
> But in truth, there was a possible good that  DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!
> 
> Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread.  An example is this one
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...........  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> ...................................
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys??  I say no!! The Ax does work.
> 
> Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers?  This thread is littered with them!!  In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:
> 
> *Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??*
> 
> Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military.  Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!!  And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.
> 
> Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence??  Of course you do!!
> 
> It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!!  Why end it??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.
> 
> How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?
> 
> Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...




First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?  Will the gay soldier play patty cake with them and make tea for the BIG BAD TERRORISTS If DADT was not in place??  Do you think that the military's job is to cuddle every person that joins it??  That is the job of the department of "kissing boo-boos and wiping noses" better known as the Department of Children Services!! 

I do not think I need to remind you That "kissing boo-boos" is not the Militarys mission!!

The millitary needs some mettle to work with.  You are asking way too much of recruit training when the recruits are still afraid of the Boogeyman!!  

On the other hand, we have been presented with a great tool in DADT if it makes the Homosexual recruit reach for the sky before the CO can finish issuing the command!! I tell you, DADT is like super soldier serum--but you don't have to mix a damn thing to get the  homosexuals Fighting mad!!  That is the kind of policy the military needs!!  A policy that turns a soldier into Hardened Soldiers on the first day they step onto the training fields.  

Any more policies like this, then we may have to ask ourselves "What is the purpose of basic training?"  Of course, the sooldier wil still  need to know the commands and so forth, so I guess further policies will be on how to speed up the learning process!!


The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!!  Now that would be an even meaner military!!  Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!

I can already see them on the go!!  Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!!  What a concept!!  DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> The gay supporters are arguing in circles, unable to separate their emotional gay activism thats based on emotion as opposed to concentrating on what are the real facts to be considered, they seem to think that lifting DADT is going to be easy and everything after that is going to be ok, *WRONG*, it isn't that simple and as the military is finding out its going to be more difficult to undo it. *A lot of things have to be considered and accounted,* not just what the fags want, thats what the progays fail to realize, their logic is "Lets be all for the gay and lets the straights just adapt and suck it up".



Like what? The only thing you've ever come up with can be solved with simple shower curtains.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until opponents of DADT can show how allowing gays will have a positive benefit on the military, DADT should remain intact. We have a volunteer military, but don't think for a second they just want any ol' body who shows up. There are any number of policies in the military that could hinder you from ever joining or being kicked out that one could call arbitrary. At the end of the day, we need the best military we can get. Not the most socially progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok being gay has absolutely no effect on their ability to serve, so under DADT we are firing perfectly good troops for no good reason. Therefore it's a terrible policy and we should get rid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since it has no effect on their work performance[mainly because they're not allowed to openly say they're fags, you dunce], why can't they just shut up and continue to serve without making their sexual practices public? They're putting their gay activism before duty to their country first which is wrong.
Click to expand...


Are you really that stupid or are you just desperate? Telling their coworkers they are gay =gay activism? So me telling coworkers I am white = advocating white power. 



Charlie Bass said:


> The military is not adversely affected by DADT, there is no evidence of this, the only people affected adversely are fags because they can't openly say they fags, woooow, thats so damn adverse.



The evidence has been posted you just choose to ignore it and continue to spout off the same bullshit.


----------



## Father Time

amrchaos said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> DADT will soon no longer exits
> 
> It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.
> 
> 
> But in truth, there was a possible good that  DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!
> 
> Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread.  An example is this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys??  I say no!! The Ax does work.
> 
> Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers?  This thread is littered with them!!  In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:
> 
> *Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??*
> 
> Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military.  Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!!  And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.
> 
> Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence??  Of course you do!!
> 
> It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!!  Why end it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.
> 
> How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?
> 
> Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?
Click to expand...


Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?



amrchaos said:


> Will the gay soldier play patty cake with them and make tea for the BIG BAD TERRORISTS If DADT was not in place??  Do you think that the military's job is to cuddle every person that joins it??  That is the job of the department of "kissing boo-boos and wiping noses" better known as the Department of Children Services!!
> 
> I do not think I need to remind you That "kissing boo-boos" is not the Militarys mission!!



Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.



amrchaos said:


> The millitary needs some mettle to work with.  You are asking way too much of recruit training when the recruits are still afraid of the Boogeyman!!



You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?




amrchaos said:


> On the other hand, we have been presented with a great tool in DADT if it makes the Homosexual recruit reach for the sky before the CO can finish issuing the command!! I tell you, DADT is like super soldier serum--but you don't have to mix a damn thing to get the  homosexuals Fighting mad!!  That is the kind of policy the military needs!!  A policy that turns a soldier into Hardened Soldiers on the first day they step onto the training fields.



So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?

Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.



amrchaos said:


> The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!!  Now that would be an even meaner military!!  Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!
> 
> I can already see them on the go!!  Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!!  What a concept!!  DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!



Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.

But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.

It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.



Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

_plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._


----------



## SFC Ollie

The facts are that the military is looking at rescinding DADT. And they do expect it to cause some problems. If they are going to study this for an entire year......Well they expect problems. And they do not know if there are solutions to those problems or not. And it doesn't matter what we say here, it is the Congress and the Military which will make this decision. God help them.


----------



## Oscar Wao

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".
> 
> _plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._
Click to expand...

The Afrocentric poster you are arguing with will use the "gays and blacks aren't dealing with the same stuff" argument.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> The facts are that the military is looking at rescinding DADT. And they do expect it to cause some problems. If they are going to study this for an entire year......Well they expect problems. And they do not know if there are solutions to those problems or not. And it doesn't matter what we say here, it is the Congress and the Military which will make this decision. God help them.



Of course it's going to cause problems........everything new does.

In the Navy, the first time that we allowed women to serve on forward deployed ships, one of the first they chose was the USS PUGET SOUND.  After a few months, it became known as the "USS PUBIC MOUND", and a few months after that, it was called "the Love Boat".

But now?  We've got women serving on most forward deployed vessels, including warships that deploy into hazardous zones.

Listen......if you want to serve, serve.  Just remember that you've got to follow the UCMJ, as well as the rules of your command.

Your sexuality and what you do off the work site?  Shouldn't be anyones business UNTIL it starts to affect good order and discipline.

And........a lover's spat don't qualify.  The Navy sees 'em all the time in the form of workplace romances.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Oscar Wao said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".
> 
> _plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Afrocentric poster you are arguing with will use the "gays and blacks aren't dealing with the same stuff" argument.
Click to expand...



Blacks and faggots are not mutually th same nor can they be compared.


----------



## Animal

Komrade Chicken Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to use a Bible verse to justify ignoring OTHER Bible verses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The accurate Bible is King James Version.
Click to expand...


King James Bible- ironically commisiioned by a king who was most likely gay, and based on a very badly and inaccurately translated Greek bible.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".
> 
> _plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._
Click to expand...



White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Are you really that stupid or are you just desperate? Telling their coworkers they are gay =gay activism? So me telling coworkers I am white = advocating white power.



The whole lift DADT is all about gay activism, why do fags *HAVE* to tell their coworkers that they're gay in the if what they do in privacy is no one's business anyways? You still have established no reason why gays should have to tell someone that they're faggots, what if people don't want to know?





> The evidence has been posted you just choose to ignore it and continue to spout off the same bullshit.



There is absolutely no evidence that the military is affected by DADT, you haven't shown any proof for this, the truth is that most military members aren't fags, so how could it adversely affect the military? The whole movement against DADT is nothing more than gay activism and fags not wanting to keep their homosexuality to themselves. Most troops don't want to know about someone's homosexuality so why lobby to openly put it in someone's face?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid or are you just desperate? Telling their coworkers they are gay =gay activism? So me telling coworkers I am white = advocating white power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole lift DADT is all about gay activism,
Click to expand...


That's not what you said. 


Charlie Bass said:


> why do fags *HAVE* to tell their coworkers that they're gay in the if what they do in privacy is no one's business anyways? You still have established no reason why gays should have to tell someone that they're faggots, what if people don't want to know?



Why should they have to play by different rules, straights can tell people all they want about their sex life even if people don't want to hear it.




> The evidence has been posted you just choose to ignore it and continue to spout off the same bullshit.





Charlie Bass said:


> There is absolutely no evidence that the military is affected by DADT, you haven't shown any proof for this, the truth is that most military members aren't fags, so how could it adversely affect the military? The whole movement against DADT is nothing more than gay activism and fags not wanting to keep their homosexuality to themselves. Most troops don't want to know about someone's homosexuality so why lobby to openly put it in someone's face?



It's been posted before about the troops and translators the military has had to fire because of the pointless rule that is DADT. The whole DADT is about homophobia and serves absolutely no legit purpose.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".
> 
> _plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.
Click to expand...


It's perfectly comparable neither group gets to choose to belong to said group. Also said sex acts do not effect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.


----------



## Father Time

Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?




It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.
Click to expand...


But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-faggot side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".
> 
> _plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.
Click to expand...


Hey Bass Hole.....got news for you, CDR is the paygrade where a Naval Officer can command ships and submarines.

I think he knows more about leadership than some dipshit reservist O2 who stayed stateside to be safe from the war.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> It's perfectly comparable neither group gets to choose to belong to said group. Also said sex acts do not effect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.




Repeat, their is no comparison that can be made between blacks and faggots, faggots are defined by their sexual acts, blacks are not, please quit insulting black people by comparing us to faggots. Sexual acts are based on choice, a person can chose whether or not they want to have gay sex, blacks cannot chose whether to be black or not, its a BS comparison and you know it. Sex acts may not physically effect people from serving but they do have a dtreimental effect socially within the workplace. By your logic, people who screw animals should be allowed to openly serve as zoophilists, because hey, sex acts doesn't affect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Gay people can't "choose" to be gay or straight.

Quit listening to Ted Haggard's "Jesus Camp".


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".
> 
> _plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Bass Hole.....got news for you, CDR is the paygrade where a Naval Officer can command ships and submarines.
> 
> I think he knows more about leadership than some dipshit reservist O2 who stayed stateside to be safe from the war.
Click to expand...


The Bass doesn't give a damn what anyone's rank is, just because someone obtains a certain rank doesn't mean their opinion is more qualified than others, there are many officers in the military in command positions that are substandard material and please quit making the false accusation that the Bass intentionally avoided deploying, since that would be in violation of the UCMJ.

Comparing blacks and faggots to invalidate DADT is stupid because they are no where near the same. Blacks were allowed to serve openly in the military, they were just segregated from whites based on Jim Crow. The situation with fags is not the same, don't compare the Bass' people to faggots to boost the activism of fags.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfectly comparable neither group gets to choose to belong to said group. Also said sex acts do not effect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat, their is no comparison that can be made between blacks and faggots, faggots are defined by their sexual acts,
Click to expand...


Wrong, they're defined by who they are attracted to.



Charlie Bass said:


> blacks are not, please quit insulting black people by comparing us to faggots. Sexual acts are based on choice, a person can chose whether or not they want to have gay sex, blacks cannot chose whether to be black or not, its a BS comparison and you know it.



You do not choose who you are attracted to.



Charlie Bass said:


> Sex acts may not physically effect people from serving but they do have a dtreimental effect socially within the workplace. By your logic, people who screw animals should be allowed to openly serve as zoophilists, because hey, sex acts doesn't affect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.



People who screw animals violate the law since animals cannot consent to sex acts with humans.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Gay people can't "choose" to be gay or straight.
> 
> Quit listening to Ted Haggard's "Jesus Camp".




Thats BS, ex-gays do exist which means fags can change, Black people cannot change the fact that we have African ancestry.


Ted Faggard is not a member of the church of Christ so why keep bringing him up you soup sandwich squid?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Wrong, they're defined by who they are attracted to.[7quote]
> 
> No, they're defined by their sexual acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not choose who you are attracted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, there is no scientific evidence for this, that is what the faggots say. At any rate, homosexuality is defined by sexual acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who screw animals violate the law since animals cannot consent to sex acts with humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faggots who join the military violate the UCMJ since since homosexuals are technically barred from being in the military. Your argument was that sexual acts don't affect a person's capacity to serve so a person who screws animals should serve by your logic and his sex acts should bother anyone else as long as he does his job.
Click to expand...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Bass Hole.....got news for you, CDR is the paygrade where a Naval Officer can command ships and submarines.
> 
> I think he knows more about leadership than some dipshit reservist O2 who stayed stateside to be safe from the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bass doesn't give a damn what anyone's rank is, just because someone obtains a certain rank doesn't mean their opinion is more qualified than others, there are many officers in the military in command positions that are substandard material and please quit making the false accusation that the Bass intentionally avoided deploying, since that would be in violation of the UCMJ.
> 
> Comparing blacks and faggots to invalidate DADT is stupid because they are no where near the same. Blacks were allowed to serve openly in the military, they were just segregated from whites based on Jim Crow. The situation with fags is not the same, don't compare the Bass' people to faggots to boost the activism of fags.
Click to expand...


How many people have you actually led (I can't say into battle because your malingering cowardly ass never went)?  

Additionally, did you have to qualify to lead?  If you are going to be the CO of a ship, you do.  You've also got to go through several screenings as well.  Why?  Because they don't want dipshit bigots such as yourself Bass Hole, they will mess up the unit with their innate racist and bullshit ideals.

Face it........an office of 10 jr enlisted can't compare to the same leadership experience as the Commanding Officer of a warship.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.
Click to expand...


You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.
Click to expand...


I know that it's hard for someone to understand who has never deployed OUTCONUS, so I'll try to explain...........

Deployment means that you leave your family and friends here in the United States for 6 months to a year.  During that time, all you have to connect with the homefront is mail and computers, with the occasional phone call.

During those times, when you've got a letter in the mail that states something happened back home, it helps to talk to some of your shipmates/squadmates about it.

If you're gay, and you get a dear john letter from your SO?  It can affect your morale to the point of being a danger to yourself AND to your squad.

Unfortunately Bass Hole, you don't have the experience to understand that, as your cowardly ass never went outside the States.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> How many people have you actually led (I can't say into battle because your malingering cowardly ass never went)?



NOYB and the Bass has never malingered, continually stating it isn't going to make it true. Just because someone holds a certain ranks doesn't mean their opinion or position is more right than someone who holds less rank, appeal to authority is a fallacious argument. 

If a captain says the sky is blue and a commanding general says the sky is purple with green spots is the CG more right because of his rank? Damn you're such a retard squid.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that it's hard for someone to understand who has never deployed OUTCONUS, so I'll try to explain...........
> 
> Deployment means that you leave your family and friends here in the United States for 6 months to a year.  During that time, all you have to connect with the homefront is mail and computers, with the occasional phone call.
> 
> During those times, when you've got a letter in the mail that states something happened back home, it helps to talk to some of your shipmates/squadmates about it.
> 
> If you're gay, and you get a dear john letter from your SO?  It can affect your morale to the point of being a danger to yourself AND to your squad.
> 
> Unfortunately Bass Hole, you don't have the experience to understand that, as your cowardly ass never went outside the States.
Click to expand...


Non-sequitir and trolling aside, basically you have presented no reasons for why it is necessary for someone to openly say they gay and why others should have to know they're faggots, even when they don't want to know.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.

Yeah.....you're a real hero.......


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.
> 
> Yeah.....you're a real hero.......



Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.
Click to expand...


How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.

But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?

It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.
> 
> But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?
> 
> It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.
Click to expand...


The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.
> 
> Yeah.....you're a real hero.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.
Click to expand...


No.  Just stating a fact.  You've never deployed outside of the US for any length of time, and so therefore, do not understand the effect that just  ONE bad letter from home can cause.  Especially if it's a "dear John" letter.

Now......if we keep going with DADT, and a gay soldier is forward deployed to Afghanistan, but because of DADT, when he gets his "dear John" letter from his significant other, it's going to cause problems.  Big ones.

One may be that he's walking around on patrol with his squad, and he's trying to figure out what went wrong, and misses a terrorist with an RPG, or misses an IED on his lookout.

Tell me that being gay and being unable to tell anyone what is going on in your life has no bearing on how you perform your military duties.

If you do, you're wrong.

THAT is why DADT should be rescinded.

But, your stupid lobotomized racist homophobic ass wouldn't understand because it's outside of your experience.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.
> 
> Yeah.....you're a real hero.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Just stating a fact.  You've never deployed outside of the US for any length of time, and so therefore, do not understand the effect that just  ONE bad letter from home can cause.  Especially if it's a "dear John" letter.
> 
> Now......if we keep going with DADT, and a gay soldier is forward deployed to Afghanistan, but because of DADT, when he gets his "dear John" letter from his significant other, it's going to cause problems.  Big ones.
> 
> One may be that he's walking around on patrol with his squad, and he's trying to figure out what went wrong, and misses a terrorist with an RPG, or misses an IED on his lookout.
> 
> Tell me that being gay and being unable to tell anyone what is going on in your life has no bearing on how you perform your military duties.
> 
> If you do, you're wrong.
> 
> THAT is why DADT should be rescinded.
> 
> But, your stupid lobotomized racist homophobic ass wouldn't understand because it's outside of your experience.
Click to expand...


You still have presented no valid reason, telling someone's faggoty boyfriend that someone died downrange is not a reason to lift DADT. No servicemember should have to know that a person is a faggot and faggots have no reason to make someone else know.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.
> 
> But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?
> 
> It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.
Click to expand...


Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.

You honestly must think very very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).

It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and beyond retarded.

Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.

Also thanks for confirming that you don't care about how DADT harms the military.

Less soldiers vs. other soldiers being mildly annoyed.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.
> 
> But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?
> 
> It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.
> 
> You honestly must think very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).
> 
> It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and utterly retarded.
> 
> Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.
Click to expand...


You're the one for lifting the status quo so the burden of proof is on you to prove that most servicemembers want to know if someone is a faggot or not. As for religion, it must be known to the military because every servicemember has a set of ID tags which list their religious preference in case they die and are in need of a burial so the military knows how to set it up. 


Nobody in the military except faggots themselves want to discuss homosexuality just ask most servicemembers.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.
> 
> You honestly must think very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).
> 
> It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and utterly retarded.
> 
> Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one for lifting the status quo so the burden of proof is on you to prove that most servicemembers want to know if someone is a faggot or not. As for religion, it must be known to the military because every servicemember has a set of ID tags which list their religious preference in case they die and are in need of a burial so the military knows how to set it up.
> 
> 
> Nobody in the military except faggots themselves want to discuss homosexuality just ask most servicemembers.
Click to expand...


No you made the claim, so you back it up.

I say it's not fair which is self-explanatory, and it's been shown that it leads to troops being fired that are needed.

You say most soldiers wouldn't like it YOU back it up.

Although I'll betcha anything that in terms of what they don't like about the army, dealing with gays is probably low on the list (vs. say dealing with desert climate, or drill instructors, etc.).

Bottom line is it seems you want to fire gays if they cause a minor annoyance to other soldiers, if you honestly don't see anything wrong with this you're letting your hatered effect your rationality.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.
> 
> You honestly must think very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).
> 
> It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and utterly retarded.
> 
> Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one for lifting the status quo so the burden of proof is on you to prove that most servicemembers want to know if someone is a faggot or not. As for religion, it must be known to the military because every servicemember has a set of ID tags which list their religious preference in case they die and are in need of a burial so the military knows how to set it up.
> 
> 
> Nobody in the military except faggots themselves want to discuss homosexuality just ask most servicemembers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you made the claim, so you back it up.
> 
> I say it's not fair which is self-explanatory, and it's been shown that it leads to troops being fired that are needed.
> 
> You say most soldiers wouldn't like it YOU back it up.
> 
> Although I'll betcha anything that in terms of what they don't like about the army, dealing with gays is probably low on the list (vs. say dealing with desert climate, or drill instructors, etc.).
> 
> Bottom line is it seems you want to fire gays if they cause a minor annoyance to other soldiers, if you honestly don't see anything wrong with this you're letting your hatered effect your rationality.
Click to expand...



Faggots can stay in as long as they don't openly serve and if they violate UCMJ thes should be dismissed, discharged or whatever.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.
> 
> Yeah.....you're a real hero.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Just stating a fact.  You've never deployed outside of the US for any length of time, and so therefore, do not understand the effect that just  ONE bad letter from home can cause.  Especially if it's a "dear John" letter.
> 
> Now......if we keep going with DADT, and a gay soldier is forward deployed to Afghanistan, but because of DADT, when he gets his "dear John" letter from his significant other, it's going to cause problems.  Big ones.
> 
> One may be that he's walking around on patrol with his squad, and he's trying to figure out what went wrong, and misses a terrorist with an RPG, or misses an IED on his lookout.
> 
> Tell me that being gay and being unable to tell anyone what is going on in your life has no bearing on how you perform your military duties.
> 
> If you do, you're wrong.
> 
> THAT is why DADT should be rescinded.
> 
> But, your stupid lobotomized racist homophobic ass wouldn't understand because it's outside of your experience.
Click to expand...


Your scenario is more BS than a little bit. Troops have lots of things on their minds that might distract them from some small detail in combat. You making up this story is simply stupid.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Never been on a ship, have ya?

On deployment for the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69) when we went to Desert Storm........

One guy got a care package.  In it was a tape of the Superbowl.  He got all his shipmates to watch the game with him.

When halftime came?  She came on the screen and told him that she was going to fuck him for the fucking he'd given her.

She then was pounded by 2 other guys, both holes.

Fucker went nuts and had to be discharged.

Yeah.......tell me again Army Bag Lady Ollie, no "one thing" can affect an entire workcenter.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Never been on a ship, have ya?
> 
> On deployment for the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69) when we went to Desert Storm........
> 
> One guy got a care package.  In it was a tape of the Superbowl.  He got all his shipmates to watch the game with him.
> 
> When halftime came?  She came on the screen and told him that she was going to fuck him for the fucking he'd given her.
> 
> She then was pounded by 2 other guys, both holes.
> 
> Fucker went nuts and had to be discharged.
> 
> Yeah.......tell me again Army Bag Lady Ollie, no "one thing" can affect an entire workcenter.



And this has what to do with gays?


----------



## ABikerSailor

It has to do with the one thing from home can fuck up an entire workcenter.

Yeah, that was an extreme example, but the bottom line is, it fucked up his workcenter FROM ONE BAD LETTER (tape actually).

Now, if a soldier who is forward deployed, and gay, gets a letter from home telling them that their partner is selling off everything and leaving them, you DON'T think it's going to affect things?

Sort of the same thing happened to me back in '93.  I'd gone on a 2 1/2 month deployment for the shakedown cruise of the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-73 to Ft. Lauderdale.

First 2 weeks, I was getting a letter every other day.  Things were good.  Then?  The letters stopped, because a chief who had just transferred was fucking my ex.  

I kept it in for quite a while (around 3 weeks), but, eventually, people noticed I wasn't very pleasant to be around as I was worried about home.  When they told the Chief, I finally said what was going on.  After that?  The guys around the office helped to keep me sane until I could get back and file for divorce.

Now, because of DADT, that same gay soldier would have NOBODY to talk to while at the tip of the spear.  Why?  Simple......to admit to anyone that his significant other (who is the same gender) is leaving him would result in discharge, so therefore, he's not eligible for counseling, financial assistance via the military relief fund (to help re-build his life when he gets back), or any resources that would be readily available to the hetero member.

Kinda brutal to put someone through that. 

And.........for the record........family emergencies like that can cause you to miss things when you're on patrol.  Miss a gunman or an IED?

It's lights out for a few people.  Not just you.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Needles in a haystack.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> It has to do with the one thing from home can fuck up an entire workcenter.
> 
> Yeah, that was an extreme example, but the bottom line is, it fucked up his workcenter FROM ONE BAD LETTER (tape actually).
> 
> Now, if a soldier who is forward deployed, and gay, gets a letter from home telling them that their partner is selling off everything and leaving them, you DON'T think it's going to affect things?
> 
> Sort of the same thing happened to me back in '93.  I'd gone on a 2 1/2 month deployment for the shakedown cruise of the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-73 to Ft. Lauderdale.
> 
> First 2 weeks, I was getting a letter every other day.  Things were good.  Then?  The letters stopped, because a chief who had just transferred was fucking my ex.
> 
> I kept it in for quite a while (around 3 weeks), but, eventually, people noticed I wasn't very pleasant to be around as I was worried about home.  When they told the Chief, I finally said what was going on.  After that?  The guys around the office helped to keep me sane until I could get back and file for divorce.
> 
> Now, because of DADT, that same gay soldier would have NOBODY to talk to while at the tip of the spear.  Why?  Simple......to admit to anyone that his significant other (who is the same gender) is leaving him would result in discharge, so therefore, he's not eligible for counseling, financial assistance via the military relief fund (to help re-build his life when he gets back), or any resources that would be readily available to the hetero member.
> 
> Kinda brutal to put someone through that.
> 
> And.........for the record........family emergencies like that can cause you to miss things when you're on patrol.  Miss a gunman or an IED?
> 
> It's lights out for a few people.  Not just you.



You just posted a pile of non-sequitir, lifting DADT is not going to change a situation you just described and that still doesn't provide a reason why a gays must absolutely tell someone that they're gay and it does not justify that servicemembers must absolutely have to know that someone is gay. In other words, why should a servicemember who has absolutely no interest in another person's sexual preference have to know or have it forcibly shoved in their faces? Why should gays have to reveal it? is either absolutely necessary to serve in the military and does it benefit all servicemembers? Nobody is interested in that sympathy driven, gay activist BS.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!



Resorting to personal attacks because your arguments have no justification and can't be backed up?


----------



## Modbert

Charlie, how do you keep up the act day in and day out?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Charlie Bass said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resorting to personal attacks because your arguments have no justification and can't be backed up?
Click to expand...





Wow you are one to talk. Wht a FOOL you are "The Bass".


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the one thing from home can fuck up an entire workcenter.
> 
> Yeah, that was an extreme example, but the bottom line is, it fucked up his workcenter FROM ONE BAD LETTER (tape actually).
> 
> Now, if a soldier who is forward deployed, and gay, gets a letter from home telling them that their partner is selling off everything and leaving them, you DON'T think it's going to affect things?
> 
> Sort of the same thing happened to me back in '93.  I'd gone on a 2 1/2 month deployment for the shakedown cruise of the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON CVN-73 to Ft. Lauderdale.
> 
> First 2 weeks, I was getting a letter every other day.  Things were good.  Then?  The letters stopped, because a chief who had just transferred was fucking my ex.
> 
> I kept it in for quite a while (around 3 weeks), but, eventually, people noticed I wasn't very pleasant to be around as I was worried about home.  When they told the Chief, I finally said what was going on.  After that?  The guys around the office helped to keep me sane until I could get back and file for divorce.
> 
> Now, because of DADT, that same gay soldier would have NOBODY to talk to while at the tip of the spear.  Why?  Simple......to admit to anyone that his significant other (who is the same gender) is leaving him would result in discharge, so therefore, he's not eligible for counseling, financial assistance via the military relief fund (to help re-build his life when he gets back), or any resources that would be readily available to the hetero member.
> 
> Kinda brutal to put someone through that.
> 
> And.........for the record........family emergencies like that can cause you to miss things when you're on patrol.  Miss a gunman or an IED?
> 
> It's lights out for a few people.  Not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just posted a pile of non-sequitir, lifting DADT is not going to change a situation you just described and that still doesn't provide a reason why a gays must absolutely tell someone that they're gay and it does not justify that servicemembers must absolutely have to know that someone is gay. In other words, why should a servicemember who has absolutely no interest in another person's sexual preference have to know or have it forcibly shoved in their faces? Why should gays have to reveal it? is either absolutely necessary to serve in the military and does it benefit all servicemembers? Nobody is interested in that sympathy driven, gay activist BS.
Click to expand...


I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.

Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.

Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.



No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends  and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.



> Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.



You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves? The military is about serving your country, not making a statement about one's sexuality while in uniform.



> Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?



It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?


Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military and don't go on about the loss of good troops because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on. The way to replace loss of good troops is through good training, mentoring and leadership, not lifting DADT.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow I didn't know "The Bass" is a COWARD as well as a self-loathing homophobe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resorting to personal attacks because your arguments have no justification and can't be backed up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are one to talk. Wht a FOOL you are "The Bass".
Click to expand...


Still personally attacking? The Bass has reason to respond again to a troll like you. You obviously have no valid arguments so why waste the time?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends  and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves? The military is about serving your country, not making a statement about one's sexuality while in uniform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?
> 
> 
> Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military and don't go on about the loss of good troops because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on. The way to replace loss of good troops is through good training, mentoring and leadership, not lifting DADT.
Click to expand...


First off Bass Hole........the girlfriends of the single members of the command ARE able to get help via the ombudsman and the wives clubs.

As far as the rest of your post?  Thanks for proving what a shitty leader you are.  I'm glad your cowardly malingering ass stayed Stateside.  Why?  You would have gotten a lot of people killed with your inept knowledge and lack of knowledge of resources that are available.

I'm guessing they told you to resign your commission, if you were an officer.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends  and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although do tell me why telling someone you're gay should be grounds for dismissal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves?
Click to expand...


Why should they have to? Revealing their sexuality will not cause any kind of harm to the troops and as such it's really dumb to fire them over that.




Charlie Bass said:


> It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?
> 
> 
> Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military *and don't go on about the loss of good troops* because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on.



Yes they lose troops all the time but that's no excuse to keep a policy that makes them lose even more troops for the stupidest of reasons.

It seems to me the onus is on you to demonstrate ANY harm in lifting DADT, we've demonstrated harm in keeping it. You're the one who says revealing being gay needs to be grounds for dismissal you back it up.

You've given absolutely nothing to defend DADT, all you've done is say "well you don't need to do it therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" which is absolutely retarded.


----------



## Father Time

Let's ban troops from discussing their home life at all, after all they don't NEED to talk about it and I'm sure some troops don't want to hear about it.

The punishment for this heinous crime should be instant dismissal.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.....they could get rid of DADT TOMORROW.

All they'd have to do is get the CNO, and the heads of all the other branches to send out a policy change, much like Admiral Zumwalt did in the 70's and 80's with his Z-grams.

I mean......it's not a law, it's just a policy.  They could change it next time they send out the instructions.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....they could get rid of DADT TOMORROW.
> 
> All they'd have to do is get the CNO, and the heads of all the other branches to send out a policy change, much like Admiral Zumwalt did in the 70's and 80's with his Z-grams.
> 
> I mean......it's not a law, it's just a policy.  They could change it next time they send out the instructions.



That is not going to happen.


"The chiefs of the Marine Corps and the Navy on Wednesday added their opposition to any quick repeal or relaxation of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the military.

 Their comments to lawmakers make it unanimous among the top officers in the military branches that a Pentagon review should be completed before any changes are made to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The go-slow advice from the chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, and the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, will make it more difficult for Congress to overturn the 1993 law or suspend its enforcement during this session. The chiefs of the Army and Air Force expressed similar views on Tuesday."

Two More Service Chiefs Urge Slow Change to &#39;Don&#39;t Ask, Don&#39;t Tell&#39; - Yahoo! News


Seems like the big boys don't really want DADT to go anywhere too soon. And they are right.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Then, if they're going to make this a legitimate study, rather than just paying lip service cool.

Send out the memos that they're going to start the study tomorrow, and all discharges from the service for reasons of homosexuality should be suspended for 1 year, pending review.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Why should they have to? Revealing their sexuality will not cause any kind of harm to the troops and as such it's really dumb to fire them over that.



Your "its not going to cause any harm argument" is irrelevant, you haven't established any reason why it is necessary for gays to reveal their sexuality. There are a lot of things not allowed by the military that would not "cause the troops any harm," such as certain hairstyles, body piercings, and tattoos on certain areas of the body, so what now, the military should do a total overhaul and allow everything? Not going to happen, the military is a peculiar organization certain, rules, regulation and structure and anyone joining the military must adapt to it, not the other way around.







> Yes they lose troops all the time but that's no excuse to keep a policy that makes them lose even more troops for the stupidest of reasons.



Troops are lost for a variety of reasons other than DADT and the military is not significantly affected by the loss of gays discharged under DADT. The military should not have to lower its standards or change rules to keep people in unless it adversely affects the military in such a way that it hampers everyday operations.  Plainly put, the military is suffering because of DADT and they're not losing that many of troops under DADT anyways compared to the other reasons why people are discharged.



> It seems to me the onus is on you to demonstrate ANY harm in lifting DADT, we've demonstrated harm in keeping it. You're the one who says revealing being gay needs to be grounds for dismissal you back it up.



The onus is on *YOU* to prove that its necessary for fags to reveal their sexuality and to prove that its necessary for troops to have to know. You have shown no reason why faggots must tell and why the other troops must know, you have shown no reason why its necessary.There are many gays who have kept their homosexuality to themselves and do their jobs without making their sexuality an issue and it hasn't adversely affected the military. You must show that DADT is doing the military significant harm and thats the policy is seriously affecting the military in a negative way.



> You've given absolutely nothing to defend DADT, all you've done is say "well you don't need to do it therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" which is absolutely retarded.



You have shown no reason why it should be lifted other than to appease the selfish interest of fags who want to openly say they're fags. Openly stating that they're faggots isn't going to make the military better.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Then, if they're going to make this a legitimate study, rather than just paying lip service cool.
> 
> Send out the memos that they're going to start the study tomorrow, and all discharges from the service for reasons of homosexuality should be suspended for 1 year, pending review.




And if this study finds that lifting DADT is going to cause more harm and problems than keeping the status quo then what are you going to say, those high ranking officers are a bunch of homophobes[since you think a person with higher rank is always right)? 


You and the rest of the pro-faggot lobby want the policy lifted immediately without any careful consideration of how its really going to affect troops and their family, housing in barracks and family housing, the issue of faggots who are married and if their marriages would be recognized by the military, how troops are going to react to having leaders who are faggots, etc the list goes on, you pro-faggot lovers want to ignore all those considerations because you actually believe everything is going to be alright[actually, you all don't care how it affects others as long as fags have their way] with minimal problems, but how can you know this without proper research and investigation? Its just more proof of how you and the rest of the faggot lovers put politics and gay activist agenda before the needs, concerns and operations of the military.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.

What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you even read the post, there's an example of the good it will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, that situation is not one that calls for lifting DADT, it could be handled through other channels. Unmarried troops have girlfriends and friends  and run into the same problems, there sexuality doesn't need to be openly stated to be part of a solution. If someone sends a letter stating that your property is getting sold off its up to the troop to handle it, he/she sexuality does not need to be known, plus troops should make proper preparations before they deploy to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't the question as to why is it necessary to tell someone if you're gay. You keep stating that one's sexuality isn't a hindrance from doing their jobs, so why the hell is it necessary to tell someone in the first place? Why can't gays do their jobs and keep their sexual preference to themselves? The military is about serving your country, not making a statement about one's sexuality while in uniform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also you know damn well this isn't about shoving it in people's faces but the mere mention of it, so why are you lying about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is too about shoving their homosexuality into people's faces, they are already allowed to serve, as long as they don't disclose openly say they're gay, so please tell the Bass why in the hell does someone have to be told about someone else's sexual preference?
> 
> 
> Here we are, weeks into this thread and you still have provided no basis for why gays must tell other troops that they're gay, and you still have provided no basis as to why other troops should have to know. You have shown no evidence that lifting DADT is going to help the military and don't go on about the loss of good troops because the military loses good troops every year for a variety of reasons other than violating DADT and the mission still goes on. The way to replace loss of good troops is through good training, mentoring and leadership, not lifting DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off Bass Hole........the girlfriends of the single members of the command ARE able to get help via the ombudsman and the wives clubs.
> 
> As far as the rest of your post?  Thanks for proving what a shitty leader you are.  I'm glad your cowardly malingering ass stayed Stateside.  Why?  You would have gotten a lot of people killed with your inept knowledge and lack of knowledge of resources that are available.
> 
> I'm guessing they told you to resign your commission, if you were an officer.
Click to expand...


More personal attacks from a faggot loving, substandard squid. When you come up with some legitimate and coherent rebuttals maybe the Bass will really answer you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

What part of the girlfriends of the single dudes had access to the ombudsman and the wives club did you miss?

Single guys have resources they can access as well.  Gays don't, because of DADT.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
> 
> What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?



Cite the stats that prove that DADT causes the military to significantly lose a lot of money and lowers military readiness. The Bass is waiting you retard, the military loses a lot of money for discharging troops for a variety reasons and DADT is not even a major one. Anyone in the military can and does get replaced and the mission still goes on and gets done, as long as those getting replaced are properly trained, disciplined and dedicated. The Bass has seen drug addicts, overweight people, and people who make rank in a specific timeframe get discharged, but work wise their performances were superior, does that mean the military should ease its restrictions and lower its standards? You're a disgrace to the NCO Corps if you believe that because its the reponsibility of the NCO to enforce the standards and correct and bring troops up to speed when they're slacking and getting substandard, not ask for the military to lower the standards.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> What part of the girlfriends of the single dudes had access to the ombudsman and the wives club did you miss?
> 
> Single guys have resources they can access as well.  Gays don't, because of DADT.



Again, its the responsibility of the troop to get his/her affairs in order before deploying and one does not need to lift DADT to help gays in this respect, they could call just like anyone else and get assistance without making their sexuality known.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
> 
> What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the stats that prove that DADT causes the military to significantly lose a lot of money and lowers military readiness. The Bass is waiting you retard, the military loses a lot of money for discharging troops for a variety reasons and DADT is not even a major one. Anyone in the military can and does get replaced and the mission still goes on and gets done, as long as those getting replaced are properly trained, disciplined and dedicated. The Bass has seen drug addicts, overweight people, and people who make rank in a specific timeframe get discharged, but work wise their performances were superior, does that mean the military should ease its restrictions and lower its standards? You're a disgrace to the NCO Corps if you believe that because its the reponsibility of the NCO to enforce the standards and correct and bring troops up to speed when they're slacking and getting substandard, not ask for the military to lower the standards.
Click to expand...


Army Lt. Daniel Cho.  He's a squad leader, combat tested who also happened to be only 1 of 500 Arabic translators in the entire US military.  Now, do YOU speak Arabic?  It's a very hard language to learn, with many different dialects.  Don't you think that a translator of his type is a significant asset, especially with the problems that we've currently got with the lack of translators?

Another significant asset.........Air Force pilot is currently being processed for discharge for being gay.  He has several awards for combat, one of which is a DFC with a V for valor.  He saved an entire squad of troops who came under enemy fire from Taliban by himself.

It costs 1 million dollars to train 1 combat troop on the front lines.  He saved over 10 that day, which means he saved the government 10 million in assets, as well as saved the possibility of having to shell out more money in the form of funerals and SGLI.

How is that not a waste of money to discharge them?


----------



## SFC Ollie

We've heard it all before. It's not going to happen this year. The Gays will have to remain in the closet if they want to serve. On to the next problem.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the girlfriends of the single dudes had access to the ombudsman and the wives club did you miss?
> 
> Single guys have resources they can access as well.  Gays don't, because of DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, its the responsibility of the troop to get his/her affairs in order before deploying and one does not need to lift DADT to help gays in this respect, they could call just like anyone else and get assistance without making their sexuality known.
Click to expand...


You've obviously never been to a Navy Relief office to get assistance, have you?  I had to when I went home on emergency leave from Greece back to Montana in '98.  Not only do they require a copy of your LES, but they also want to know what the family situation is.

And.......in the cases of counseling, they wish to know what caused the problem.

Tell them you're gay?  Automatic discharge.  Yeah.......tell me again how much they can access those resources for those reasons.  They'd have to lie, and if caught in the lie, they would be discharged anyway.

How stupid are you anyway Bass Hole?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
> 
> What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the stats that prove that DADT causes the military to significantly lose a lot of money and lowers military readiness. The Bass is waiting you retard, the military loses a lot of money for discharging troops for a variety reasons and DADT is not even a major one. Anyone in the military can and does get replaced and the mission still goes on and gets done, as long as those getting replaced are properly trained, disciplined and dedicated. The Bass has seen drug addicts, overweight people, and people who make rank in a specific timeframe get discharged, but work wise their performances were superior, does that mean the military should ease its restrictions and lower its standards? You're a disgrace to the NCO Corps if you believe that because its the reponsibility of the NCO to enforce the standards and correct and bring troops up to speed when they're slacking and getting substandard, not ask for the military to lower the standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Army Lt. Daniel Cho.  He's a squad leader, combat tested who also happened to be only 1 of 500 Arabic translators in the entire US military.  Now, do YOU speak Arabic?  It's a very hard language to learn, with many different dialects.  Don't you think that a translator of his type is a significant asset, especially with the problems that we've currently got with the lack of translators?
> 
> Another significant asset.........Air Force pilot is currently being processed for discharge for being gay.  He has several awards for combat, one of which is a DFC with a V for valor.  He saved an entire squad of troops who came under enemy fire from Taliban by himself.
> 
> It costs 1 million dollars to train 1 combat troop on the front lines.  He saved over 10 that day, which means he saved the government 10 million in assets, as well as saved the possibility of having to shell out more money in the form of funerals and SGLI.
> 
> How is that not a waste of money to discharge them?
Click to expand...


If neither would have lied before joining the military the government would not have lost any money, end of story. You post two examples, not stats. There are pilots and translators who leave the military year after year for reasons other than DADT, such as leaving for big money jobs, the military loses more money for that reason[lack of ability to retain] than to fags who knowingly lie and and defraud the government by lying their way through DADT.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Listen you ignorant asshole.......both those men WANT TO STAY.  They are patriotic.

Unlike some malingering cowards who decided to stay stateside that I could name.

And, considering that the war on terror still has MANY Arabic speaking participants, it was a waste to kick out Lt Cho.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the girlfriends of the single dudes had access to the ombudsman and the wives club did you miss?
> 
> Single guys have resources they can access as well.  Gays don't, because of DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, its the responsibility of the troop to get his/her affairs in order before deploying and one does not need to lift DADT to help gays in this respect, they could call just like anyone else and get assistance without making their sexuality known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never been to a Navy Relief office to get assistance, have you?  I had to when I went home on emergency leave from Greece back to Montana in '98.  Not only do they require a copy of your LES, but they also want to know what the family situation is.
> 
> And.......in the cases of counseling, they wish to know what caused the problem.
> 
> Tell them you're gay?  Automatic discharge.  Yeah.......tell me again how much they can access those resources for those reasons.  They'd have to lie, and if caught in the lie, they would be discharged anyway.
> 
> How stupid are you anyway Bass Hole?
Click to expand...


Again you have provided no reason why lifting DADT is necessary. Bottom line, its the responsibility of the service member to set their affairs in order whether they deploy or not. All troops should have a plan in place in case something happens. Emergency leave are special situations that require or strongly suggest the presence of a service member and having a faggot boyfriend that sell off your belongings is not a reason to lift DADT.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Listen you ignorant asshole.......both those men WANT TO STAY.  They are patriotic.
> 
> Unlike some malingering cowards who decided to stay stateside that I could name.
> 
> And, considering that the war on terror still has MANY Arabic speaking participants, it was a waste to kick out Lt Cho.



those who are patriotic and want to stay will show sacrifice and selfless service, not selfishness overlain with gay activism.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You really are one fucked individual.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> You really are one fucked individual.



Great, now resorting to personal attacks once again.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the stats that prove that DADT causes the military to significantly lose a lot of money and lowers military readiness. The Bass is waiting you retard, the military loses a lot of money for discharging troops for a variety reasons and DADT is not even a major one. Anyone in the military can and does get replaced and the mission still goes on and gets done, as long as those getting replaced are properly trained, disciplined and dedicated. The Bass has seen drug addicts, overweight people, and people who make rank in a specific timeframe get discharged, but work wise their performances were superior, does that mean the military should ease its restrictions and lower its standards? You're a disgrace to the NCO Corps if you believe that because its the reponsibility of the NCO to enforce the standards and correct and bring troops up to speed when they're slacking and getting substandard, not ask for the military to lower the standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army Lt. Daniel Cho.  He's a squad leader, combat tested who also happened to be only 1 of 500 Arabic translators in the entire US military.  Now, do YOU speak Arabic?  It's a very hard language to learn, with many different dialects.  Don't you think that a translator of his type is a significant asset, especially with the problems that we've currently got with the lack of translators?
> 
> Another significant asset.........Air Force pilot is currently being processed for discharge for being gay.  He has several awards for combat, one of which is a DFC with a V for valor.  He saved an entire squad of troops who came under enemy fire from Taliban by himself.
> 
> It costs 1 million dollars to train 1 combat troop on the front lines.  He saved over 10 that day, which means he saved the government 10 million in assets, as well as saved the possibility of having to shell out more money in the form of funerals and SGLI.
> 
> How is that not a waste of money to discharge them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If neither would have lied before joining the military the government would not have lost any money, end of story. You post two examples, not stats. There are pilots and translators who leave the military year after year for reasons other than DADT, such as leaving for big money jobs, the military loses more money for that reason[lack of ability to retain] than to fags who knowingly lie and and defraud the government by lying their way through DADT.
Click to expand...


What the fuck idiot?  You do realize what DADT stands for right?  Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

No lying was involved upon enlistment as you claim, because they COULDN'T ASK THEIR FUCKING SEXUAL PREFERENCE AT ENLISTMENT!

Fuck you're stupid.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they have to? Revealing their sexuality will not cause any kind of harm to the troops and as such it's really dumb to fire them over that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "its not going to cause any harm argument" is irrelevant, you haven't established any reason why it is necessary for gays to reveal their sexuality.
Click to expand...


Once again "you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it" is not a good argument for anything ever.



Charlie Bass said:


> There are a lot of things not allowed by the military that would not "cause the troops any harm," such as certain hairstyles, body piercings, and tattoos on certain areas of the body, so what now, the military should do a total overhaul and allow everything? Not going to happen, the military is a peculiar organization certain, rules, regulation and structure and anyone joining the military must adapt to it, not the other way around.



Less arbitrary rules is always a good thing.



Charlie Bass said:


> The onus is on *YOU* to prove that its necessary for fags to reveal their sexuality and to prove that its necessary for troops to have to know.



I don't need to prove it's necessary that's never been the standard. We've all ready shown some harm it will cause and unless you can point to a benefit caused by it, that's good enough to can it.



Charlie Bass said:


> You've given absolutely nothing to defend DADT, all you've done is say "well you don't need to do it therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" which is absolutely retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown no reason why it should be lifted other than to appease the selfish interest of fags who want to openly say they're fags. Openly stating that they're faggots isn't going to make the military better.
Click to expand...


Ok so you have no good reason why it should stay then. Gotcha.

Your breathtakingly stupid logic amounts to "we don't urgently need to change the law therefore we should keep it, despite the harm it causes". 

Hey let's segregate blacks then, if you complain I'll ask you why blacks NEED to integrate with other races.

I wonder if you can provide any reason why it is necessary that the military has to keep these rules in the first place.

Methinks you cannot and you'll just keep dodging the same question you spew out over and over as if that's the only thing that matters.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one fucked individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, now resorting to personal attacks once again.
Click to expand...


Considering you resort to insulting gays every other post I don't have any pity.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should they have to? Revealing their sexuality will not cause any kind of harm to the troops and as such it's really dumb to fire them over that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "its not going to cause any harm argument" is irrelevant, you haven't established any reason why it is necessary for gays to reveal their sexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again "you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it" is not a good argument for anything ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Less arbitrary rules is always a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove it's necessary that's never been the standard. We've all ready shown some harm it will cause and unless you can point to a benefit caused by it, that's good enough to can it.
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've given absolutely nothing to defend DADT, all you've done is say "well you don't need to do it therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" which is absolutely retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have shown no reason why it should be lifted other than to appease the selfish interest of fags who want to openly say they're fags. Openly stating that they're faggots isn't going to make the military better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so you have no good reason why it should stay then. Gotcha.
> 
> Your breathtakingly stupid logic amounts to "we don't urgently need to change the law therefore we should keep it, despite the harm it causes".
> 
> Hey let's segregate blacks then, if you complain I'll ask you why blacks NEED to integrate with other races.
> 
> I wonder if you can provide any reason why it is necessary that the military has to keep these rules in the first place.
> 
> Methinks you cannot and you'll just keep dodging the same question you spew out over and over as if that's the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...


You have demonstrated no reason why it is *NECESSARY* for gay to openly say they're gay and you've no reason why it is *NECESSARY* that other troops must know, thus no reason for lifting DADT exists.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are one fucked individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, now resorting to personal attacks once again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering you resort to insulting gays every other post I don't have any pity.
Click to expand...


As if the Bass needs the sympathy of pro-sodomites, the bass detests the actions of such people.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Army Lt. Daniel Cho.  He's a squad leader, combat tested who also happened to be only 1 of 500 Arabic translators in the entire US military.  Now, do YOU speak Arabic?  It's a very hard language to learn, with many different dialects.  Don't you think that a translator of his type is a significant asset, especially with the problems that we've currently got with the lack of translators?
> 
> Another significant asset.........Air Force pilot is currently being processed for discharge for being gay.  He has several awards for combat, one of which is a DFC with a V for valor.  He saved an entire squad of troops who came under enemy fire from Taliban by himself.
> 
> It costs 1 million dollars to train 1 combat troop on the front lines.  He saved over 10 that day, which means he saved the government 10 million in assets, as well as saved the possibility of having to shell out more money in the form of funerals and SGLI.
> 
> How is that not a waste of money to discharge them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If neither would have lied before joining the military the government would not have lost any money, end of story. You post two examples, not stats. There are pilots and translators who leave the military year after year for reasons other than DADT, such as leaving for big money jobs, the military loses more money for that reason[lack of ability to retain] than to fags who knowingly lie and and defraud the government by lying their way through DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck idiot?  You do realize what DADT stands for right?  Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
> 
> No lying was involved upon enlistment as you claim, because they COULDN'T ASK THEIR FUCKING SEXUAL PREFERENCE AT ENLISTMENT!
> 
> Fuck you're stupid.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is not allowed in the military stupid, so they did knowing break rules by lying, when one takes an oath they take an oath to also obey the rules and orders of those appointed over them.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Bullshit.  If that's the case, then DADT is not required.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Bullshit.  If that's the case, then DADT is not required.




Homosexual conduct is in violation of DOD Policy.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Not under DADT.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Not under DADT.




US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

Stupid.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "its not going to cause any harm argument" is irrelevant, you haven't established any reason why it is necessary for gays to reveal their sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again "you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it" is not a good argument for anything ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Less arbitrary rules is always a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove it's necessary that's never been the standard. We've all ready shown some harm it will cause and unless you can point to a benefit caused by it, that's good enough to can it.
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown no reason why it should be lifted other than to appease the selfish interest of fags who want to openly say they're fags. Openly stating that they're faggots isn't going to make the military better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so you have no good reason why it should stay then. Gotcha.
> 
> Your breathtakingly stupid logic amounts to "we don't urgently need to change the law therefore we should keep it, despite the harm it causes".
> 
> Hey let's segregate blacks then, if you complain I'll ask you why blacks NEED to integrate with other races.
> 
> I wonder if you can provide any reason why it is necessary that the military has to keep these rules in the first place.
> 
> Methinks you cannot and you'll just keep dodging the same question you spew out over and over as if that's the only thing that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated no reason why it is *NECESSARY* for gay to openly say they're gay and you've no reason why it is *NECESSARY* that other troops must know, thus no reason for lifting DADT exists.
Click to expand...


Notice he has no counter arguments just repeating the same argument as if I hadn't all ready addressed it.

I'll say it again
a. you haven't demonstrated why DADT is necessary
b. that's a stupid criteria for changing rules
c. It wasn't necessary to desegregate blacks from the army.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.

Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.


----------



## Father Time

SFC Ollie said:


> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.



Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".


----------



## SFC Ollie

Father Time said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
Click to expand...


I'm an old soldier, I have always been against gays serving openly in the Military. I retired about the time Clinton started DADT.


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an old soldier, I have always been against gays serving openly in the Military. I retired about the time Clinton started DADT.
Click to expand...


I served from 68-93... certainly just as "old school" as you... and I served with several talented and professional gays in the navy and never ONCE had a problem or witnessed a problem with any of them... and neither do any of the armed forces of the vast majority of our allies.  methinks that, in this case, "old school" is just a code word for irrational bigotry.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.

They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.

People like Ollie are the last of the old guard.  They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.


----------



## maineman

ABikerSailor said:


> You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
> 
> They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
> 
> People like Ollie are the last of the old guard.  They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.





and they are heirs to an earlier generation of naysayers who said we would significantly degrade unit cohesiveness by allowing blacks to serve alongside whites.


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
> 
> They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
> 
> People like Ollie are the last of the old guard.  They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.



You're stereotyping and I disagree.

True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?

This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.  Forget that crap.  That's not "old guard".  That's common sense.  

Your attempted comparison of gays to women doesn't sail.  Women are defined by gender, not their sexual behavior.  Males are defined by their gender, not their sexual behavior.  We dropped the "Woman" from "Marine" a long time ago.  

Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit.  They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.  I didn't drop them any faster than I would a shitbird.  You don't fit, you're gone.  People live and die  by  unit cohesion.  Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this. 

They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
Click to expand...


I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals? 

If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?
> 
> If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.
Click to expand...


Hoorah !


----------



## Flaylo

SFC Ollie said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?
> 
> If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoorah !
Click to expand...


You are a fellow soldier so you understand this better than others in this forum. The Army only asks soldiers to do their jobs, maintain a high level of discipline and professionalism at all times, if homosexuals can do this and keep their sexual private lives to themselves everything is square, if they cannot, refuse and or are unable to follow military regulation I'll be more than happy to assist them via a Chapter 15.


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
> 
> What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?



I'm an E-7 with almost 15 years in the Army and I have seen the problems that homosexuals and homosexual behavior has caused units all the way down to squad level and believe me when I tell you there was no trust of homosexuals, regardless of how well they did their jobs.  Soldiers were very uncomfortable around people they perceived to be gay, imagine if DADT is lifted and soldiers are faced with having to share close and private quarters with a known and open homosexual, all hell would break lose. If a straight soldiers doesn't want to share his barracks room with a gay person because of concerns about his privacy, who am I to force him?


I'll take better unit cohesion and higher morale over having to manage the problem of giving a soldier extra special attention and protection because he's gay, better if he kept it to himself and who ever he's having sex with.


----------



## Gunny

SFC Ollie said:


> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.



Another no-brainer.  The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males.  When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.  

No one wants them around.  Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.  

Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with.  That's for both hetero-and homosexuals.  Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that?  That's nobody's business.  

It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing.  A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.


----------



## Gunny

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
> 
> What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an E-7 with almost 15 years in the Army and I have seen the problems that homosexuals and homosexual behavior has caused units all the way down to squad level and believe me when I tell you there was no trust of homosexuals, regardless of how well they did their jobs.  Soldiers were very uncomfortable around people they perceived to be gay, imagine if DADT is lifted and soldiers are faced with having to share close and private quarters with a known and open homosexual, all hell would break lose. If a straight soldiers doesn't want to share his barracks room with a gay person because of concerns about his privacy, who am I to force him?
> 
> 
> I'll take better unit cohesion and higher morale over having to manage the problem of giving a soldier extra special attention and protection because he's gay, better if he kept it to himself and who ever he's having sex with.
Click to expand...


IMO, it's about judgment.  Good judgment is expected to the point of demanded in the military and in the back of everyone's head is "this boot doesn't know where his dick belong if he's sticking it to another dude".  That goes to my argument about unit cohesion.

They disrupt the unit.  I don't care why, personally.  Only that they do.


----------



## Flaylo

Gunny said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another no-brainer.  The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males.  When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.
> 
> No one wants them around.  Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.
> 
> Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with.  That's for both hetero-and homosexuals.  Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that?  That's nobody's business.
> 
> It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing.  A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
Click to expand...


IMO, the flamers and bleeding hearts have a one-sided agenda and that is to look solely after the interests of homosexuals, they care about the long and short term fallout of their agendas. IF DADT is rescinded and things become problematic, they not going to take the blame for it, they're going to pass the buck and blame the opposition.


----------



## Gunny

Flaylo said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another no-brainer.  The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males.  When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.
> 
> No one wants them around.  Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.
> 
> Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with.  That's for both hetero-and homosexuals.  Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that?  That's nobody's business.
> 
> It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing.  A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO, the flamers and bleeding hearts have a one-sided agenda and that is to look solely after the interests of homosexuals, they care about the long and short term fallout of their agendas. IF DADT is rescinded and things become problematic, they not going to take the blame for it, they're going to pass the buck and blame the opposition.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## amrchaos

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?



I do not care if another person see my package--but I do care about getting hit on in the showers or any where else by another Dude!!

Of course, I doubt that a thinking person would try to to approach someone in the showers.  That is just creepy!!


----------



## amrchaos

Father Time said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.
> 
> How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?
> 
> Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, we have been presented with a great tool in DADT if it makes the Homosexual recruit reach for the sky before the CO can finish issuing the command!! I tell you, DADT is like super soldier serum--but you don't have to mix a damn thing to get the  homosexuals Fighting mad!!  That is the kind of policy the military needs!!  A policy that turns a soldier into Hardened Soldiers on the first day they step onto the training fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?
> 
> Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!!  Now that would be an even meaner military!!  Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!
> 
> I can already see them on the go!!  Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!!  What a concept!!  DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.
> 
> But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.
> 
> It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
Click to expand...





1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"??  I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!!  How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual?  There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.

You take pride in a very useless characterization!!  I have yet to find one purpose for homosexuality!! And do not tell me that  "It occurs naturally, so it has a natural purpose"
. Bullcrap!!  It has no purpose and could be the result of a genetic disease that affects the brain.

Homosexuals need counselling and medication to straighten them out.  Now how many times I have to say that??


2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
For the sexual preference losers?  Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.


----------



## amrchaos

Gunny said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another no-brainer.  The military -- especially the Corps and the Army -- is chock full of alpha males.  When a Marine was found to be gay, they had to be put in what amounts to protective custody.
> 
> No one wants them around.  Well, except the flamers who want to flaunt their homosexuality and the bleeding hearts that aren't in the military and don't have to deal with the consequence of their political agenda.
> 
> Then there's the fact that, IMO, talking about what you did with whom in the workplace is inappropriate behavior to begin with.  That's for both hetero-and homosexuals.  Why would anyone want to disrespect his/her partner like that?  That's nobody's business.
> 
> It's that whole "why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own home?" thing.  A good enough argument for the bleeding hearts when it works for them, but doesn't answers people who want to flaunt their sexually aberrant lifestyle in everyone's faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the flamers and bleeding hearts have a one-sided agenda and that is to look solely after the interests of homosexuals, they care about the long and short term fallout of their agendas. IF DADT is rescinded and things become problematic, they not going to take the blame for it, they're going to pass the buck and blame the opposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...




I think the only problem that rescinding DADT will have is that a bunch of "forced in the closet" soldiers will come marching out.  

What is going to happen--A little celebration by the pro-gays, a couple of "Aw Hells" by the anti-gays.   Then the military will go back to normal--except for a couple of soldiers wearing the wrong uniform!!


----------



## Father Time

Gunny said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
> 
> They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
> 
> People like Ollie are the last of the old guard.  They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping and I disagree.
> 
> True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?
> 
> This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
Click to expand...


So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.



Gunny said:


> Forget that crap.  That's not "old guard".  That's common sense.



So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.



Gunny said:


> Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit.  They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.



Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.



Gunny said:


> Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.



I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?
Click to expand...


Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?



Flaylo said:


> If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me.



Then why only go after gays?



Flaylo said:


> If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.


Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.



honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Father Time said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
> 
> They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
> 
> People like Ollie are the last of the old guard.  They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping and I disagree.
> 
> True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?
> 
> This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit.  They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
Click to expand...


Once again, the color of a persons skin and their sexual orientation are two different things.

And Once again, Working with and living with are two very different situations.

And politics, I do not ever remember having a political discussion with my troops or with one of my sergeants. Just wasn't something we talked about. Other than something about the "assholes in congress screwed us again" type comments. And you heard that all the time regardless who was in power.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Douchebag, I spent 20 years in the military, as well as saw many of the problems DADT causes, as well as the money that it wastes.
> 
> What you got?  4 years stateside sitting behind a desk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an E-7 with almost 15 years in the Army and I have seen the problems that homosexuals and homosexual behavior has caused units all the way down to squad level and believe me when I tell you there was no trust of homosexuals, regardless of how well they did their jobs.  Soldiers were very uncomfortable around people they perceived to be gay, imagine if DADT is lifted and soldiers are faced with having to share close and private quarters with a known and open homosexual, all hell would break lose.
Click to expand...


You mean the hell that hasn't happened in every other military that lets gays serve openly?



Flaylo said:


> If a straight soldiers doesn't want to share his barracks room with a gay person because of concerns about his privacy, who am I to force him?



You going to hold their hand for everything? College kids can handle bunking with gays, I would hope soldiers would be able to handle it.



Flaylo said:


> I'll take better unit cohesion and higher morale over having to manage the problem of giving a soldier extra special attention and protection because he's gay, better if he kept it to himself and who ever he's having sex with.



How are you able to call it extra protection with a straight face? Straights can openly flaunt or mention their sexuality, you want to allow the gays the same thing and all of a sudden it's special treatment?

Get real.


----------



## Father Time

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping and I disagree.
> 
> True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?
> 
> This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the color of a persons skin and their sexual orientation are two different things.
Click to expand...


Yes but in both cases people can be uncomfortable bunking with someone because of it.


----------



## Father Time

amrchaos said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?
> 
> Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!!  Now that would be an even meaner military!!  Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!
> 
> I can already see them on the go!!  Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!!  What a concept!!  DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.
> 
> But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.
> 
> It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"??  I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!!  How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual?  There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.
> 
> You take pride in a very useless characterization!!
Click to expand...


I NEVER said that.



amrchaos said:


> 2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
> For the sexual preference losers?  Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.



"Life's unfair therefore it's Ok for us to make it more unfair"

The official cop out of anyone with no other arguments.


----------



## amrchaos

Father Time said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?
> 
> Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.
> 
> But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.
> 
> It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"??  I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!!  How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual?  There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.
> 
> You take pride in a very useless characterization!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I NEVER said that.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
> For the sexual preference losers?  Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Life's unfair therefore it's Ok for us to make it more unfair"
> 
> The official cop out of anyone with no other arguments.
Click to expand...



Well how about this arguement.

*We do it because we CAN!!*​

PS--If you think it is only because we "breeders" are the majority, then understand this.  If homosexuals were the majority, the end of the human race is at hand!!


----------



## ABikerSailor

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
Click to expand...


Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.

They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.

Could you possibly back me up on this sir?


----------



## maineman

ABikerSailor said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
> 
> They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
> 
> Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
Click to expand...


completely.    As I said, I knew plenty of talented, dedicated, patriotic, professional gay career sailors.  Their loss would have been a degradation of service wide readiness.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yes.  And because of the requirements of DADT, whenever something happened back on the home front, because of the regs, when it came to the attention of the command, they generally had no choice but to discharge them.

Although.......in some cases, they tied it up in legal paperwork to allow the member to finish their terms.


----------



## Father Time

amrchaos said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)When did I say "I don't dislike gays"??  I dislike many of the gays and their supporters on this board!!  How in the world can you be a self-righteous homosexual?  There is nothing "righteous" in Homosexuality.
> 
> You take pride in a very useless characterization!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I NEVER said that.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.
> For the sexual preference losers?  Come on, life was unfair the moment they found out they were gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Life's unfair therefore it's Ok for us to make it more unfair"
> 
> The official cop out of anyone with no other arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well how about this arguement.
> 
> *We do it because we CAN!!*​
> 
> PS--If you think it is only because we "breeders" are the majority, then understand this.  If homosexuals were the majority, the end of the human race is at hand!!
Click to expand...


I'm not gay so stop saying I am.

We do it because we can?

That's an even worse excuse.

"Why did you steal that car?"
"Because I can!"


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Yes but in both cases people can be uncomfortable bunking with someone because of it.



People are uncomfortable with people who fart around them, why not use that example? Skin color and a lifestyle defined by sexual acts are not the same so quit making that stupid comparison. Blacks were allowed to serve in the military, they were just segregated under separate but equal laws, that of course were not equal and not Constitutional.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry gentlemen, But nowhere have i wasted anyone's time by comparing Gays to blacks, or women. There truly is no comparison. You may continue to call me names but fact is that the Brass is now telling congress to slow down and give them time to study this.
> 
> They do expect problems if DADT is rescinded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
> 
> They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
> 
> Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
Click to expand...


Your nose is so far up maineman's crack that your face beyond brown. neither of you are in the military anymore.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> honestly.... don't you think that the brass back in 1947 expected problems with integrating blacks into the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
> 
> They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
> 
> Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> completely.    As I said, I knew plenty of talented, dedicated, patriotic, professional gay career sailors.  Their loss would have been a degradation of service wide readiness.
Click to expand...


There is no proof that DADT lowers military readiness, please post stats that state this. Its not like fags are and can be the only talented, dedicated, patriotic and professional troops in the military, the leave out the vast majority who are not faggots.


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
> 
> They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
> 
> Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> completely.    As I said, I knew plenty of talented, dedicated, patriotic, professional gay career sailors.  Their loss would have been a degradation of service wide readiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no proof that DADT lowers military readiness, please post stats that state this. Its not like fags are and can be the only talented, dedicated, patriotic and professional troops in the military, the leave out the vast majority who are not faggots.
Click to expand...


I never said that gays are the only talented troops in the military.... but MANY of them ARE just that.  Biker's previous example of the arab translator proves that the loss of just that one soldier significantly reduces our capabilities.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey CDR, these ground pounders (namely Ollie and Bass), don't believe that one screwed up letter can have a negative effect on an entire workcenter.
> 
> They also state the 2 examples that I've brought up about the gay service member being affected by NOT being able to talk about what is going on at home is a far fetched example and almost impossible.
> 
> Could you possibly back me up on this sir?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> completely.    As I said, I knew plenty of talented, dedicated, patriotic, professional gay career sailors.  Their loss would have been a degradation of service wide readiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no proof that DADT lowers military readiness, please post stats that state this. Its not like fags are and can be the only talented, dedicated, patriotic and professional troops in the military, the leave out the vast majority who are not faggots.
Click to expand...


Yo, dipshit Bass Hole........did you ever learn English you dumb fuck?

Don't Ask - that means they CANNOT ASK about your sexual orientation.

Don't Tell - that means they CAN'T TELL YOU what their sexual orientation is.

How the fuck are there going to be any statistics?  Remember, there are people serving who are gay, and still closeted.

Go ahead stupid.......tell us how they're going to compose statistics.

How the fuck your dumb ass ever made it as an officer in the Air Force is way beyond anyone.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> You mean the hell that hasn't happened in every other military that lets gays serve openly?



The US military is not like very other military, if faggots want to be in the military openly so bad why don't join those other militaries that you speak about so much?





> You going to hold their hand for everything? College kids can handle bunking with gays, I would hope soldiers would be able to handle it.



The US military is not comparable to a damn college dorm life, you have never served and you are not serving so who are you to say what troops should be able to handle? The military life is far from being anything like a college dorm life. You come up wuith these stupid low budget comparisons all the time.





> How are you able to call it extra protection with a straight face? Straights can openly flaunt or mention their sexuality, you want to allow the gays the same thing and all of a sudden it's special treatment?
> 
> Get real.



Straight troops don't openly flaunt their sexuality in uniform you idiot, again, you have never served and are not serving so how would you know?


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> Straight troops don't openly flaunt their sexuality in uniform you idiot, again, you have never served and are not serving so how would you know?



I HAVE served, longer than you, no doubt, and I know that, if you were honest, you would admit that staight troops regale their buddies with the details of their sexual exploits all the time.  How many times have you heard your subordinates brag about getting more ass than a toilet seat out on the town?  get real.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> completely.    As I said, I knew plenty of talented, dedicated, patriotic, professional gay career sailors.  Their loss would have been a degradation of service wide readiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that DADT lowers military readiness, please post stats that state this. Its not like fags are and can be the only talented, dedicated, patriotic and professional troops in the military, the leave out the vast majority who are not faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, dipshit Bass Hole........did you ever learn English you dumb fuck?
> 
> Don't Ask - that means they CANNOT ASK about your sexual orientation.
> 
> Don't Tell - that means they CAN'T TELL YOU what their sexual orientation is.
> 
> How the fuck are there going to be any statistics?  Remember, there are people serving who are gay, and still closeted.
> 
> Go ahead stupid.......tell us how they're going to compose statistics.
> 
> How the fuck your dumb ass ever made it as an officer in the Air Force is way beyond anyone.
Click to expand...


Maineman and your equally faggoty self are presenting the image that faggots in the military are most excellent of all troops so discharging under DADT would harm military readiness, its almost as if you're both trying to say that their homosexuality is what makes them better than straight and the Bass is calling BS if thats what you're both trying to say.


And since you admit that both you faggot lovers cannot produce stats why are you both making the claim that discharging faggots would harm military readiness? Why make claims you know you cannot back up with stats? Retards!


----------



## ABikerSailor

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight troops don't openly flaunt their sexuality in uniform you idiot, again, you have never served and are not serving so how would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE served, longer than you, no doubt, and I know that, if you were honest, you would admit that staight troops regale their buddies with the details of their sexual exploits all the time.  How many times have you heard your subordinates brag about getting more ass than a toilet seat out on the town?  get real.
Click to expand...


There's also the occasional enlisted man who takes great pleasure in describing the delicate sensibilities of the CO's daughters.........

(Never participated.....I liked my stripes, but knew several who did.......)

You know CDR, Bass has never had the pleasure of experiencing Channel Fever Night, as he's never been out of the States.

For anyone that doesn't know what Channel Fever Night is, it's the night before pulling in after a long deployment.  Nobody can sleep, the CCTV is on all night, people are playing cards, eating pizza and talking about sex.

Mainly, what they're going to do to their respective partners when they get home.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?



Serving openly as a faggot is against military policy poindexter, thats why they must be discharged, not "fired."



> Then why only go after gays?



Faggots aren't the only ones who get discharged and no one is going after gays because witchhunts are prohibited constitute sexual harrassment. Most if not all faggots who get kicked out get kicked out because of their own undoing such as getting caught engaging in homosexuality, openly diplaying gay behavior or admitting that they're faggots



> I
> Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?



Because its the military, don't like it don't join or get out, simple as that


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that DADT lowers military readiness, please post stats that state this. Its not like fags are and can be the only talented, dedicated, patriotic and professional troops in the military, the leave out the vast majority who are not faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, dipshit Bass Hole........did you ever learn English you dumb fuck?
> 
> Don't Ask - that means they CANNOT ASK about your sexual orientation.
> 
> Don't Tell - that means they CAN'T TELL YOU what their sexual orientation is.
> 
> How the fuck are there going to be any statistics?  Remember, there are people serving who are gay, and still closeted.
> 
> Go ahead stupid.......tell us how they're going to compose statistics.
> 
> How the fuck your dumb ass ever made it as an officer in the Air Force is way beyond anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maineman and your equally faggoty self are presenting the image that faggots in the military are most excellent of all troops so discharging under DADT would harm military readiness, its almost as if you're both trying to say that their homosexuality is what makes them better than straight and the Bass is calling BS if thats what you're both trying to say.
> 
> 
> And since you admit that both you faggot lovers cannot produce stats why are you both making the claim that discharging faggots would harm military readiness? Why make claims you know you cannot back up with stats? Retards!
Click to expand...


bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight troops don't openly flaunt their sexuality in uniform you idiot, again, you have never served and are not serving so how would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE served, longer than you, no doubt, and I know that, if you were honest, you would admit that staight troops regale their buddies with the details of their sexual exploits all the time.  How many times have you heard your subordinates brag about getting more ass than a toilet seat out on the town?  get real.
Click to expand...



Troops don't openly flaunt their sexuality in people's faces, that type of talk in the workplace is prohibited´and constitutes sexual harrassment against those who don't wish to hear it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serving openly as a faggot is against military policy poindexter, thats why they must be discharged, not "fired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why only go after gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faggots aren't the only ones who get discharged and no one is going after gays because witchhunts are prohibited constitute sexual harrassment. Most if not all faggots who get kicked out get kicked out because of their own undoing such as getting caught engaging in homosexuality, openly diplaying gay behavior or admitting that they're faggots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because its the military, don't like it don't join or get out, simple as that
Click to expand...


If you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to get oxygen to your brain, you would understand why there are no statistics.

They can't compile them, because THE MILITARY CAN'T ASK, AND THEY CAN'T TELL!

Were you a thalidomide baby?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.



Their good performances have nothing to do with their homosexuality or open proclamations of being gay so what does that have to do with lifting DADT? Perhaps they didn't make as big a deal about their sexuality as your and faggot Bikerfag are.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serving openly as a faggot is against military policy poindexter, thats why they must be discharged, not "fired."
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots aren't the only ones who get discharged and no one is going after gays because witchhunts are prohibited constitute sexual harrassment. Most if not all faggots who get kicked out get kicked out because of their own undoing such as getting caught engaging in homosexuality, openly diplaying gay behavior or admitting that they're faggots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because its the military, don't like it don't join or get out, simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to get oxygen to your brain, you would understand why there are no statistics.
> 
> They can't compile them, because THE MILITARY CAN'T ASK, AND THEY CAN'T TELL!
> 
> Were you a thalidomide baby?
Click to expand...


If their are no stats, why are you making the claim that discharging faggots under DADT is going to harm military readiness?


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their good performances have nothing to do with their homosexuality or open proclamations of being gay so what does that have to do with lifting DADT? Perhaps they didn't make as big a deal about their sexuality as your and faggot Bikerfag are.
Click to expand...


they didn't make a big deal out of it.  that is for sure, but they didn't HIDE it either.  Many of the victims of DADT are discharged based upon, not their statements, but the statements of others, and many of them are talented professionals with critical skills needed in the WOT.

And I have never mentioned MY sexuality, so why don't you keep it out of the conversation, mmmmkay?  good.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their good performances have nothing to do with their homosexuality or open proclamations of being gay so what does that have to do with lifting DADT? Perhaps they didn't make as big a deal about their sexuality as your and faggot Bikerfag are.
Click to expand...


Bass Hole.......last time I'm going to explain this.........

First off, do you speak fluent Arabic?  Second, you DO realize that the enemy in the war on terror speaks mainly Arabic?

Next, do you know how HARD it is to learn Arabic?  Even with all the linguistic types that the military has, only 500 used to be in, but, sadly, their number has dropped to below 500 after the discharge of Lt. Daniel Cho.

Oh yeah........all those other Arabic speakers who aren't gay?  They aren't allowed to get out, as they have a critical skill and usually get stop lossed before they come close to discharge, so your argument that they have normal Arabic speakers leaving all the time for other reasons than being gay is bullshit.

By the way, you CLAIM to have been in the Air Force.  Do you know how much money and time it takes to train a fighter pilot?  Especially one as qualified as the pilot currently fighting tooth and nail?

Just training 1 pilot to basic qualifications is 1 million dollars.  And, that pilot saved several others when he flew CAS by himself to keep the combatants from killing him.

How much do you think that pilot saved the government in manpower, funeral costs, and SGLI benefits paid out by saving those men?

I have a really hard time believing you ever served, because your attitude is one of someone who read a couple of Tom Clancy books and then decided to try to pass themselves off as a military person.


----------



## ACG22

All this discussion really does is reinforce the notion that soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves and doing what's right.  On an individual level, I admire anyone who has chosen to serve.  Collectively, the military needs a brain transplant.  They are currently unfit to represent us in this manner.


----------



## SFC Ollie

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, dipshit Bass Hole........did you ever learn English you dumb fuck?
> 
> Don't Ask - that means they CANNOT ASK about your sexual orientation.
> 
> Don't Tell - that means they CAN'T TELL YOU what their sexual orientation is.
> 
> How the fuck are there going to be any statistics?  Remember, there are people serving who are gay, and still closeted.
> 
> Go ahead stupid.......tell us how they're going to compose statistics.
> 
> How the fuck your dumb ass ever made it as an officer in the Air Force is way beyond anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maineman and your equally faggoty self are presenting the image that faggots in the military are most excellent of all troops so discharging under DADT would harm military readiness, its almost as if you're both trying to say that their homosexuality is what makes them better than straight and the Bass is calling BS if thats what you're both trying to say.
> 
> 
> And since you admit that both you faggot lovers cannot produce stats why are you both making the claim that discharging faggots would harm military readiness? Why make claims you know you cannot back up with stats? Retards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.
Click to expand...


Actually another sailor would have been there in their place, performing the mission just as well.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serving openly as a faggot is against military policy poindexter, thats why they must be discharged, not "fired."
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots aren't the only ones who get discharged and no one is going after gays because witchhunts are prohibited constitute sexual harrassment. Most if not all faggots who get kicked out get kicked out because of their own undoing such as getting caught engaging in homosexuality, openly diplaying gay behavior or admitting that they're faggots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because its the military, don't like it don't join or get out, simple as that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to get oxygen to your brain, you would understand why there are no statistics.
> 
> They can't compile them, because THE MILITARY CAN'T ASK, AND THEY CAN'T TELL!
> 
> Were you a thalidomide baby?
Click to expand...


Where do these numbers we keep hearing about how many Gays are on active duty come from?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serving openly as a faggot is against military policy poindexter, thats why they must be discharged, not "fired."
Click to expand...


Wow a dodge, can't say I'm surprised. OK why do we need to have this policy then?



Charlie Bass said:


> Faggots aren't the only ones who get discharged and no one is going after gays because witchhunts are prohibited constitute sexual harrassment. Most if not all faggots who get kicked out get kicked out because of their own undoing such as *getting caught engaging in homosexuality*, openly diplaying gay behavior or admitting that they're faggots



So you admit that gays don't need to flaunt their sexuality to be kicked out under DADT. 



Charlie Bass said:


> Because its the military, don't like it don't join or get out, simple as that



Our tax dollars fund the military and thus we should have a say in how it's run.

Also "it's the military" is no reason why the rule should still exist.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their good performances have nothing to do with their homosexuality or open proclamations of being gay so what does that have to do with lifting DADT? Perhaps they didn't make as big a deal about their sexuality as your and faggot Bikerfag are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bass Hole.......last time I'm going to explain this.........
> 
> First off, do you speak fluent Arabic?  Second, you DO realize that the enemy in the war on terror speaks mainly Arabic?
> 
> Next, do you know how HARD it is to learn Arabic?  Even with all the linguistic types that the military has, only 500 used to be in, but, sadly, their number has dropped to below 500 after the discharge of Lt. Daniel Cho.
> 
> Oh yeah........all those other Arabic speakers who aren't gay?  They aren't allowed to get out, as they have a critical skill and usually get stop lossed before they come close to discharge, so your argument that they have normal Arabic speakers leaving all the time for other reasons than being gay is bullshit.
> 
> By the way, you CLAIM to have been in the Air Force.  Do you know how much money and time it takes to train a fighter pilot?  Especially one as qualified as the pilot currently fighting tooth and nail?
> 
> Just training 1 pilot to basic qualifications is 1 million dollars.  And, that pilot saved several others when he flew CAS by himself to keep the combatants from killing him.
> 
> How much do you think that pilot saved the government in manpower, funeral costs, and SGLI benefits paid out by saving those men?
> 
> I have a really hard time believing you ever served, because your attitude is one of someone who read a couple of Tom Clancy books and then decided to try to pass themselves off as a military person.
Click to expand...


So only gays can be Arabic translators?


----------



## SFC Ollie

ACG22 said:


> All this discussion really does is reinforce the notion that soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves and doing what's right.  On an individual level, I admire anyone who has chosen to serve.  Collectively, the military needs a brain transplant.  They are currently unfit to represent us in this manner.




You haven't a clue.


----------



## Father Time

Admit it Bass, the only reason you support DADT is because you despise gays and want them to be treated as lesser beings.


----------



## ACG22

It's a blatantly discriminatory policy and should eventually be eliminated (probably a bad idea from its inception, actually), but giving them a chance to figure out the ramifications and how best to remove the policy is probably not a bad idea.  Still, the transparent hatred within the policy and the hypocrisy that follows it is just mind numbing.


----------



## ACG22

SFC Ollie said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this discussion really does is reinforce the notion that soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves and doing what's right.  On an individual level, I admire anyone who has chosen to serve.  Collectively, the military needs a brain transplant.  They are currently unfit to represent us in this manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue.
Click to expand...


About what, in particular?  I've observed this issue since its inception and seen the negative impact it has had.  The numbers of discharges, especially during a period of heightened need for qualified candidates, really says it all.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ACG22 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this discussion really does is reinforce the notion that soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves and doing what's right.  On an individual level, I admire anyone who has chosen to serve.  Collectively, the military needs a brain transplant.  They are currently unfit to represent us in this manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About what, in particular?  I've observed this issue since its inception and seen the negative impact it has had.  The numbers of discharges, especially during a period of heightened need for qualified candidates, really says it all.
Click to expand...


Soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves?  BULLSHIT

The Military needs a Brain transplant? More BULLSHIT

They are currently unfit to represent us? 

News flash, the US Military doesn't represent you, they protect your rights. You want representation call your congressman.

So you are an observer, once you've been there and done that, let us know.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie i just realized that there is an answer as to why gays should tell that they are gay. And it really is right out there where we should have seen it long ago.
> 
> Obama said so! That's it, there is no other reason. Obama needs to actually keep a promise so he's trying this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?
> 
> If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.
Click to expand...






Ah so you are just IGNORING your SUPERIORS when THEY say DADT should be repealed. I SEE!


----------



## ACG22

SFC Ollie said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About what, in particular?  I've observed this issue since its inception and seen the negative impact it has had.  The numbers of discharges, especially during a period of heightened need for qualified candidates, really says it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves?  BULLSHIT
> 
> What a convincing argument!  So the fact that the soldiers can't be expected to behave appropriately means what?
> 
> The Military needs a Brain transplant? More BULLSHIT
> 
> I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.  But again, good response.
> 
> They are currently unfit to represent us?
> 
> News flash, the US Military doesn't represent you, they protect your rights. You want representation call your congressman.
> 
> Good semantics!  My point stands, though.  If this is how they "protect my rights" - which I'm not even sure how that's relevant in this situation - I'd prefer they weren't there.
> 
> So you are an observer, once you've been there and done that, let us know.
> 
> When you know anything but taking orders, let us know too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package? 



STILL no answer to this question. Oh and for all you "straights" out there who think that gay men are just SALIVATING at the chance to "hit" on you, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! I have gone to "gay" bars (dance clubs) with both girlfriends and female friends because THEY don't want to get pawed at and HIT ON by guys all night and guess what, despite the fact that I'm a good looking guy I never got hit on ONCE because gay men have a pretty good idea of who is and is NOT gay. If you are so fucking freaked out about it then just make sure those around you know you are NOT interested in men and you will NEVER be "hit on" by a gay man I GUARENFUCKINGTEE IT!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think the REAL problem is these HOMOPHOBES assume that gay men will have the same type of LECHEROUS personality that THEY do so they ASSUME a gay man wouldn't be able to go a day without hitting on EVERY MAN on post which is, OF COURSE, total BULLSHIT!

Really "The Bass" I ASSURE you you don't have to worry about a gay man hitting on you, I PROMISE!!! And even IF one does just explain that you like PUSSY and you will NEVER have to tell another gay man again because it will be KNOWN that you are a "straight". See how EASY that is? So simple a CAVEMAN like YOU can do it.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude don't tell me you buy into his whole "it's not necessary therefore we should punish people for it" line of "logic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am currently serving in the military and the day that some civilian homosexual activist who hasn't spent one day in uniform leading troops knows my soldiers and whats best for them better than I do is the day I'll resign wearing this uniform. Yes, there are gays in the military. Yes, they do their jobs well, the ones that stay out of trouble and excel that is. We know they're capable of doing their jobs. Taking all of this into consideration, why do they need to openly say they're homosexuals?
> 
> If you excel at doing your job, stay preofessional at all time and uphold Army values and you're my soldier whatever you do as far as your sexual life does not need to be known by me. If a soldier can't properly conduct himself when off duty in accordance with regulation he has to be either disciplined or administratively separated, especially when the behvior disrupts unit cohesion and refelcts badly upon the Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so you are just IGNORING your SUPERIORS when THEY say DADT should be repealed. I SEE!
Click to expand...


The heads of the military branches have unanimously told congress to slow down on repelling DADT.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ACG22 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> About what, in particular?  I've observed this issue since its inception and seen the negative impact it has had.  The numbers of discharges, especially during a period of heightened need for qualified candidates, really says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves?  BULLSHIT
> 
> What a convincing argument!  So the fact that the soldiers can't be expected to behave appropriately means what?
> 
> The Military needs a Brain transplant? More BULLSHIT
> 
> I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.  But again, good response.
> 
> They are currently unfit to represent us?
> 
> News flash, the US Military doesn't represent you, they protect your rights. You want representation call your congressman.
> 
> Good semantics!  My point stands, though.  If this is how they "protect my rights" - which I'm not even sure how that's relevant in this situation - I'd prefer they weren't there.
> 
> So you are an observer, once you've been there and done that, let us know.
> 
> When you know anything but taking orders, let us know too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 years on active duty US Army.
> You don't know jack about taking orders.
> 
> Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.
> 
> And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?
> 
> 
> 
> STILL no answer to this question. Oh and for all you "straights" out there who think that gay men are just SALIVATING at the chance to "hit" on you, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! I have gone to "gay" bars (dance clubs) with both girlfriends and female friends because THEY don't want to get pawed at and HIT ON by guys all night and guess what, despite the fact that I'm a good looking guy I never got hit on ONCE because gay men have a pretty good idea of who is and is NOT gay. If you are so fucking freaked out about it then just make sure those around you know you are NOT interested in men and you will NEVER be "hit on" by a gay man I GUARENFUCKINGTEE IT!!!



I cannot remember worrying about it. We simply assumed that no one was interested.

And why would a girl worry about guys at a gay bar hitting on them?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?
> 
> 
> 
> STILL no answer to this question. Oh and for all you "straights" out there who think that gay men are just SALIVATING at the chance to "hit" on you, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! I have gone to "gay" bars (dance clubs) with both girlfriends and female friends because THEY don't want to get pawed at and HIT ON by guys all night and guess what, despite the fact that I'm a good looking guy I never got hit on ONCE because gay men have a pretty good idea of who is and is NOT gay. If you are so fucking freaked out about it then just make sure those around you know you are NOT interested in men and you will NEVER be "hit on" by a gay man I GUARENFUCKINGTEE IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot remember worrying about it. We simply assumed that no one was interested.
> 
> And why would a girl worry about guys at a gay bar hitting on them?
Click to expand...




That's WHY they go to gay bars.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maineman and your equally faggoty self are presenting the image that faggots in the military are most excellent of all troops so discharging under DADT would harm military readiness, its almost as if you're both trying to say that their homosexuality is what makes them better than straight and the Bass is calling BS if thats what you're both trying to say.
> 
> 
> And since you admit that both you faggot lovers cannot produce stats why are you both making the claim that discharging faggots would harm military readiness? Why make claims you know you cannot back up with stats? Retards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bulshit.  I have never said that they were "better" in any way.  I am saying that they are good and patriotic sailors that I served with, and I can think back and KNOW that, had they been discharged because of their sexua preference, the command would have suffered a degradation in capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually another sailor would have been there in their place, performing the mission just as well.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  On a ship (unlike you Army types), they typical sailor has one primary rate (job), and several collateral duties, anywhere from at sea firefighting, to security detail, to PRT Coordinator, to DAPA, to Shore Patrol, to anything.  I included all those qualifications because I held all of them at the same time.

Now.......only 1 DAPA is billeted for around 150 people.  Only 1 PRT Coordinator/command.  Both of those jobs are things that require screening AND school to obtain quals for.

If I transferred unexpectedly (broken leg), then they have to send someone else to school, not only for DAPA, but PRT Coordinator as well, which takes time.

And.......in some cases, there is only 1 or 2 of certain jobs (rates) onboard an entire command.  Say that your CT (Cryptological technician), gets found out that they are gay.  Guess what?  Because those types of billets are HARD to fill (lack of qualified people), they may have to do without for several months.  Cryptology is the job that gets you your secret intelligence.  Very important to have one if you're supposed to.  Makes life easier for everyone, especially the SEALS.

In some cases, where a servicemember is getting ready to get discharged because of EAOS, if their billet is important enough, they can involuntarily extend that individual until the end of the deployment, even if that means they have to stay in an extra 6 months to a year.

Try again Army Bag Lady Ollie.  You don't know shit about the Navy.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their good performances have nothing to do with their homosexuality or open proclamations of being gay so what does that have to do with lifting DADT? Perhaps they didn't make as big a deal about their sexuality as your and faggot Bikerfag are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bass Hole.......last time I'm going to explain this.........
> 
> First off, do you speak fluent Arabic?  Second, you DO realize that the enemy in the war on terror speaks mainly Arabic?
> 
> Next, do you know how HARD it is to learn Arabic?  Even with all the linguistic types that the military has, only 500 used to be in, but, sadly, their number has dropped to below 500 after the discharge of Lt. Daniel Cho.
> 
> Oh yeah........all those other Arabic speakers who aren't gay?  They aren't allowed to get out, as they have a critical skill and usually get stop lossed before they come close to discharge, so your argument that they have normal Arabic speakers leaving all the time for other reasons than being gay is bullshit.
> 
> By the way, you CLAIM to have been in the Air Force.  Do you know how much money and time it takes to train a fighter pilot?  Especially one as qualified as the pilot currently fighting tooth and nail?
> 
> Just training 1 pilot to basic qualifications is 1 million dollars.  And, that pilot saved several others when he flew CAS by himself to keep the combatants from killing him.
> 
> How much do you think that pilot saved the government in manpower, funeral costs, and SGLI benefits paid out by saving those men?
> 
> I have a really hard time believing you ever served, because your attitude is one of someone who read a couple of Tom Clancy books and then decided to try to pass themselves off as a military person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only gays can be Arabic translators?
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension Army Bag Lady Ollie..........I stated that Arabic is VERY HARD TO LEARN, and not many people will qualify.  Lt Cho happened to want to study that in college and became fluent, which is what he was prior to joining the Army.

No.........I did not state that only gays can be Arabic translators.

You sure are one stupid fucker.


----------



## ACG22

22 years on active duty US Army.
You don't know jack about taking orders.

>> Really?  How do yo know?  Making a lot of assumptions aren't you.

Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.

And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.

>> What "protection"?  And I certainly have a right to question the way in which our military - paid for by US tax dollars - gets used when I feel that it reflects poorly on us.  That's what I'm criticizing.  For someone so gung ho to rep his own (questionable) service, you sure are sensitive.


----------



## Flaylo

ACG22 said:


> It's a blatantly discriminatory policy and should eventually be eliminated (probably a bad idea from its inception, actually), but giving them a chance to figure out the ramifications and how best to remove the policy is probably not a bad idea.  Still, the transparent hatred within the policy and the hypocrisy that follows it is just mind numbing.




Explain to me how a policy that specifically forbids gays to openly flaunt their sexuality is blatantly discriminatory? I'd like to also know where the hate and hypocrisy lies. I am actually in uniform and currently serving, you haven't the slightest clkue what you're talking about. If DADT is rescinded and gays are allowed to openly flaunt their sexuality whats going to be the next step, transexuals demanding the right to dress up and act like the opposite sex since their 'transexuality' has no bearing on their work performance and duties? I don't want a difunctional Army that morrors the depravity seen in society, we're discpline professionals, if someone wants to live like a dysfunctional civilian they don't need to join the Army.


----------



## Flaylo

ACG22 said:


> 22 years on active duty US Army.
> You don't know jack about taking orders.
> 
> >> Really?  How do yo know?  Making a lot of assumptions aren't you.
> 
> Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.
> 
> And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.
> 
> >> What "protection"?  And I certainly have a right to question the way in which our military - paid for by US tax dollars - gets used when I feel that it reflects poorly on us.  That's what I'm criticizing.  For someone so gung ho to rep his own (questionable) service, you sure are sensitive.



You can have your opinion, but you don't have a right to tell soldiers how to run the Army especially in you're not in the Army and lest you forget soldiers also pay taxes. As a Senior Noncomissioned Officer its my duty to take care of my soldiers and to carry out the orders of those appointed over me, protection of flaunting one's sexual life is not something I am bound to protect.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers are incapable of thinking for themselves?  BULLSHIT
> 
> What a convincing argument!  So the fact that the soldiers can't be expected to behave appropriately means what?
> 
> The Military needs a Brain transplant? More BULLSHIT
> 
> I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.  But again, good response.
> 
> They are currently unfit to represent us?
> 
> News flash, the US Military doesn't represent you, they protect your rights. You want representation call your congressman.
> 
> Good semantics!  My point stands, though.  If this is how they "protect my rights" - which I'm not even sure how that's relevant in this situation - I'd prefer they weren't there.
> 
> So you are an observer, once you've been there and done that, let us know.
> 
> When you know anything but taking orders, let us know too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22 years on active duty US Army.
> You don't know jack about taking orders.
> 
> Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.
> 
> And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, Army Bag Lady Ollie, did you ever stop to think that you'd retired 17 years ago and attitudes and procedures have changed since then?
> 
> Shit......'93 was when the Navy was starting to look at "smart ships", and now it's integrated on quite a few smaller vessels.
> 
> Was also about the time that the Navy finally decided to let women serve on forward deployed combat vessels.  Now?  They've just been approved to deploy on subs.
> 
> Might wanna see if you can update your crusty old attitudes Ollie.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?



Why do they need to openly proclaim their homosexuality to do their jobs is the question you need to ponder. We who are already serving know the problems that people who are perceived to be homosexual cause, it creates a hostile work environment for both the perceived homosexual and those he has to work with. If DADT is rescinded that problem will be magnified and it is not the job of NCOs and Officers to feed soldiers homosexual activist dogma to change the military work envirnoment to suit the needs of homosexuals.



> Then why only go after gays?



I don't go only after gays, no one goes after gays, you are seriously misinformed how DADT works and how difficult it is to administratively discharge a soldier for homosexuality. Unless a soldier is caught engaging in homosexual acts and or admits he is gay we have no grounds to discharge a soldier under Chapter 15. If anyone calls a soldier a homosexual and cannot back up their claims they run the risk of getting slammed for sexual harrassment and starting rumors in the workplace. The  gay soldiers know this and some of them threaten other soldiers with charges of sexual harrassment if the alleged gay soldier has even the slightest impression that someone is mistreating them because of their perceived sexuality. *This is how having homosexuals in the military workplace causes disruption and destroys unit cohesion.* Those who get discharged have admitted their homosexuality or have been caught engaging in homosexual acts, no one goes after gays, witchhunts are not allowed and only the commander or whom the commander designates can investigate charges of alleged homosexuality.



> Why have the regulation against homosexuality in the first place?



I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> You mean the hell that hasn't happened in every other military that lets gays serve openly?



The US military happens to be the best military in the world by a wide margin, if DADT id hurting the military as bad as you're making it to be we wouldn't be the best, but you're not satisfied with that are you? We don't need to do what every other military is doing because we are the best the military, the others needs to pick up their weapons and follow me, not the other way around. Ever heard of the slogan "Lead from the front"?



> You going to hold their hand for everything? College kids can handle bunking with gays, I would hope soldiers would be able to handle it.



The military is not a college sorority nor a fraternity, we do a lot of things that colleges don't do so there is no comparison. The military is not make up of college kids and those who have been to college and now wear the uniform will tell you its a big difference. You are not serving and have never served so I don't expect you to have a clue about what separates colleg kids from soldiers.



> How are you able to call it extra protection with a straight face? Straights can openly flaunt or mention their sexuality, you want to allow the gays the same thing and all of a sudden it's special treatment?



Its not a secret that some allegedly gay and gay soldiers have been beaten up and brutalized by other soldiers and we NCOs know the threat that openly gay soldiers would face if DADT was rescinded, your problem is that you are not looking at things from a NCO's perspective, please take off your homosexual activist blinders. 



> Get real.




A civilian who thinks college kids should be the example that soldiers should look to needs to get real.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.



I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey.......Flayed Load, all NATO countries (i.e. our allies), allow gays to serve openly.

The only NATO country that doesn't?  The US.

In the 20 years that I was in the Navy, I saw a lot of those NATO ships.  None appeared to have problems with gays serving alongside them.

It's only antiquated idiots such as yourself that do.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.
Click to expand...


Simple question that requires only a simple answer, did those gay sailors openly proclaim their homosexuality? If they did and you were a commander like you said you are you neglected to enforce regulation, thats dereliction of duty and failure to obey regulation in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. One has to obey regulation whether they like it or not, what was your excuse?


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple question that requires only a simple answer, did those gay sailors openly proclaim their homosexuality? If they did and you were a commander like you said you are you neglected to enforce regulation, thats dereliction of duty and failure to obey regulation in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. One has to obey regulation whether they like it or not, what was your excuse?
Click to expand...

what regulation did I neglect to enforce?


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey.......Flayed Load, all NATO countries (i.e. our allies), allow gays to serve openly.
> 
> The only NATO country that doesn't?  The US.
> 
> In the 20 years that I was in the Navy, I saw a lot of those NATO ships.  None appeared to have problems with gays serving alongside them.
> 
> It's only antiquated idiots such as yourself that do.



Which country within NATO leads NATO? The US. We supply the bulk of the bodies and logistical support for most if not all NATO missions so we have no obligation to follow the other NATO members. Perhaps you were one of those substandard NCOs that believes in following and not leading from the front. I'm not antiquated, I lead and serve in the modern military and its rather odd that two retired sailors are pushing the homosexual one sided agenda, but the retired Army and Marines in the forum are not, you both wouldn't happen to those dedicated, patriotic sailors you were glorifying by any chance would you?


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.
Click to expand...


You don't have to glorify your own acts to make a point.




> what regulation did I neglect to enforce?



Article 92 of the UCMJ.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.......Flayed Load, all NATO countries (i.e. our allies), allow gays to serve openly.
> 
> The only NATO country that doesn't?  The US.
> 
> In the 20 years that I was in the Navy, I saw a lot of those NATO ships.  None appeared to have problems with gays serving alongside them.
> 
> It's only antiquated idiots such as yourself that do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which country within NATO leads NATO? The US. We supply the bulk of the bodies and logistical support for most if not all NATO missions so we have no obligation to follow the other NATO members. Perhaps you were one of those substandard NCOs that believes in following and not leading from the front. I'm not antiquated, I lead and serve in the modern military and its rather odd that two retired sailors are pushing the homosexual one sided agenda, but the retired Army and Marines in the forum are not, you both wouldn't happen to those dedicated, patriotic sailors you were glorifying by any chance would you?
Click to expand...


if you are implying that I am gay, you are wrong...  but seeing you reduced to that sort of veiled personal attack is disappointing, though not unexpected.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to glorify your own acts to make a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what regulation did I neglect to enforce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 92 of the UCMJ.
Click to expand...


what lawful order or regulaton are you suggesting I failed to obey?

and how is stating my length of service "glorifying my own acts?


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.......Flayed Load, all NATO countries (i.e. our allies), allow gays to serve openly.
> 
> The only NATO country that doesn't?  The US.
> 
> In the 20 years that I was in the Navy, I saw a lot of those NATO ships.  None appeared to have problems with gays serving alongside them.
> 
> It's only antiquated idiots such as yourself that do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which country within NATO leads NATO? The US. We supply the bulk of the bodies and logistical support for most if not all NATO missions so we have no obligation to follow the other NATO members. Perhaps you were one of those substandard NCOs that believes in following and not leading from the front. I'm not antiquated, I lead and serve in the modern military and its rather odd that two retired sailors are pushing the homosexual one sided agenda, but the retired Army and Marines in the forum are not, you both wouldn't happen to those dedicated, patriotic sailors you were glorifying by any chance would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you are implying that I am gay, you are wrong...  but seeing you reduced to that sort of veiled personal attack is disappointing, though not unexpected.
Click to expand...


I didn't imply you were gay, I just thought it was odd that two retired sailors are fighting the hardest against DADT, perhaps you have a guilty conscience.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> I didn't imply you were gay.



of course you did... you just aren't man enough to admit it.  I think we're done here.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which country within NATO leads NATO? The US. We supply the bulk of the bodies and logistical support for most if not all NATO missions so we have no obligation to follow the other NATO members. Perhaps you were one of those substandard NCOs that believes in following and not leading from the front. I'm not antiquated, *I lead and serve in the modern military and its rather odd that two retired sailors are pushing the homosexual one sided agenda, but the retired Army and Marines in the forum are not, you both wouldn't happen to those dedicated, patriotic sailors you were glorifying by any chance would you?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you are implying that I am gay, you are wrong...  but seeing you reduced to that sort of veiled personal attack is disappointing, though not unexpected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't imply you were gay, I just thought it was odd that two retired sailors are fighting the hardest against DADT, perhaps you have a guilty conscience.
Click to expand...


If you're not implying anything, then what the fuck was the last sentence of your post?

No, for the record, I'm not gay.  Very hetero with stellar references and 3 boys.  As far as being a dirtbag NCO?  My rate was 120 percent manned when I retired in 02.  Most times it never dropped below 110 percent, so it was fucking hard to make rank.

When I made First?  I was the only one of my rate/paygrade that made it in 4 districts.

I also have 3 NAM's, all of which were awarded by no less than an Admiral EACH.

However........I will state that when I reported onboard my first ship in '82, there was a DP3 by the name of John L.  He was as queer as a 3 dollar bill, everyone knew it, yet nobody messed with him, and if anyone else screwed with him, we'd all defend him.  Also knew another one named Paul (same ship).  Macho as hell when in uniform, and a total flamer away from the base, but still a really decent guy.

During my time from 82 - 02, I saw many gay servicemembers.  Matter of fact, lived with 2 lesbians in Norfolk from '98 to 99.

No, I haven't seen any problems except those that came from close minded redneck Christian conservative assholes that thought gay could be "cured".

Fuck off Flayed Load, you ain't shit.

By the way you sperm burping gutter skank, what's your service, what's your quals?  We've showed ours, now tell us what your level of experience is.

I'm betting you made your service record from wiki.


----------



## Flaylo

A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army. &#8220;Homosexual conduct&#8221; is a homosexual act, a statement by a soldier that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, the solicitation of another to engage in homosexual act or acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage.

Only a soldier's commander is authorized to initiate fact-finding inquiries involving homosexual conduct. A commander may initiate a factfinding inquiry only when he has received credible information that there is a basis for discharge. Commanders are accountable for ensuring that inquiries are conducted properly and that no abuse of authority occurs. It is the commander&#8217;s responsibility alone to investigate and take action in cases of alleged homosexual conduct. Other soldiers must not engage in behavior that may injure unit cohesion and team integrity, such as repeating rumors or harassing a soldier they believe has a different sexual orientation.


Homosexual Conduct (ArmyStudyGuide.com)


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flaylo said:


> A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by a soldier that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, the solicitation of another to engage in homosexual act or acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage.
> 
> Only a soldier's commander is authorized to initiate fact-finding inquiries involving homosexual conduct. A commander may initiate a factfinding inquiry only when he has received credible information that there is a basis for discharge. Commanders are accountable for ensuring that inquiries are conducted properly and that no abuse of authority occurs. It is the commanders responsibility alone to investigate and take action in cases of alleged homosexual conduct. Other soldiers must not engage in behavior that may injure unit cohesion and team integrity, such as repeating rumors or harassing a soldier they believe has a different sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> Homosexual Conduct (ArmyStudyGuide.com)



Listed Fucked Load, you might wanna unload your bullshit crap on someone else, because you're just cherry picking.

ALL cases that I've heard of or seen, have ALL resulted in discharge.  The longest that I'd ever seen someone stay in after it being discovered (usually from a rumor), was 1 year.

Nope.........once it's out, they are as well.  Try again you penis puffing colon jousting pillowbiter.


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> [
> If you're not implying anything, then what the fuck was the last sentence of your post?



Did I strike a nerve because it sounds as if you're about to lose it.



> No, for the record, I'm not gay.  Very hetero with stellar references and 3 boys.  As far as being a dirtbag NCO?  My rate was 120 percent manned when I retired in 02.  Most times it never dropped below 110 percent, so it was fucking hard to make rank.



I'm a SFC E-7 and I made that rank after with 11 years in and I started off as a Forward Observer, MOS 13F before reclassifying into Aviation. At the rate I'm fast tracking I'm looking at making SGM before 20 years. Advancement in the Senior NCO ranks is based solely on performance and for the last 7 years I've been manning nothing but leadership positions, from squad leader, platoon sergeant, on the trail as a drill sergeant and even a little acting 1SG duties. My performace and experience speaks for itself.










> Fuck off Flayed Load, you ain't shit.
> 
> By the way you sperm burping gutter skank, what's your service, what's your quals?  We've showed ours, now tell us what your level of experience is.
> 
> I'm betting you made your service record from wiki.




You strike me as the type of NCO that advanced by doing and saying whatever the boss wanted to hear instead of taking charge and leading from the front. You don't strike me as leadership material bud and I'm not impressed by your insults because I used to dish it out when I was on the trail.


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter and is not a bar to entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by a soldier that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, the solicitation of another to engage in homosexual act or acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage.
> 
> Only a soldier's commander is authorized to initiate fact-finding inquiries involving homosexual conduct. A commander may initiate a factfinding inquiry only when he has received credible information that there is a basis for discharge. Commanders are accountable for ensuring that inquiries are conducted properly and that no abuse of authority occurs. It is the commanders responsibility alone to investigate and take action in cases of alleged homosexual conduct. Other soldiers must not engage in behavior that may injure unit cohesion and team integrity, such as repeating rumors or harassing a soldier they believe has a different sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> Homosexual Conduct (ArmyStudyGuide.com)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listed Fucked Load, you might wanna unload your bullshit crap on someone else, because you're just cherry picking.
> 
> ALL cases that I've heard of or seen, have ALL resulted in discharge.  The longest that I'd ever seen someone stay in after it being discovered (usually from a rumor), was 1 year.
> 
> Nope.........once it's out, they are as well.  Try again you penis puffing colon jousting pillowbiter.
Click to expand...



If a soldier gets administratively separated from the Army under a Chapter 15 it is due to his or her own undoing because their sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, the minute they're caught publicly engaging in homosexual behavior, conduct and or state they're homosexual they must and will be separated because they failed to keep the matter private. Thats the regulation and as an NCO especially a Senior NCO I must and will enforce that regulation.


----------



## Flaylo

> Nope.........once it's out, they are as well. Try again you penis puffing colon jousting pillowbiter.



Those good gay sailors you served with would be offended by those insults because you're making fun of what they do sexually.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I can't help but laugh everytime i see gaybikerboy brags about his 3 attaboys.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

When ABikerFaggot start hurling nasty homosexual laced insults its a good sign he's getting his tail handed to him.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a blatantly discriminatory policy and should eventually be eliminated (probably a bad idea from its inception, actually), but giving them a chance to figure out the ramifications and how best to remove the policy is probably not a bad idea.  Still, the transparent hatred within the policy and the hypocrisy that follows it is just mind numbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how a policy that specifically forbids gays to openly flaunt their sexuality is blatantly discriminatory?
Click to expand...


Because no such punishment exists against anyone else for flaunting their sexuality (and once again flaunting is not necessary just the mere mention will get you thrown out).



Flaylo said:


> IIf DADT is rescinded and gays are allowed to openly flaunt their sexuality whats going to be the next step, transexuals demanding the right to dress up and act like the opposite sex since their 'transexuality' has no bearing on their work performance and duties?



Oh goody the slippery slope crap. Listen bud there's no reason why anything would be next.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 years on active duty US Army.
> You don't know jack about taking orders.
> 
> >> Really?  How do yo know?  Making a lot of assumptions aren't you.
> 
> Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.
> 
> And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.
> 
> >> What "protection"?  And I certainly have a right to question the way in which our military - paid for by US tax dollars - gets used when I feel that it reflects poorly on us.  That's what I'm criticizing.  For someone so gung ho to rep his own (questionable) service, you sure are sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have your opinion, but you don't have a right to tell soldiers how to run the Army
Click to expand...


Bullshit, it's paid for by our taxes and the army is supposed to serve us not the other way around. I swear the DADT crowd here is getting more and desperate.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 years on active duty US Army.
> You don't know jack about taking orders.
> 
> >> Really?  How do yo know?  Making a lot of assumptions aren't you.
> 
> Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.
> 
> And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.
> 
> >> What "protection"?  And I certainly have a right to question the way in which our military - paid for by US tax dollars - gets used when I feel that it reflects poorly on us.  That's what I'm criticizing.  For someone so gung ho to rep his own (questionable) service, you sure are sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have your opinion, but you don't have a right to tell soldiers how to run the Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, it's paid for by our taxes and the army is supposed to serve us not the other way around. I swear the DADT crowd here is getting more and desperate.
Click to expand...


You cleary have issues mate, your taxpayer dollars pay the salaries of politicians, even the ones you disagree with yet you don't dictate anything to them. Military service members do pay taxes too which means if paying taxes equals dictating policy service members are well within their rights to dictate their own policies. You are not in the military so you don't dictate anything to service members, you're supposed to shut up and let them do what they voluntarily signed up to do.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you need to fire them over being openly homosexual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do they need to openly proclaim their homosexuality to do their jobs is the question you need to ponder.
Click to expand...


No I don't, it's your stupid rules, you defend them. It's all ready been shown how this rule
forces the military to fire needed translators, so we've demonstrated harm in keeping it.



Flaylo said:


> We who are already serving know the problems that people who are perceived to be homosexual cause, it creates a hostile work environment for both the perceived homosexual and those he has to work with.



Proof? Although I'm sure integrating blacks did the same thing.




Flaylo said:


> Unless a soldier is *caught engaging in homosexual acts* and or admits he is gay we have no grounds to discharge a soldier under Chapter 15.



So you're OK with firing soldiers over something that happens in their private lives that has no bearing over workplace performance?



Flaylo said:


> If anyone calls a soldier a homosexual and cannot back up their claims they run the risk of getting slammed for sexual harrassment and starting rumors in the workplace. The  gay soldiers know this and some of them threaten other soldiers with charges of sexual harrassment if the alleged gay soldier has even the slightest impression that someone is mistreating them because of their perceived sexuality. *This is how having homosexuals in the military workplace causes disruption and destroys unit cohesion.*



No that would be an example of how people who file phoney sexual harassment charges disrupt cohesion. Although someone harassing someone because they're gay deserves discipline a hell of a lot more than being gay.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can have your opinion, but you don't have a right to tell soldiers how to run the Army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, it's paid for by our taxes and the army is supposed to serve us not the other way around. I swear the DADT crowd here is getting more and desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cleary have issues mate, your taxpayer dollars pay the salaries of politicians, even the ones you disagree with yet you don't dictate anything to them. Military service members do pay taxes too which means if paying taxes equals dictating policy service members are well within their rights to dictate their own policies. You are not in the military so you don't dictate anything to service members, you're supposed to shut up and let them do what they voluntarily signed up to do.
Click to expand...


I pay taxes therefore I get to complain about how the military is run.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

You damn gay loving liberals crack me up talking about taxpayer dollars and you "right" to dictate military policies, well guess what, there are many other taxpayers who are for DADT yet the reality is that neither of us have the right to tell the military how to conduct business, if you want to dictate it join the military otherwise shut your doggone traps about what you think your taxpayer dollars dictate.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, it's paid for by our taxes and the army is supposed to serve us not the other way around. I swear the DADT crowd here is getting more and desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cleary have issues mate, your taxpayer dollars pay the salaries of politicians, even the ones you disagree with yet you don't dictate anything to them. Military service members do pay taxes too which means if paying taxes equals dictating policy service members are well within their rights to dictate their own policies. You are not in the military so you don't dictate anything to service members, you're supposed to shut up and let them do what they voluntarily signed up to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pay taxes therefore I get to complain about how the military is run.
Click to expand...


You can complain all the hell you like just like anyone else, but you have no right to dictate what goes on in the military neither are you qualified to say whats best for the troops. Instead complaining about so called homophobic members and how bad DADT with your gay activism you need to appreciate the fact that they're sacrificing lives to protect all Americans, gay and straight.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Quick question..........is actionable intelligence as it concerns the enemy a good thing?

What if that same intel comes from a gay service member?  Is it suspect then?


----------



## SFC Ollie

ACG22 said:


> 22 years on active duty US Army.
> You don't know jack about taking orders.
> 
> >> Really?  How do yo know?  Making a lot of assumptions aren't you.
> 
> Fortunately I retired in 93 and didn't have to deal with DADT much.
> 
> And if you don't like the protection your rights have been provided you are more than welcome to use one of those rights and leave.
> 
> >> What "protection"?  And I certainly have a right to question the way in which our military - paid for by US tax dollars - gets used when I feel that it reflects poorly on us.  That's what I'm criticizing.  For someone so gung ho to rep his own (questionable) service, you sure are sensitive.



Questionable service?  You are a comedian now?


----------



## SFC Ollie

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.
Click to expand...


So for 25 years you continually broke the regulations by allowing these gay sailors to serve?


----------



## ACG22

Explain to me how a policy that specifically forbids gays to openly flaunt their sexuality is blatantly discriminatory? 

>> Well, it's easy if you understand what the words "blatant" and "discrimination" mean.  It's really that simple.  It's a policy that singles out a specific group and attempts to control their behavior.  Ergo, discrimination.

I'd like to also know where the hate and hypocrisy lies. 

>> The hate is evidenced in the policy itself, as hatred is a main catalyst for blatant discrimination.  Do you know anyone who lovingly practices racism?  And the hypocrisy comes in the form of the execution of the policy.  But hypocrisy and discrimination tend to go hand-in-hand.

I am actually in uniform and currently serving, you haven't the slightest clkue what you're talking about. 

>> How do you know?  You don't know anything about me.  Assume much?

If DADT is rescinded and gays are allowed to openly flaunt their sexuality whats going to be the next step, transexuals demanding the right to dress up and act like the opposite sex since their 'transexuality' has no bearing on their work performance and duties? 

>> How is it that conservatives always jump to the most illogical conclusions in situations like this?  It's like asking if legalizing gay marriage will lead to legal bestiality.  Try understanding the basics and the principles at work.

I don't want a difunctional Army that morrors the depravity seen in society, we're discpline professionals, if someone wants to live like a dysfunctional civilian they don't need to join the Army.

First off, the Army already does mirror the depravity in society as it is comprised of that self-same society.  In some cases it's actually worse.  Further, your misguided notion of homosexuality as 'depravity' speaks volumes about the close-minded world you wish existed but thankfully does not.  

DADT is a good-intentioned but ultimately wrongly thought out policy and should be rescinded.  The military survived the integration of ethnic groups, and it will do the same with this minority.  It's just a matter of time.


----------



## Gadawg73

Hawk said:


> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you hate God and ignore His Laws He stated.Leviticus 18:22.GLBT are nothing but sick and perverted heathens who are equal to dogs and pigs who live on their vomit and feces.Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians get to pick and choose which Bible verses are relevant?
> 
> Try reading the rest of Leviticus bitch... then come back and keep passing judgment on people who have no significant influence in your hypocritical and pathetic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.
Click to expand...


You left out 99% of the other sins.
The Bible states you are going to hell for eating BBQ pork sandwiches and shell fish.
Show me where Jesus stated anything negative about homosexuals.
Look hard  because it is no where.
Why is that? 
Jesus was Jewish. The Old Testament is old Jewish law and Jesus rebeled against that. He was a radical for his time for a Jew. 
Jesus taught that we need to be Christlike. Love thy neighbor and do not judge them.
Shed the shackles of Jewish Old Testament, come to Jesus and join the modern world friend. You will feel better getting rid of all that hate.


----------



## ACG22

Questionable service?  You are a comedian now?

>> It's a message board, guy.  You can claim to be Bigfoot if you like, but it doesn't mean diddly to me.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Gadawg73 said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Christians get to pick and choose which Bible verses are relevant?
> 
> Try reading the rest of Leviticus bitch... then come back and keep passing judgment on people who have no significant influence in your hypocritical and pathetic life.
> 
> 
> 
> Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out 99% of the other sins.
> The Bible states you are going to hell for eating BBQ pork sandwiches and shell fish.
> Show me where Jesus stated anything negative about homosexuals.
> Look hard  because it is no where.
> Why is that?
> Jesus was Jewish. The Old Testament is old Jewish law and Jesus rebeled against that. He was a radical for his time for a Jew.
> Jesus taught that we need to be Christlike. Love thy neighbor and do not judge them.
> Shed the shackles of Jewish Old Testament, come to Jesus and join the modern world friend. You will feel better getting rid of all that hate.
Click to expand...


Yep.  What they said. 

Know what I find most interesting about "Christians"?  One of their main points to beat others over the head with is the book of Leviticus.



> Book of Leviticus
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> (Redirected from Leviticus)
> 
> Leviticus (Greek: &#923;&#949;&#965;&#953;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;, "relating to the Levites") or Vayikra (Hebrew: &#1493;&#1497;&#1511;&#1512;&#1488;&#8206;, literally "and He called") is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah/Pentateuch.
> 
> Leviticus contains laws and priestly rituals, but in a wider sense is about the working out of God's covenant with Israel set out in Genesis and Exodus  what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God (specifically, Yahweh). These consequences are set out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.
> 
> The first 16 chapters and the last chapter make up the Priestly Code, with rules for ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 17-26 contain the Holiness Code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (the Great Commandment). The book is largely concerned with "abominations", largely dietary and sexual restrictions. The rules are generally addressed to the Israelites, except for several prohibitions which are applied equally to "the strangers that sojourn in Israel."
> 
> According to tradition, Moses authored Leviticus[1] as well as the other four books of the Torah.[2] However, modern biblical scholars believe Leviticus to be almost entirely from the priestly source (P), marked by emphasis on priestly concerns, composed c 550-400 BC, and incorporated into the Torah c 400 BC.[3]



Now, basically that means that Leviticus is a manual for the High Priests of Israel.  Now, if you're a Protestant, are you going to use Catholic masses and rituals in your church services?  No.  Why?  You believe a different dogma.  So do the Christians when it comes to Levitical laws.

And......then there is this from a place on the 'net called "Sacred Texts Archive", which is a scholarly site (much like other college sites where scholars put their work online) dedicated to almost every belief system on the planet.

Here's what it states about gays.....



> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> * The Biblical Jesus does not condemn homosexuality.
> * The destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom was due to their mistreatment of strangers.
> * The Bible never condemns same sex marriage.
> * The Biblical David and Jonathan had a formal same-sex union.
> * 'Traditional marriage' in the Bible includes polygamy.
> * No known sacred text forbids same sex marriage.
> * Very few sacred texts even mention homosexuality.
> * Hindu and other far eastern sacred texts do not condemn homosexuality.
> * Homosexuality is not unnatural, it is practised by hundreds of species of animals.



LGBT Texts



> The New Testament
> 
> However, in at least one passage in the NT, marriage is defined as monogamous. In Mark 10:2-12), Jesus is quoted as saying:
> 
> 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
> 
> 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
> 
> 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
> 
> 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
> 
> 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
> 
> 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
> 
> 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
> 
> 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
> 
> 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
> 
> 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
> 
> 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
> 
> One reader commented that this passage proves that Jesus "hated [gays]". but I'm not sure how he came away with that conclusion. If you take this at face value, it says that remarriage after divorce is equivalent to adultery. The passage 10:6-9 is just a restatement of the passage from Genesis, leading up to the conclusion 'let no man put asunder'. In 10:10-12, Jesus explains the concept again, just in case we missed the point the first time around. As usual, the language attributed to Jesus is very specific and transparent.
> 
> Also of interest is 1 Timothy 4:1:
> 
> 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> 
> 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
> 
> 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth
> 
> 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
> 
> 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
> 
> Here Paul disapproves of the prohibition of marriage, as well as the practise of vegetarianism. This is probably a reference to a Gnostic group, some of whom were vegetarians. A few Gnostics and early Christians were opposed to marriage in any form (including monogamous, heterosexual marriage). Marriage was considered a grave sin by some of the early Church fathers, and the only way into the kingdom of heaven to be the lifelong mortification of the flesh. This passage by Paul from the Epistles weighs in against this particular concept. On the other hand, some Gnostics and early Christians practiced group marriage, taking 'holding all things in common' to the extreme.
> 
> One wonders about Paul's condemnation of vegetarians. Will some future US President float a constitutional ammendment mandating that vegetarians eat meat? Will conservative Christians organize abusive demonstrations at health food stores? Does God hate tofu?
> 
> The sanctioned form of marriage in Judaism and Christianity has continued to evolve over the centuries. Policies on divorce have varied widely. There was a liturgy for same sex unions in one branch of the Eastern Orthodox church. During the Middle Ages and well into the renaissance, the vast majority of European marriages were 'common-law,' and had no religious sanction: church weddings were far too expensive for most people. Mormons originally practised polygamy, although they ceased that as a condition for Utah statehood. Today, same sex unions are consecrated in some liberal Jewish and Christian denominations.
> 
> In general, society has changed the definition of marriage widely, and religion has followed by sanctioning it.
> 
> Some interpret the passages above to imply condemnation of gay marriage, or to justify their prejudices against LGBT people. The reader is encouraged to look at the entire context and make up their own mind.



LGBT Texts

So yeah......tell us all again how much Yeshua hated gays.


----------



## ACG22

Hey, quit using logic and their own words against them, ABS; they hate that!


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just stated the reason why, however, that was my opinion. The regulation is needed to maintain unit cohesion and espirit de corps in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a different experience.  25 years in uniform... served with MANY gay sailors - officer AND enlisted.  Nearly all were extraordinary professionals and did NOT negatively impact unit cohesion or esprit de corps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for 25 years you continually broke the regulations by allowing these gay sailors to serve?
Click to expand...


they never flaunted their sexuality, and I never made a point of directly asking them.... sometimes, things are tacitly understood.

I broke NO regulations, sarge.


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> You damn gay loving liberals crack me up talking about taxpayer dollars and you "right" to dictate military policies, well guess what, there are many other taxpayers who are for DADT yet the reality is that neither of us have the right to tell the military how to conduct business, if you want to dictate it join the military otherwise shut your doggone traps about what you think your taxpayer dollars dictate.




the constitution is pretty explicit about civilian control of the military.  civilians dictate military policies ALL the time.


----------



## SFC Ollie

If you knew and did not report it you broke the regulations.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package? 



STILL no answer to this question. Oh and for all you "straights" out there who think that gay men are just SALIVATING at the chance to "hit" on you, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! I have gone to "gay" bars (dance clubs) with both girlfriends and female friends because THEY don't want to get pawed at and HIT ON by guys all night and guess what, despite the fact that I'm a good looking guy I never got hit on ONCE because gay men have a pretty good idea of who is and is NOT gay. If you are so fucking freaked out about it then just make sure those around you know you are NOT interested in men and you will NEVER be "hit on" by a gay man I GUARENFUCKINGTEE IT!!! 



I think the REAL problem is these HOMOPHOBES assume that gay men will have the same type of LECHEROUS personality that THEY do so they ASSUME a gay man wouldn't be able to go a day without hitting on EVERY MAN on post which is, OF COURSE, total BULLSHIT!

Really "The Bass" I ASSURE you you don't have to worry about a gay man hitting on you, I PROMISE!!! And even IF one does just explain that you like PUSSY and you will NEVER have to tell another gay man again because it will be KNOWN that you are a "straight". See how EASY that is? So simple a CAVEMAN like YOU can do it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Quote: Originally Posted by Flaylo  
We who are already serving know the problems that people who are perceived to be homosexual cause, it creates a hostile work environment for both the perceived homosexual and those he has to work with.




HOLY SHIT!!!!!! PERCEIVED homosexuals!!!?? So I guess you are advocating DESTROYING a man's CAREER because he is PERCEIVED to be HOMOSEXUAL!!! Now you REALLY understand why DADT is such a HORRIBLE policy. Well I'm sure YOU don't understand but the REST of us DO!


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> If you knew and did not report it you broke the regulations.



"knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?

I'll wait.


----------



## Gadawg73

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew and did not report it you broke the regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
Click to expand...


Under DADT the admission of sexual orientation, NOT the act, is evidence of a rule being broken. That aspect is opposed by both Mullen and Gates as they are correct. ANY sexual acts WILL STILL BE a reason for dismissal. The false accusations are that if you repeal DADT there will be sexual acts that will be tolerated and accepted between gays in the military. 
And that charge is absurd.
Ollie, if you were pinned down in a fox hole and a battallion of NVA regulars were coming towards you and there was a tank moving towards the NVA and a fast mover coming in with nape to coat the gooks would you have radioed to the tank and the fast mover "If you are gay I do not want your help"?
That is what it is all about. Service.


----------



## SFC Ollie

None are so blind as those who will not see.


It is not simply about service and stupid situational questions mean nothing. 

The heads of each branch of Service have now advised Congress to go slow on any decisions to rescind DADT. They each expect to have problems if congress simply does this. 

I'll wait to see what happens.


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew and did not report it you broke the regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
Click to expand...


still waiting


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The Bass no longer will argue with a bunch of faggot loving liberal monkey who don't understand the military and wants to spread their gay activism to an organization where it has no place whatsoever.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bass no longer will argue with a bunch of faggot loving liberal monkey who don't understand the military and wants to spread their gay activism to an organization where it has no place whatsoever.



Holy shit, this explains a lot. Bass talks and argues with himself.


----------



## SFC Ollie

maineman said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew and did not report it you broke the regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still waiting
Click to expand...


And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew and did not report it you broke the regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still waiting
Click to expand...


Article 92 is the regulation you broke as post by Flaylo, its as clear as day, anyone who doesn't enforce a regulation is in dereliction of duty and disobedience to the regulation. You as a commander stated you knew of gay sailors under your command and you failed to act.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
Click to expand...


Hey.......Army Bag Boy Ollie, did you mistakenly leave your brain behind with your last courier delivery?  Sounds like......

What part of "have my suspicions" did you miss?  Ever watch 2 and a Half Men?  Alan looks like, acts like, and on occasion, cries like a gay man.  He's straight, but, based on how he acts, people have their suspicions.

Next......what part of "don't ask" (you can't ask them, even if you have your suspicions), and "don't tell" (they can't tell you if they are or not, even if you have suspicions), do you keep missing?

You're a fucking 'tard of the first water.  Weapons grade stupidity even.

Try again delivery boy.


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 92 is the regulation you broke as post by Flaylo, its as clear as day, anyone who doesn't enforce a regulation is in dereliction of duty and disobedience to the regulation. You as a commander stated you knew of gay sailors under your command and you failed to act.
Click to expand...


I "knew" they were gay, in that it was obvious by their demeanor, their dress on liberty, the sorts of non-sexual social activities they engaged in, but they did not commit any homosexual acts or openly state that they were gay.  Now... I say AGAIN... what regulation did I break?


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 92 is the regulation you broke as post by Flaylo, its as clear as day, anyone who doesn't enforce a regulation is in dereliction of duty and disobedience to the regulation. You as a commander stated you knew of gay sailors under your command and you failed to act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I "knew" they were gay, in that it was obvious by their demeanor, their dress on liberty, the sorts of non-sexual social activities they engaged in, but they did not commit any homosexual acts or openly state that they were gay.  Now... I say AGAIN... what regulation did I break?
Click to expand...


waiting


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "knew" it?  what the fuck does that mean?  If it is apparent yet there is no homosexual acts committed, and no one has admitted anything, what regulation did I break?
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
Click to expand...


read your own link... and tell me where I did not follow policy.  They did NOT engage in any homosexxual sex acts, they did NOT admit to me that they were gay, and they did NOT attempt to marry someone of their same gender.

Now either show me where I broke some regulation, as you claim, SARGE, or show the dignity to apologize falsely accusing me of such.... or maybe noncoms in the fucking ARMY don't know anything about dignity or ethics or honor....


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey.......Army Bag Boy Ollie, did you mistakenly leave your brain behind with your last courier delivery?  Sounds like......
> 
> What part of "have my suspicions" did you miss?  Ever watch 2 and a Half Men?  Alan looks like, acts like, and on occasion, cries like a gay man.  He's straight, but, based on how he acts, people have their suspicions.
> 
> Next......what part of "don't ask" (you can't ask them, even if you have your suspicions), and "don't tell" (they can't tell you if they are or not, even if you have suspicions), do you keep missing?
> 
> You're a fucking 'tard of the first water.  Weapons grade stupidity even.
> 
> Try again delivery boy.
Click to expand...


Shut the hell up faggot loving gorilla, all you know how to do is insult when your jackass is busted, your navy faggot loving officer friend violated the UCMJ by refusing to enforce the regulation when he refusing to initiated action against sailors he knew to be homosexual, hell he didn't even counsel them on the regulation, those are facts that cannot be disputed, gay activism does not take precedence over the regulation.


----------



## ABikerSailor

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read your own link... and tell me where I did not follow policy.  They did NOT engage in any homosexxual sex acts, they did NOT admit to me that they were gay, and they did NOT attempt to marry someone of their same gender.
> 
> Now either show me where I broke some regulation, as you claim, SARGE, or show the dignity to apologize falsely accusing me of such.... or maybe noncoms in the fucking ARMY don't know anything about dignity or ethics or honor....
Click to expand...


Hey, CDR, Army Bag Lady Ollie is just a delivery boy.  I kinda doubt that he's ever supervised more than 10 people.

I also find it funny that an E-7 is arguing with an O-4 about leadership.  Doesn't this idiot delivery boy realize that his paygrade has to answer to YOU?

Besides.....he's already stated that he retired in '94, just as the DADT policy was first being implemented, so he really doesn't have any clue.

Hey.......Delivery Boy Ollie..........WTF dude, did you leave your military bearing behind when you retired?

Way to go, shipwreck.  You're a total soup sandwich dude.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.......Army Bag Boy Ollie, did you mistakenly leave your brain behind with your last courier delivery?  Sounds like......
> 
> What part of "have my suspicions" did you miss?  Ever watch 2 and a Half Men?  Alan looks like, acts like, and on occasion, cries like a gay man.  He's straight, but, based on how he acts, people have their suspicions.
> 
> Next......what part of "don't ask" (you can't ask them, even if you have your suspicions), and "don't tell" (they can't tell you if they are or not, even if you have suspicions), do you keep missing?
> 
> You're a fucking 'tard of the first water.  Weapons grade stupidity even.
> 
> Try again delivery boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the hell up faggot loving gorilla, all you know how to do is insult when your jackass is busted, your navy faggot loving officer friend violated the UCMJ by refusing to enforce the regulation when he refusing to initiated action against sailors he knew to be homosexual, hell he didn't even counsel them on the regulation, those are facts that cannot be disputed, gay activism does not take precedence over the regulation.
Click to expand...


Tell me again how well you know the regs ROTC Reservist.  You didn't even serve in the real military.

Swing and a miss Bass Hole.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read your own link... and tell me where I did not follow policy.  They did NOT engage in any homosexxual sex acts, they did NOT admit to me that they were gay, and they did NOT attempt to marry someone of their same gender.
Click to expand...


Since they didn't do any of the above and did their jobs honorably as you've stated why do you want DADT rescinded? It apparently worked out well for you and the Navy.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.......Army Bag Boy Ollie, did you mistakenly leave your brain behind with your last courier delivery?  Sounds like......
> 
> What part of "have my suspicions" did you miss?  Ever watch 2 and a Half Men?  Alan looks like, acts like, and on occasion, cries like a gay man.  He's straight, but, based on how he acts, people have their suspicions.
> 
> Next......what part of "don't ask" (you can't ask them, even if you have your suspicions), and "don't tell" (they can't tell you if they are or not, even if you have suspicions), do you keep missing?
> 
> You're a fucking 'tard of the first water.  Weapons grade stupidity even.
> 
> Try again delivery boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the hell up faggot loving gorilla, all you know how to do is insult when your jackass is busted, your navy faggot loving officer friend violated the UCMJ by refusing to enforce the regulation when he refusing to initiated action against sailors he knew to be homosexual, hell he didn't even counsel them on the regulation, those are facts that cannot be disputed, gay activism does not take precedence over the regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again how well you know the regs ROTC Reservist.  You didn't even serve in the real military.
> 
> Swing and a miss Bass Hole.
Click to expand...


All officers know the Articles of the UCMJ and if one doesn't know its as simple as looking them up. You were an NCO in charge of lower ranking sailors who you knew were faggots and you didn't act also, that makes you a soup sandwich NCO, you also violated the regulation because you didn't report these faggots.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Tell ya what ROTC boy.......which one of the 186 Articles of the UCMJ refers to reporting of homosexuality?

Put up or shut up reservist.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Tell ya what ROTC boy.......which one of the 186 Articles of the UCMJ refers to reporting of homosexuality?
> 
> Put up or shut up reservist.



Read Article 92 real slowly you retarded damn squid, when was the last time you pulled out the regs and read them?


Article 92&#151;Failure to obey order or regulation


Failure to enforce this below is in violation of Article 92:

US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces



Damn you're a soup sandwich.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Homosexuality in the military is a POLICY.  Not a regulation.

By the way.........where is the regulation in the UCMJ that states "don't be gay"?

Fucking ROTC Reservists..........


----------



## blu

i cant wait for dadt to be repealed msotly just to see the reaction from the nutjob right and church groups.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Myself as well blu, myself as well.

That shattering sound you're gonna hear is their minds being broken into little bits.

If you hear a whizzing sound, followed by a "pop", you'll know that their little heads spun around so fast that they popped right off.

Either way, it would be good for some of these small minded assholes (like Chucking Ass) to have their blinders removed.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Homosexuality in the military is a POLICY.  Not a regulation.
> 
> By the way.........where is the regulation in the UCMJ that states "don't be gay"?
> 
> Fucking ROTC Reservists..........



Damn it are you that damn stupid or do you just refuse to see the light and purposely keep your head in the sand? It is regulation that a person shall be separated from the military because of homosexuality you jackass squid, read again:

_(b) Policy. A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces *under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense* if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations_ 

Of course its regulation you retarded monkey.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bass no longer will argue with a bunch of faggot loving liberal monkey who don't understand the military and wants to spread their gay activism to an organization where it has no place whatsoever.



Translation: I have no more arguments to support my cause so I will just hurl insults now.


----------



## Father Time

blu said:


> i cant wait for dadt to be repealed msotly just to see the reaction from the nutjob right and church groups.



Here's what will happen.

They will claim the end of the army, or other such doomsday scenarios.

It won't happen.

They'll pray that you won't remember that the next time they the claim that shit (like the retarded claim that gay marraige will destroy society).


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass no longer will argue with a bunch of faggot loving liberal monkey who don't understand the military and wants to spread their gay activism to an organization where it has no place whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I have no more arguments to support my cause so I will just hurl insults now.
Click to expand...



You the one that has no arguments and on top of that you make stupid comparisons like the one about college students bunking up together and troops doing the same, when it has already been explained to you that the military and college life are two different entities, you'll use any nonsense to support your homosexual agenda.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> i cant wait for dadt to be repealed msotly just to see the reaction from the nutjob right and church groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what will happen.
> 
> They will claim the end of the army, or other such doomsday scenarios.
> 
> It won't happen.
> 
> They'll pray that you won't remember that the next time they the claim that shit (like the retarded claim that gay marraige will destroy society).
Click to expand...



If it is lifted and faggots start getting beat up and cohesion in the military units are in disarray the Bass predicts faggot liberals like yourself is going to blame homophobia and not the the lifting DADT as the reason for the problems. DADT is not going to get lifted anytime soon, there is much to evaluate and much that has to be done before it is lifted.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass no longer will argue with a bunch of faggot loving liberal monkey who don't understand the military and wants to spread their gay activism to an organization where it has no place whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I have no more arguments to support my cause so I will just hurl insults now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You the one that has no arguments and on top of that you make stupid comparisons like the one about college students bunking up together and troops doing the same, when it has already been explained to you that the military and college life are two different entities, you'll use any nonsense to support your homosexual agenda.
Click to expand...


I'm still here you're the one who's running away.

You have absolutely no arguments, all you've done is moan that it isn't necessary. It wasn't necessary to integrate the military either. 

College and the military may be different settings but your complaint was specifically on bunking with gays which is similar in both cases.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> i cant wait for dadt to be repealed msotly just to see the reaction from the nutjob right and church groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what will happen.
> 
> They will claim the end of the army, or other such doomsday scenarios.
> 
> It won't happen.
> 
> They'll pray that you won't remember that the next time they the claim that shit (like the retarded claim that gay marraige will destroy society).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it is lifted and faggots start getting beat up and cohesion in the military units are in disarray the Bass predicts faggot liberals like yourself is going to blame homophobia and not the the lifting DADT as the reason for the problems. DADT is not going to get lifted anytime soon, there is much to evaluate and much that has to be done before it is lifted.
Click to expand...


What did I tell you, doomsday scenarios.

Oh and isn't it great how the Bass says that a lot of soldiers are brutes who can't help but assault their fellow troops just for being gay.

I however do not think so lowly of our troops, I would hope that most of them aren't asshole thugs.


----------



## SFC Ollie

maineman said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 92 is the regulation you broke as post by Flaylo, its as clear as day, anyone who doesn't enforce a regulation is in dereliction of duty and disobedience to the regulation. You as a commander stated you knew of gay sailors under your command and you failed to act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "knew" they were gay, in that it was obvious by their demeanor, their dress on liberty, the sorts of non-sexual social activities they engaged in, but they did not commit any homosexual acts or openly state that they were gay.  Now... I say AGAIN... what regulation did I break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> waiting
Click to expand...


Awe, the poor baby Commander got his feelings hurt and negged me. Is that your cyber version of a Captains mast?

I don't see what is so difficult, you knew that you had sailors who were Gay, You were an Officer, and you did not follow up on regulations. You broke the regulations by allowing them to go unchallenged. 

    10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces

DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separation

MILPERSMAN 1910-148 Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct

NAVADMIN 291/99, Continuing Guidance Concerning Proper Application of DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy

ADMIN 094/00 Homosexual Conduct Policy and Training Requirements


Take your pick SIR!  (put a little slur n that sir, Nam grunts might understand it) And my bet is that you also knew this before DADT. God only knows how many regs were broken then.

Now pass some rep around and neg me again, You broke the fucking regs.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> still waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care, If you knew and did nothing, then you were wrong. It is not a foreign language, easy enough to understand. You supposedly were a professional Officer. Yet you act like you are ignorant of the regs. I don't teach commanders, they should already know.
> 
> US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey.......Army Bag Boy Ollie, did you mistakenly leave your brain behind with your last courier delivery?  Sounds like......
> 
> What part of "have my suspicions" did you miss?  Ever watch 2 and a Half Men?  Alan looks like, acts like, and on occasion, cries like a gay man.  He's straight, but, based on how he acts, people have their suspicions.
> 
> Next......what part of "don't ask" (you can't ask them, even if you have your suspicions), and "don't tell" (they can't tell you if they are or not, even if you have suspicions), do you keep missing?
> 
> You're a fucking 'tard of the first water.  Weapons grade stupidity even.
> 
> Try again delivery boy.
Click to expand...


Whatever you want to dream about desk jockey.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> What did I tell you, doomsday scenarios.



This is not a doomsday scenario, its reality, DADT was created in the first place to protect gays who were serving to keep them from getting beat up, but you fag loving liberals see DADT as the exact opposite of what is was intended



> Oh and isn't it great how the Bass says that a lot of soldiers are brutes who can't help but assault their fellow troops just for being gay.



The troops are not brutes and no where did the Bass imply that, again its reality to anticipate that such things will happen which is why the heads are saying they don't want DADT to be lifted too quickly, but hey its no use telling an idiot who hasn't served one day in the military this. Fights are the least of the problems they have to worry about, lack of  cohesion in the units is the biggest worry because not everyone shares your gay loving agenda and not many will be comfortable with sharing close quarters in showers and barracks with someone who is openly a faggot.



> I however do not think so lowly of our troops, I would hope that most of them aren't asshole thugs.



You are the one who thinks lowly of troops here, anyone who support the gay agenda to rescind DADT you look down upon as homophobes.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I have no more arguments to support my cause so I will just hurl insults now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You the one that has no arguments and on top of that you make stupid comparisons like the one about college students bunking up together and troops doing the same, when it has already been explained to you that the military and college life are two different entities, you'll use any nonsense to support your homosexual agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still here you're the one who's running away.
> 
> You have absolutely no arguments, all you've done is moan that it isn't necessary. It wasn't necessary to integrate the military either.
> 
> College and the military may be different settings but your complaint was specifically on bunking with gays which is similar in both cases.
Click to expand...

Since you believe that military and college life are different why did you say that since college students bunk up together with faggots without a problem[which is not even universally true because there's even strong resistance in college dorms] troops should be able to do the same when you were confronted with the reality that a lot of troops would feel uncomfortable bunking up with and showering around people who are openly faggots?


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "knew" they were gay, in that it was obvious by their demeanor, their dress on liberty, the sorts of non-sexual social activities they engaged in, but they did not commit any homosexual acts or openly state that they were gay.  Now... I say AGAIN... what regulation did I break?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awe, the poor baby Commander got his feelings hurt and negged me. Is that your cyber version of a Captains mast?
> 
> I don't see what is so difficult, you knew that you had sailors who were Gay, You were an Officer, and you did not follow up on regulations. You broke the regulations by allowing them to go unchallenged.
> 
> 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces
> 
> DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separation
> 
> MILPERSMAN 1910-148 Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct
> 
> NAVADMIN 291/99, Continuing Guidance Concerning Proper Application of DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy
> 
> ADMIN 094/00 Homosexual Conduct Policy and Training Requirements
> 
> 
> Take your pick SIR!  (put a little slur n that sir, Nam grunts might understand it) And my bet is that you also knew this before DADT. God only knows how many regs were broken then.
> 
> Now pass some rep around and neg me again, You broke the fucking regs.
Click to expand...

again... rather than merely post the titles to some military regulations, why not show me how what I did was in violation of any of them.  Quote the passage that says that, in absence of any knowledge on my part of an overt homosexual sex act, or an admission of homosexuality by someone in my command, or evidence of their attempt to marry someone of the same gender, that I had a duty to discharge someone for being a homosexual.

And since we both know you cannot do that... after you hem and haw and bullshit, maybe you can get around to retracting your lie.

chickenshit.


----------



## Qball

> again... rather than merely post the titles to some military regulations, why not show me how what I did was in violation of any of them. Quote the passage that says that, in absence of any knowledge on my part of an overt homosexual sex act, or an admission of homosexuality by someone in my command, or evidence of their attempt to marry someone of the same gender, that I had a duty to discharge someone for being a homosexual.
> 
> And since we both know you cannot do that... after you hem and haw and bullshit, maybe you can get around to retracting your lie.
> 
> chickenshit.



If they did nothing overtly alluding to their homosexuality, then your claim that you "knew" they were gay is mostly speculative.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, doomsday scenarios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a doomsday scenario, its reality, DADT was created in the first place to protect gays who were serving to keep them from getting beat up, but you fag loving liberals see DADT as the exact opposite of what is was intended
Click to expand...


I'm not a liberal but I can see the unintended consequences, the discrimination and the general stupidity that is DADT. 

Also if they're getting beat up the proper response would be to discipline the soldiers that assault them not to go to the other troops and say 'well you shouldn't have pissed them off'.




Charlie Bass said:


> Oh and isn't it great how the Bass says that a lot of soldiers are brutes who can't help but assault their fellow troops just for being gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troops are not brutes
Click to expand...


I was referring to those that would beat someone up just for being gay. If you think that it would be a big problem then my guess is you think a lot of soldiers are brutes.




Charlie Bass said:


> I however do not think so lowly of our troops, I would hope that most of them aren't asshole thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who thinks lowly of troops here, anyone who support the gay agenda to rescind DADT you look down upon as homophobes.
Click to expand...


Not really.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> I'm not a liberal but I can see the unintended consequences, the discrimination and the general stupidity that is DADT.



There is no discrimination with a policy that tells homosexuals to keep their sexual life a personal and private matter, especially a policy that allows them to serve. Their sexual lives don't need to be known for them to serve and serving in the military is not a right.


----------



## JW Frogen

Gays should be freely allowed in the military simply because the military already has regulations for sexual tension.

 No one can have sex with people in the same unit or organisation unless married.  And married people are rarely, if ever, assigned together.

And the military has some of the most rigorous sexual harassment regulations in the world. 

So what are the homophobes afraid of?

Other than their own sexuality.


----------



## maineman

Qball said:


> again... rather than merely post the titles to some military regulations, why not show me how what I did was in violation of any of them. Quote the passage that says that, in absence of any knowledge on my part of an overt homosexual sex act, or an admission of homosexuality by someone in my command, or evidence of their attempt to marry someone of the same gender, that I had a duty to discharge someone for being a homosexual.
> 
> And since we both know you cannot do that... after you hem and haw and bullshit, maybe you can get around to retracting your lie.
> 
> chickenshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did nothing overtly alluding to their homosexuality, then your claim that you "knew" they were gay is mostly speculative.
Click to expand...


mannerisms, dress, social friends, interests... you may call it speculation, but if you were in my shoes, you would "know" just like I did.  don't kid yourself.


----------



## SFC Ollie

As a person in a command position, If you know that someone has broken the regulations yet do not pursue the issue, then you are breaking the regulations.  As a Platoon Sergeant if I "knew" one of my troops had been sleeping on guard duty and did not question it, have i failed to perform my duty? YES! There is no difference. You may attempt to Bullshit around it all you like but fact is fact. The Baby Commander failed to perform. As did the gaybikersailor, and anyone else who "knew" and did not report what they "knew".


----------



## Bass v 2.0

maineman said:


> Qball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again... rather than merely post the titles to some military regulations, why not show me how what I did was in violation of any of them. Quote the passage that says that, in absence of any knowledge on my part of an overt homosexual sex act, or an admission of homosexuality by someone in my command, or evidence of their attempt to marry someone of the same gender, that I had a duty to discharge someone for being a homosexual.
> 
> And since we both know you cannot do that... after you hem and haw and bullshit, maybe you can get around to retracting your lie.
> 
> chickenshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did nothing overtly alluding to their homosexuality, then your claim that you "knew" they were gay is mostly speculative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mannerisms, dress, social friends, interests... you may call it speculation, but if you were in my shoes, you would "know" just like I did.  don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...


You know if this is correct you're still wrong because either you didn't act when you knew they were gay or either you spread false rumors of their homosexuality, which means you're prejudging, what kind of commander were you? You have at least counseled them and made them aware of DoD policy on homosexuality.


----------



## Gadawg73

SFC Ollie said:


> None are so blind as those who will not see.
> 
> 
> It is not simply about service and stupid situational questions mean nothing.
> 
> The heads of each branch of Service have now advised Congress to go slow on any decisions to rescind DADT. They each expect to have problems if congress simply does this.
> 
> I'll wait to see what happens.



Before the Service heads  spoke Ollie both Mullen and Gates stated this  would be a one year study.

All of a sudden we hear from you that it is not about "stupid situational questions" when a situation is unfavorable to your claims and position in the matter. However, when there were dozens of situational questions raised here IN OPPOSITION to any change, such as the shower and rooming situational questions, YOU AGREED WITH THEM.

You use a double standard Ollie.  
Open your eyes and you will see.


----------



## SFC Ollie

> Ollie, if you were pinned down in a fox hole and a battallion of NVA regulars were coming towards you and there was a tank moving towards the NVA and a fast mover coming in with nape to coat the gooks would you have radioed to the tank and the fast mover "If you are gay I do not want your help"?






stupid situational question /\

Never going to happen

And you don't understand the difference. Oh well.


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> As a person in a command position, If you know that someone has broken the regulations yet do not pursue the issue, then you are breaking the regulations.  As a Platoon Sergeant if I "knew" one of my troops had been sleeping on guard duty and did not question it, have i failed to perform my duty? YES! There is no difference. You may attempt to Bullshit around it all you like but fact is fact. The Baby Commander failed to perform. As did the gaybikersailor, and anyone else who "knew" and did not report what they "knew".



that is not accurate in the least.  Like I said... if you could provide me with the wording from one regulation I had violated, you would have done so.  I had no evidence of homosexual acts... I had no admission of homosexuality.  Again.... either show me what regulation I violated, or show that your testicles are bigger than peas and man up and retract your lie.  Take your pick..."sarge".


----------



## SFC Ollie

maineman said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a person in a command position, If you know that someone has broken the regulations yet do not pursue the issue, then you are breaking the regulations.  As a Platoon Sergeant if I "knew" one of my troops had been sleeping on guard duty and did not question it, have i failed to perform my duty? YES! There is no difference. You may attempt to Bullshit around it all you like but fact is fact. The Baby Commander failed to perform. As did the gaybikersailor, and anyone else who "knew" and did not report what they "knew".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is not accurate in the least.  Like I said... if you could provide me with the wording from one regulation I had violated, you would have done so.  I had no evidence of homosexual acts... I had no admission of homosexuality.  Again.... either show me what regulation I violated, or show that your testicles are bigger than peas and man up and retract your lie.  Take your pick..."sarge".
Click to expand...


First off keep your gay loving mind off my testicles.

2nd I do not do research for a supposedly Professional Officer. I am not going to waste my time looking for the exact words of a regulation in the Navy that you should already know. I say you broke or at least ignored the regulations. that's fact. And that destroys your professionalism. My belief is not a lie. I honestly believe that you are Guilty as charged.


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a person in a command position, If you know that someone has broken the regulations yet do not pursue the issue, then you are breaking the regulations.  As a Platoon Sergeant if I "knew" one of my troops had been sleeping on guard duty and did not question it, have i failed to perform my duty? YES! There is no difference. You may attempt to Bullshit around it all you like but fact is fact. The Baby Commander failed to perform. As did the gaybikersailor, and anyone else who "knew" and did not report what they "knew".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is not accurate in the least.  Like I said... if you could provide me with the wording from one regulation I had violated, you would have done so.  I had no evidence of homosexual acts... I had no admission of homosexuality.  Again.... either show me what regulation I violated, or show that your testicles are bigger than peas and man up and retract your lie.  Take your pick..."sarge".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off keep your gay loving mind off my testicles.
> 
> 2nd I do not do research for a supposedly Professional Officer. I am not going to waste my time looking for the exact words of a regulation in the Navy that you should already know. I say you broke or at least ignored the regulations. that's fact. And that destroys your professionalism. My belief is not a lie. I honestly believe that you are Guilty as charged.
Click to expand...


you SAY I broke regulations, and I've called you on it.  Either show exactly where in the regulations I am in violation, or retract you statement.  Simple as that.  YOu want to accuse ME of violating MY oath of office, you'd better damned well prove your slander, kid.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I can see the unintended consequences, the discrimination and the general stupidity that is DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no discrimination with a policy that tells homosexuals to keep their sexual life a personal and private matter, especially a policy that allows them to serve.
Click to expand...


It is when it only applies to homosexuals.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I can see the unintended consequences, the discrimination and the general stupidity that is DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no discrimination with a policy that tells homosexuals to keep their sexual life a personal and private matter, especially a policy that allows them to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when it only applies to homosexuals.
Click to expand...



It applies to all, no one is asked their sexual preference neither are they allowed to tell it. Faggots openly saying they're faggots is not a "right" to fight for, its a waste of time, the same with your trolling, they don't have to join the military to openly proclaim the faggotry.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no discrimination with a policy that tells homosexuals to keep their sexual life a personal and private matter, especially a policy that allows them to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when it only applies to homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to all, no one is asked their sexual preference neither are they allowed to tell it. Faggots openly saying they're faggots is not a "right" to fight for, its a waste of time, the same with your trolling, they don't have to join the military to openly proclaim the faggotry.
Click to expand...


Post evidence that straights are not allowed to talk about their sexual preferences, or else admit it's discriminatory.

Also if you honestly think I'm trolling you don't know what the term means.


----------



## amrchaos

I understand what the gays are fighting for.

Let say they come out to their unit.  Then they could smile, make a little happy dance and then go about their business as a soldier with the unit ecognizing to excessively gay bash can tear the unit apart.  In a sense, the gay soldier gains buddies that accept him for what sexual preference loser he or she  is.  Also of the same sex so it is a two for one with advertisement!!

Everybody wants to be accepted for who they are--this includes natures own sex deviants.  


But this does not address the very peculiar case that DADT turns the gay soldier into an 1001 atta boy achieving super soldier.  Why mess up the military just to make the gays even gaier??


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I can see the unintended consequences, the discrimination and the general stupidity that is DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no discrimination with a policy that tells homosexuals to keep their sexual life a personal and private matter, especially a policy that allows them to serve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when it only applies to homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Are you knowledgable about the Army and how we operate? Are you knowledgable about military regulations and policy other than your homosexual one-sided agenda crusade against DADT? A soldier's sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, not a matter that everyone in the unit must know and not something that a soldier needs to divulge. Its not discrimination to tell a soldier to keep the details of his sex life and activities to themselves and thats all the Army expects out of all. Point out to me where it states in the regulation that only homosexuals are supposed to keep their sex lives to themselves.


I'm in the Army, a highly disciplined and professional fighting force, not a democratic college dorm.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when it only applies to homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to all, no one is asked their sexual preference neither are they allowed to tell it. Faggots openly saying they're faggots is not a "right" to fight for, its a waste of time, the same with your trolling, they don't have to join the military to openly proclaim the faggotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post evidence that straights are not allowed to talk about their sexual preferences, or else admit it's discriminatory.
> 
> Also if you honestly think I'm trolling you don't know what the term means.
Click to expand...


Post evidence that the regulation applies only to gays.


----------



## Dante

amrchaos said:


> I have one problem with Gays in the military.  It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier.  I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.  We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!!  Why not?   Are you sexist!  A prude.  It is only fair--what do you think?



The idea that most women or gay men would even get in a shower with you is hilarious.

keep IT coming.   oops!  poor choice of words.

this belongs in the Lame Zone


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what will happen.
> 
> They will claim the end of the army, or other such doomsday scenarios.
> 
> It won't happen.
> 
> They'll pray that you won't remember that the next time they the claim that shit (like the retarded claim that gay marraige will destroy society).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is lifted and faggots start getting beat up and cohesion in the military units are in disarray the Bass predicts faggot liberals like yourself is going to blame homophobia and not the the lifting DADT as the reason for the problems. DADT is not going to get lifted anytime soon, there is much to evaluate and much that has to be done before it is lifted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, doomsday scenarios.
> 
> Oh and isn't it great how the Bass says that a lot of soldiers are brutes who can't help but assault their fellow troops just for being gay.
> 
> I however do not think so lowly of our troops, I would hope that most of them aren't asshole thugs.
Click to expand...



What is your personal experience with soldiers? If my soldiers object to the idea of sharing showers and barracks rooms with someone who is gay because they can't trust that the person maybe eyeing them they're bad homophobes for feeling that way. Don't ever refer to my soldiers as thugs because you don't my soldiers or any soldiers at all for that matter. Until you put on the uniform you will never understand why forbidding gays from serving openly in the right thing to do, at least for their sakes. and the sake of unit cohesion.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package? 



STILL no answer to this question. Oh and for all you "straights" out there who think that gay men are just SALIVATING at the chance to "hit" on you, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! I have gone to "gay" bars (dance clubs) with both girlfriends and female friends because THEY don't want to get pawed at and HIT ON by guys all night and guess what, despite the fact that I'm a good looking guy I never got hit on ONCE because gay men have a pretty good idea of who is and is NOT gay. If you are so fucking freaked out about it then just make sure those around you know you are NOT interested in men and you will NEVER be "hit on" by a gay man I GUARENFUCKINGTEE IT!!! 



I think the REAL problem is these HOMOPHOBES assume that gay men will have the same type of LECHEROUS personality that THEY do so they ASSUME a gay man wouldn't be able to go a day without hitting on EVERY MAN on post which is, OF COURSE, total BULLSHIT!

Really "The Bass" I ASSURE you you don't have to worry about a gay man hitting on you, I PROMISE!!! And even IF one does just explain that you like PUSSY and you will NEVER have to tell another gay man again because it will be KNOWN that you are a "straight". See how EASY that is? So simple a CAVEMAN like YOU can do it. 




And here we have this INSANE quote from Flaylo


Quote: Originally Posted by Flaylo 
We who are already serving know the problems that people who are perceived to be homosexual cause, it creates a hostile work environment for both the perceived homosexual and those he has to work with.




HOLY SHIT!!!!!! PERCEIVED homosexuals!!!?? So I guess you are advocating DESTROYING a man's CAREER because he is PERCEIVED to be HOMOSEXUAL!!! Now you REALLY understand why DADT is such a HORRIBLE policy. Well I'm sure YOU don't understand but the REST of us DO!


----------



## Flaylo

Dante said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one problem with Gays in the military.  It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier.  I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.  We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!!  Why not?   Are you sexist!  A prude.  It is only fair--what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that most women or gay men would even get in a shower with you is hilarious.
> 
> keep IT coming.   oops!  poor choice of words.
> 
> this belongs in the Lame Zone
Click to expand...


If gays do openly serve they will be in showers with straights, they may not have a problem being around straight men but straight men would sure as damn hell have a problem with it, you can count me as one of them.


----------



## Flaylo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I have yet to hear the answer to my question, would you rather WONDER about who is checking you out in the shower or KNOW who is gay so you can avoid showing them you package?



If DADT is rescinded people will worry, the current policy removes that worry that a homosexual maybe checking them out. 







> HOLY SHIT!!!!!! PERCEIVED homosexuals!!!?? So I guess you are advocating DESTROYING a man's CAREER because he is PERCEIVED to be HOMOSEXUAL!!! Now you REALLY understand why DADT is such a HORRIBLE policy. Well I'm sure YOU don't understand but the REST of us DO!




People who are perceived to be gay by virtue of their behvior are a nuisance in the unit and though I have no proof, the ones I've worked around that do display that behavior I pulled them to the side and remind them that they're in the military and that discipline and professionalism must be maintain at all times. I don't only do that to gays, I do it to all soldiers who's conduct is unbecoming, all soldiers E-6 and below are my soldiers and I can issue on the spot corrections to any of them.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah I am SURE you want to run out all those that you PERCEIVE to be homosexual. You are a REAL piece of work.


----------



## Flaylo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yeah I am SURE you want to run out all those that you PERCEIVE to be homosexual. You are a REAL piece of work.



I don't want to know who's gay, don't you think that maybe thats what I was trying to point out when I said gays have a reason why their sexual orientation should be known and why I am against being forced to know? If its substantiated that a soldier is gay I will support chaptering them out 110% to the fullest extent of the regulation because its my duty abide by and enforce the regulation.  If I catch someone doing homosexual acts or overhear them saying that they're gay I will report it, but I'm not going to witchunt for gays.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.


----------



## ABikerSailor

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "knew" they were gay, in that it was obvious by their demeanor, their dress on liberty, the sorts of non-sexual social activities they engaged in, but they did not commit any homosexual acts or openly state that they were gay.  Now... I say AGAIN... what regulation did I break?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awe, the poor baby Commander got his feelings hurt and negged me. Is that your cyber version of a Captains mast?
> 
> I don't see what is so difficult, you knew that you had sailors who were Gay, You were an Officer, and you did not follow up on regulations. You broke the regulations by allowing them to go unchallenged.
> 
> 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces
> 
> DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separation
> 
> MILPERSMAN 1910-148 Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct
> 
> NAVADMIN 291/99, Continuing Guidance Concerning Proper Application of DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy
> 
> ADMIN 094/00 Homosexual Conduct Policy and Training Requirements
> 
> 
> Take your pick SIR!  (put a little slur n that sir, Nam grunts might understand it) And my bet is that you also knew this before DADT. God only knows how many regs were broken then.
> 
> Now pass some rep around and neg me again, You broke the fucking regs.
Click to expand...


The first one, is a POLICY that states if you have absolute physical proof that someone has committed homosexual acts, then you have to discharge them.  However, if you have SUSPICIONS that the individual is gay, you cannot ask, and they cannot tell you, until AFTER there is physical proof (i.e. photographs or eyewitnesses).

MILPERSMAN?  Ollie, do you realize what that book is?  It's the Military Personnel Manual, which lays out the procedures for ALL discharges.  That one just happens to discuss what the procedures are after proof has been retrieved.  It tells you what to put on the DD214.

The other ones are re-iterating what the policies are.  You can discharge if you have physical proof, but if it's only suspicion, then you can't ask and they don't have to tell.

Incidentally, one of the things that is required prior to being separated?  You have to be interviewed by a shrink to determine if you really are gay.

Way to go Army Bag Girl Ollie......you've shown yet again what a pompous ass you are.

Incidentally, what the fuck is some ground pounding delivery boy gonna really know about the Navy anyway?  You stated the deck of a carrier isn't dangerous because you landed on one ONCE in a Blackhawk.  There was where I first knew you were dumber than a bag of bricks.

This thread?  Just keeps polishing that fucked up image.  BTW Olliver Pissed, does the Army think it's okay for someone who is retired (and thereby still in), to disrespect a retired CDR?

I guess the Army has no discipline or military bearing if you're the poster boy for them here.

Glad I didn't join your fucked up service.........respect for my superiors is something I've had since I was a kid.  

Apparently you missed that class........


----------



## SFC Ollie

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe, the poor baby Commander got his feelings hurt and negged me. Is that your cyber version of a Captains mast?
> 
> I don't see what is so difficult, you knew that you had sailors who were Gay, You were an Officer, and you did not follow up on regulations. You broke the regulations by allowing them to go unchallenged.
> 
> 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces
> 
> DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separation
> 
> MILPERSMAN 1910-148 Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct
> 
> NAVADMIN 291/99, Continuing Guidance Concerning Proper Application of DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy
> 
> ADMIN 094/00 Homosexual Conduct Policy and Training Requirements
> 
> 
> Take your pick SIR!  (put a little slur n that sir, Nam grunts might understand it) And my bet is that you also knew this before DADT. God only knows how many regs were broken then.
> 
> Now pass some rep around and neg me again, You broke the fucking regs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first one, is a POLICY that states if you have absolute physical proof that someone has committed homosexual acts, then you have to discharge them.  However, if you have SUSPICIONS that the individual is gay, you cannot ask, and they cannot tell you, until AFTER there is physical proof (i.e. photographs or eyewitnesses).
> 
> MILPERSMAN?  Ollie, do you realize what that book is?  It's the Military Personnel Manual, which lays out the procedures for ALL discharges.  That one just happens to discuss what the procedures are after proof has been retrieved.  It tells you what to put on the DD214.
> 
> The other ones are re-iterating what the policies are.  You can discharge if you have physical proof, but if it's only suspicion, then you can't ask and they don't have to tell.
> 
> Incidentally, one of the things that is required prior to being separated?  You have to be interviewed by a shrink to determine if you really are gay.
> 
> Way to go Army Bag Girl Ollie......you've shown yet again what a pompous ass you are.
> 
> Incidentally, what the fuck is some ground pounding delivery boy gonna really know about the Navy anyway?  You stated the deck of a carrier isn't dangerous because you landed on one ONCE in a Blackhawk.  There was where I first knew you were dumber than a bag of bricks.
> 
> This thread?  Just keeps polishing that fucked up image.  BTW Olliver Pissed, does the Army think it's okay for someone who is retired (and thereby still in), to disrespect a retired CDR?
> 
> I guess the Army has no discipline or military bearing if you're the poster boy for them here.
> 
> Glad I didn't join your fucked up service.........respect for my superiors is something I've had since I was a kid.
> 
> Apparently you missed that class........
Click to expand...


You wouldn't have lasted a month in the Army.

Fucked up service? Not at all

ARMY
Air Force
Navy
Marines
Coast Guard
Different Uniforms
Different missions
Same flag.

I think I'll just ignore your stupid ass for a while since you cannot respect the branches of service and individuals who served in them. Go push your desk around the office or something.


----------



## ABikerSailor

> You wouldn't have lasted a month in the Army.
> 
> Fucked up service? Not at all
> 
> ARMY
> Air Force
> Navy
> Marines
> Coast Guard
> Different Uniforms
> Different missions
> Same flag.
> 
> I think I'll just ignore your stupid ass for a while since you cannot respect the branches of service and individuals who served in them. Go push your desk around the office or something.



Cool.......ignore me Ollie the Pissed, delivery boy for the ignorant, why the fuck would someone who is as disrespectful as you are have anything to offer?

You're just upset that you got pwned.  By the way........hypocrite much?


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no discrimination with a policy that tells homosexuals to keep their sexual life a personal and private matter, especially a policy that allows them to serve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when it only applies to homosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you knowledgable about the Army and how we operate? Are you knowledgable about military regulations and policy other than your homosexual one-sided agenda crusade against DADT? A soldier's sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, not a matter that everyone in the unit must know and not something that a soldier needs to divulge. Its not discrimination to tell a soldier to keep the details of his sex life and activities to themselves and thats all the Army expects out of all. Point out to me where it states in the regulation that only homosexuals are supposed to keep their sex lives to themselves.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly think they have it written down that 'oh by the way it only applies to gays'? How am I supposed to show the lack of a similar rule for straights? You show me the law that says that a straight soldier talking about their sexuality is grounds for dismissal.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is lifted and faggots start getting beat up and cohesion in the military units are in disarray the Bass predicts faggot liberals like yourself is going to blame homophobia and not the the lifting DADT as the reason for the problems. DADT is not going to get lifted anytime soon, there is much to evaluate and much that has to be done before it is lifted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, doomsday scenarios.
> 
> Oh and isn't it great how the Bass says that a lot of soldiers are brutes who can't help but assault their fellow troops just for being gay.
> 
> I however do not think so lowly of our troops, I would hope that most of them aren't asshole thugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is your personal experience with soldiers? If my soldiers object to the idea of sharing showers and barracks rooms with someone who is gay because they can't trust that the person maybe eyeing them they're bad homophobes for feeling that way. Don't ever refer to my soldiers as thugs because you don't my soldiers or any soldiers at all for that matter. Until you put on the uniform you will never understand why forbidding gays from serving openly in the right thing to do, at least for their sakes. and the sake of unit cohesion.
Click to expand...


If someone beats someone up only for being gay they are a thug (and an asshole), period.

And explain to me why forbidding gays is the right thing to do.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one problem with Gays in the military.  It goes as follows.
> 
> Say that I am a soldier.  I am straight and therefore when I take a shower, It is like showering iwth a bunch of ugly gorillas.
> 
> On the other hand, let a gay male take a shower with the rest of the soldiers--it is like parting at a strip club every night--for free--the government is paying him.
> 
> 
> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.  We straights want eye candy as well, so why not make the barracks co-ed??
> 
> 
> That is right!! mixed sex barracks, mixed sex showers and mixed sex training!!  Why not?   Are you sexist!  A prude.  It is only fair--what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that most women or gay men would even get in a shower with you is hilarious.
> 
> keep IT coming.   oops!  poor choice of words.
> 
> this belongs in the Lame Zone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gays do openly serve they will be in showers with straights, they may not have a problem being around straight men but straight men would sure as damn hell have a problem with it, you can count me as one of them.
Click to expand...


We have a simple solution to that called shower curtains.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that most women or gay men would even get in a shower with you is hilarious.
> 
> keep IT coming.   oops!  poor choice of words.
> 
> this belongs in the Lame Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If gays do openly serve they will be in showers with straights, they may not have a problem being around straight men but straight men would sure as damn hell have a problem with it, you can count me as one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a simple solution to that called shower curtains.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, shower curtains.... Lets tell all the women that they no longer have their own showers but must share the shower room with the men. but don't worry we put up some shower curtains.... You are funny. What do you think the womens reaction would be?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that most women or gay men would even get in a shower with you is hilarious.
> 
> keep IT coming.   oops!  poor choice of words.
> 
> this belongs in the Lame Zone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If gays do openly serve they will be in showers with straights, they may not have a problem being around straight men but straight men would sure as damn hell have a problem with it, you can count me as one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a simple solution to that called shower curtains.
Click to expand...


You must really think the military is like college, there are no communal showers with curtains in open showers, otherwise they wouldn't be open and you can't put them in, you gay loving libtards think everything is so simple a fix for the military, especially people like you who have no current or prior military service.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The military cannot guarantee that if gays and straights are in a communal open shower that gays will not at someone's butt in a sexual suggestive manner and this goes back to that trust issue, no one is going to trust the faggots, even when they claim they will not look and have no desire to.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Faggots claim not to look at the butts and bodies of straight men, but this is refuted by the fact that for example, 50% of the readers of Playgirl magazine are faggots when the magazine's intended audience is heterosexual women. Taking this into account, who's to say that these same faggots will not look at the butts and bodies of straight men in communal showers, eventhough they and their fag loving supporters claim that faggots have no desire to do so?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gays do openly serve they will be in showers with straights, they may not have a problem being around straight men but straight men would sure as damn hell have a problem with it, you can count me as one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a simple solution to that called shower curtains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must really think the military is like college, there are no communal showers with curtains in open showers, otherwise they wouldn't be open and you can't put them in, you gay loving libtards think everything is so simple a fix for the military, especially people like you who have no current or prior military service.
Click to expand...


It can't be that hard to install curtains or walls.


----------



## Father Time

Also Bass your obsession with anal is unhealthy seek some help or at least a male prostitute.


----------



## ACG22

What the posters using the "what about the showers" line of debate seem to be forgetting, though, is that there are obviously currently gays in the military that you don't know about.  They are already demonstrating restraint, and I doubt much would change if DADT were removed.  What's truly funny is that you say that DADT should remain because, if many of them found out, the "super machos" wouldn't be able to demonstrate the same level of restraint and treat them as humans.  Hypocrisy?  The military got past previous integrations of minorities; this is no different.

If for no other reason, though, look at the effect it has had?  How can you justify an almost 3-fold increase in discharges since the DADT was implemented?  Combine that with needing to lower standards for admission in order to achieve recruiting goals and it seems like our military is persisting with a failure and harming themselves in the process.

The military should be a reflection of our society's values overall.  Otherwise, what is it fighting for anyway?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Also Bass your obsession with anal is unhealthy seek some help or at least a male prostitute.



Faggots are the ones obsessed with anal, not the Bass, you should think about that first before making such dumb comments, then again why aren't you telling faggots that their obsession with anal is unhealthy? Hypocrite!


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Bass your obsession with anal is unhealthy seek some help or at least a male prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are the ones obsessed with anal, not the Bass, you should think about that first before making such dumb comments, then again why aren't you telling faggots that their obsession with anal is unhealthy? Hypocrite!
Click to expand...


Dude the gay posters here don't post about anal as much as you.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Bass your obsession with anal is unhealthy seek some help or at least a male prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are the ones obsessed with anal, not the Bass, you should think about that first before making such dumb comments, then again why aren't you telling faggots that their obsession with anal is unhealthy? Hypocrite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude the gay posters here don't post about anal as much as you.
Click to expand...


The gay posters really engage in anal pounding, the Bass doesn't so who has the real problem with anal, faggots, or a straight married man who condemns homosexuality?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

ABikerSailor said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe, the poor baby Commander got his feelings hurt and negged me. Is that your cyber version of a Captains mast?
> 
> I don't see what is so difficult, you knew that you had sailors who were Gay, You were an Officer, and you did not follow up on regulations. You broke the regulations by allowing them to go unchallenged.
> 
> 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces
> 
> DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separation
> 
> MILPERSMAN 1910-148 Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct
> 
> NAVADMIN 291/99, Continuing Guidance Concerning Proper Application of DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy
> 
> ADMIN 094/00 Homosexual Conduct Policy and Training Requirements
> 
> 
> Take your pick SIR!  (put a little slur n that sir, Nam grunts might understand it) And my bet is that you also knew this before DADT. God only knows how many regs were broken then.
> 
> Now pass some rep around and neg me again, You broke the fucking regs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first one, is a POLICY that states if you have absolute physical proof that someone has committed homosexual acts, then you have to discharge them.  However, if you have SUSPICIONS that the individual is gay, you cannot ask, and they cannot tell you, until AFTER there is physical proof (i.e. photographs or eyewitnesses).
> 
> MILPERSMAN?  Ollie, do you realize what that book is?  It's the Military Personnel Manual, which lays out the procedures for ALL discharges.  That one just happens to discuss what the procedures are after proof has been retrieved.  It tells you what to put on the DD214.
> 
> The other ones are re-iterating what the policies are.  You can discharge if you have physical proof, but if it's only suspicion, then you can't ask and they don't have to tell.
> 
> Incidentally, one of the things that is required prior to being separated?  You have to be interviewed by a shrink to determine if you really are gay.
> 
> Way to go Army Bag Girl Ollie......you've shown yet again what a pompous ass you are.
> 
> Incidentally, what the fuck is some ground pounding delivery boy gonna really know about the Navy anyway?  You stated the deck of a carrier isn't dangerous because you landed on one ONCE in a Blackhawk.  There was where I first knew you were dumber than a bag of bricks.
> 
> This thread?  Just keeps polishing that fucked up image.  BTW Olliver Pissed, does the Army think it's okay for someone who is retired (and thereby still in), to disrespect a retired CDR?
> 
> I guess the Army has no discipline or military bearing if you're the poster boy for them here.
> 
> Glad I didn't join your fucked up service.........respect for my superiors is something I've had since I was a kid.
> 
> Apparently you missed that class........
Click to expand...






Hell I don't have to be in the Navy or any other service for that matter to know that the deck of an aircraft carrier is a VERY dangerous place. I can't believe Ollie said it wasn't. My Gawd what a dope.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Bass your obsession with anal is unhealthy seek some help or at least a male prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are the ones obsessed with anal, not the Bass, you should think about that first before making such dumb comments, then again why aren't you telling faggots that their obsession with anal is unhealthy? Hypocrite!
Click to expand...








You are the most HOMO obsessed person on this entire board maybe the entire internet. You really need help because your obsession leads MANY here to believe you are a self LOATHING homosexual. You are WAY more interested in the anuses of gay men then gay men are.


----------



## SFC Ollie

ACG22 said:


> What the posters using the "what about the showers" line of debate seem to be forgetting, though, is that there are obviously currently gays in the military that you don't know about.  They are already demonstrating restraint, and I doubt much would change if DADT were removed.  What's truly funny is that you say that DADT should remain because, if many of them found out, the "super machos" wouldn't be able to demonstrate the same level of restraint and treat them as humans.  Hypocrisy?  The military got past previous integrations of minorities; this is no different.
> 
> If for no other reason, though, look at the effect it has had?  How can you justify an almost 3-fold increase in discharges since the DADT was implemented?  Combine that with needing to lower standards for admission in order to achieve recruiting goals and it seems like our military is persisting with a failure and harming themselves in the process.
> 
> The military should be a reflection of our society's values overall.  Otherwise, what is it fighting for anyway?



As small as our military is today there is no way we ever should have had problems recruiting.  I don't know who to blame it on but dropping DADT will not assist in it. I have some Ideas who to blame but I'll be nice.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Cold Fusion38 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe, the poor baby Commander got his feelings hurt and negged me. Is that your cyber version of a Captains mast?
> 
> I don't see what is so difficult, you knew that you had sailors who were Gay, You were an Officer, and you did not follow up on regulations. You broke the regulations by allowing them to go unchallenged.
> 
> 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces
> 
> DoD Directive 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separation
> 
> MILPERSMAN 1910-148 Separation by Reason of Homosexual Conduct
> 
> NAVADMIN 291/99, Continuing Guidance Concerning Proper Application of DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy
> 
> ADMIN 094/00 Homosexual Conduct Policy and Training Requirements
> 
> 
> Take your pick SIR!  (put a little slur n that sir, Nam grunts might understand it) And my bet is that you also knew this before DADT. God only knows how many regs were broken then.
> 
> Now pass some rep around and neg me again, You broke the fucking regs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first one, is a POLICY that states if you have absolute physical proof that someone has committed homosexual acts, then you have to discharge them.  However, if you have SUSPICIONS that the individual is gay, you cannot ask, and they cannot tell you, until AFTER there is physical proof (i.e. photographs or eyewitnesses).
> 
> MILPERSMAN?  Ollie, do you realize what that book is?  It's the Military Personnel Manual, which lays out the procedures for ALL discharges.  That one just happens to discuss what the procedures are after proof has been retrieved.  It tells you what to put on the DD214.
> 
> The other ones are re-iterating what the policies are.  You can discharge if you have physical proof, but if it's only suspicion, then you can't ask and they don't have to tell.
> 
> Incidentally, one of the things that is required prior to being separated?  You have to be interviewed by a shrink to determine if you really are gay.
> 
> Way to go Army Bag Girl Ollie......you've shown yet again what a pompous ass you are.
> 
> Incidentally, what the fuck is some ground pounding delivery boy gonna really know about the Navy anyway?  You stated the deck of a carrier isn't dangerous because you landed on one ONCE in a Blackhawk.  There was where I first knew you were dumber than a bag of bricks.
> 
> This thread?  Just keeps polishing that fucked up image.  BTW Olliver Pissed, does the Army think it's okay for someone who is retired (and thereby still in), to disrespect a retired CDR?
> 
> I guess the Army has no discipline or military bearing if you're the poster boy for them here.
> 
> Glad I didn't join your fucked up service.........respect for my superiors is something I've had since I was a kid.
> 
> Apparently you missed that class........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell I don't have to be in the Navy or any other service for that matter to know that the deck of an aircraft carrier is a VERY dangerous place. I can't believe Ollie said it wasn't. My Gawd what a dope.
Click to expand...


I never said that, Are you as stupid as gaybikerbitch?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

amrchaos said:


> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.



Don't worry about it, I'm fairly certain most homosexuals would find it horrifying to be surrounded by a bunch of homophobes in a shower - naked or not.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when it only applies to homosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you knowledgable about the Army and how we operate? Are you knowledgable about military regulations and policy other than your homosexual one-sided agenda crusade against DADT? A soldier's sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, not a matter that everyone in the unit must know and not something that a soldier needs to divulge. Its not discrimination to tell a soldier to keep the details of his sex life and activities to themselves and thats all the Army expects out of all. Point out to me where it states in the regulation that only homosexuals are supposed to keep their sex lives to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think they have it written down that 'oh by the way it only applies to gays'? How am I supposed to show the lack of a similar rule for straights? You show me the law that says that a straight soldier talking about their sexuality is grounds for dismissal.
Click to expand...



So the regulation doesn't only apply to gays, that was my point, perhaps you should familiarize yourself more with military regulations.


----------



## Flaylo

SpidermanTuba said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the problem.  Homosexuals will have R&R while a straight grunt linke me will not.   That is totally unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it, I'm fairly certain most homosexuals would find it horrifying to be surrounded by a bunch of homophobes in a shower - naked or not.
Click to expand...



At gays don't have to worry about straights looking at them in showers, which means straights can always be trusted in that regard, gays cannot.


----------



## Flaylo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yeah I am SURE you want to run out all those that you PERCEIVE to be homosexual. You are a REAL piece of work.



As an Senior NCO and a member of the U.S. military it is my job to obey the regulations and set an example and enforce them whenever they're broken. The regulation says I cannot witchunt gays, so I do not nor do I want to. The regulation is clear in stating that homosexuals must be administratively separated from the military for stating they're gay and or for engaging in homosexual acts. I will enforce the regulation and show no mercy for special treatment for anyone because its my job.


----------



## Flaylo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.




Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.


----------



## Gunny

Father Time said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Maine Man, I've known several old crusty Chiefs who never had a problem with gays serving with them.
> 
> They just made sure they did their jobs and followed the regs.
> 
> People like Ollie are the last of the old guard.  They're also the ones that think women should stay in the States, rather than serve on subs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping and I disagree.
> 
> True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?
> 
> This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would to this day and HAVE gotten rid of known gays in my unit.  They disrupt unit cohesion because no one else trusts them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
Click to expand...


Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?

Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.

"Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.


----------



## Gunny

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping and I disagree.
> 
> True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?
> 
> This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the color of a persons skin and their sexual orientation are two different things.
> 
> And Once again, Working with and living with are two very different situations.
> 
> And politics, I do not ever remember having a political discussion with my troops or with one of my sergeants. Just wasn't something we talked about. Other than something about the "assholes in congress screwed us again" type comments. And you heard that all the time regardless who was in power.
Click to expand...


Comparing heredity with behavior appears to be the recurring theme here with those using it refusing to look at the fact there is no comparison between one and the other.


----------



## maineman

Gunny said:


> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.



the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services... 

sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed.  Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
> 
> sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed.  Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
Click to expand...


Which begs the question of why are so opposed to DADT?


----------



## Flaylo

Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.



If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her.  If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.

That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it.  ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.


----------



## ACG22

>>As small as our military is today there is no way we ever should have had problems recruiting.  I don't know who to blame it on but dropping DADT will not assist in it. I have some Ideas who to blame but I'll be nice.<<


There is no singular reason for the problems in recruiting, but a few reasons could be: Clinton's cutting of funding, Bush's cutting back on benefits, a refocusing of how we deploy, a re-assessment of the "2 front" model, a shift to pre-emptive acts of war, an over-reliance on new technologies.  These are just a few, and each may have varying degrees of impact.  As for DADT, I think most Americans would rather see gays allowed to serve openly than to continue to lower our standards, and thus our entire military overall.


----------



## ACG22

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her.  If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.
> 
> That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it.  ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.
Click to expand...


I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered.  I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated.  But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date.  I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.


----------



## Flaylo

ACG22 said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her.  If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.
> 
> That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it.  ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered.  I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated.  But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date.  I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.
Click to expand...


I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Flaylo said:


> Of those who are active duty and retired in this forum, if you had an airman, marine, sailor or soldier whom you knew was gay, either by acts or by their own admission, how many of you would enforce military policy and push for the administrative separation of these servicemembers and how many of you would defy it? Keep in mind that defying the policy is in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. This question applies to only NCO and Officers who have served in leadership positions.



As a professional NCO I would of course enforce the policy as any other regulations or policies.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her.  If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.
> 
> That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it.  ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered.  I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated.  But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date.  I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by.
Click to expand...


Oh I can imagine the scene in front of the Ft Bragg main PX if two guys were holding hands or hugging. The MP's wouldn't be able to get there fast enough or in enough numbers to help them.


----------



## csbarry

As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or for that matter openly display your preference; please don't apply. None of the afore mentioned behavior is accepted in the civilian business world, and one shouldn't have to be subjected to it in the armed forces. Take your pick; in the civilian business world, any of that behavior would be considered sexual harassment, an established crime.


----------



## Flaylo

Why does it seem as though the most professional servicemembers in this forum are soldiers and marines? We have much more strict standards than the other two branches, but airmen and sailors are no less professional, the ones outside of this forum that is.


----------



## Flaylo

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh I can imagine the scene in front of the Ft Bragg main PX if two guys were holding hands or hugging. The MP's wouldn't be able to get there fast enough or in enough numbers to help them.



Thats why I keep telling FatherTime that he doesn't understand the Army since he's not in uniform and has never worn the uniform. 82nd Airborne soldiers have an Army of their own that soldiers from other divisions couldn't hack, thats the real Army, along with 3rd ID. 82nd soldiers, especially the Airborne Infrantry, would never tolerate openly gay soldiers in their ranks, they're far lower than the ordinary leg.


----------



## Flaylo

This commander here is crying the blues but he knew what he was getting into before he joined

Letter from a Mountain Soldier - Rachel Maddow show- msnbc.com

I have no compassion for people who willfully put themselves in bad situations they have no control over. Personal choices, not DADT, is the reason for his dilemma. Everyone who has joined the Army knows full well that the possibility of the Army changing its regulations to suit them are almost nil. If he can't hack the Army and its regulations he should get out, that way him and his 'partner' will have no more problems.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
> 
> sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed.  Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
Click to expand...


The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit.  If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual.  What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.

So?  You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference.  Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?  

Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander.  There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason.  This is one.  Suck it up .... sir.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Flaylo said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
Click to expand...








PERCEIVED asshole PERCEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PERCEIVED him to be gay. Don't come here after that comment and try to tell me you are not on an anti-gay WITCH HUNT!!! We BOTH know you ARE!


----------



## ACG22

"I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by."

Those are weak concerns.  Whether you like it or not, it isn't against the law to be gay.  Worrying about what kids may or may not see is a worthwhile endeavor... when it is appropriate.  Trying to keep kids from seeing legal, normal behavior does not fall into this, IMO.  And if a soldier is "disgusted" by the thought of something, he'll just have to get over that.


----------



## ACG22

csbarry said:


> As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or the like; please stay home.



And yet you illustrate the point perfectly, though by accident.  Who here is advocating this particular scenario?  No one, as far as I can tell.  What IS being advocated, though, is a removal of a policy that serves no other purpose than to allow the military to pretend it cares.  Our concern for the military in this country is a bit over the top and needs to be checked.  The military serves the people, and if we want it to reflect our values that's what it will do.  Perhaps some cutting of funds will help the brass see the light.


----------



## Flaylo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRECEIVED asshole PRECEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PRECEIVED him to be gay. Don't come here after that comment and try to tell me you are not on an anti-gay WITCH HUNT!!! We BOTH know you ARE!
Click to expand...


My perception is my personal take, but it doesn't always equal reality and the only way I would push for an administrative chapter is if the soldiers admitted being gay and or was caught committing homosexual acts, no one is allowed to go after gays.


----------



## Flaylo

ACG22 said:


> "I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by."
> 
> Those are weak concerns.  Whether you like it or not, it isn't against the law to be gay.  Worrying about what kids may or may not see is a worthwhile endeavor... when it is appropriate.  Trying to keep kids from seeing legal, normal behavior does not fall into this, IMO.  And if a soldier is "disgusted" by the thought of something, he'll just have to get over that.



Weak for you but not weak for those in uniform and no soldier should have to be forced to accept that.


----------



## ACG22

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by."
> 
> Those are weak concerns.  Whether you like it or not, it isn't against the law to be gay.  Worrying about what kids may or may not see is a worthwhile endeavor... when it is appropriate.  Trying to keep kids from seeing legal, normal behavior does not fall into this, IMO.  And if a soldier is "disgusted" by the thought of something, he'll just have to get over that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weak for you but not weak for those in uniform and no soldier should have to be forced to accept that.
Click to expand...


Weak for most humans.  Sorry, but if a soldier is too weak-minded to deal with LEGAL behaviors occurring around him, he isn't fit to serve.  No wonder rape and theft rates are higher in the military.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Flaylo said:


> ACG22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a sailor came to me and TOLD me, point blank, that he was a homosexual, I would enforce military police and take steps to administratively discharge him or her.  If I caught a sailor performing a homosexual sex act, I would do the same.
> 
> That being said, throughout my quarter century in uniform, I was well aware of MANY sailors who were quite obviously gay, yet they never stated so, and they never engaged in homosexual sex acts in any venue where I would know about it.  ANd their sexual orientation was well known to most all the members of the crew... and while I realize that others have had experiences different than mine, I can honestly say that I NEVER saw any problem with unit cohesion or esprit de corps in all that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the typical situation that would be encountered.  I seriously doubt that gays would suddenly have flamboyant parades on base the second DADT was eliminated.  But it would likely allow them to serve better knowing they weren't having to constantly fear reprisals should someone find out about them having a date.  I think this issue really has more to do with the military believing it isn't subject to anyone but its own rules, which bears out in their other behaviors, sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still have concerns, especially for family members who have children, the kids shouldn't have to be exposed to gay soldiers who hold hands and show public displays of affection when off duty on post, this issue about gays is something soldiers should not have the burden of worrying about. If other soldiers see it this its going to create all kinds of breaks in unit cohesion, I think it will be hard for a soldier to have seamless teamwork with a person who's sexual acts they're disgusted by.
Click to expand...








AHH I see you have such a LOW opinion of our troops that they CAN'T act profesionally. I get it now I see why you are TERRIFIED of repealing DADT.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Flaylo said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRECEIVED asshole PRECEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PRECEIVED him to be gay. Don't come here after that comment and try to tell me you are not on an anti-gay WITCH HUNT!!! We BOTH know you ARE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception is my personal take, but it doesn't always equal reality and the only way I would push for an administrative chapter is if the soldiers admitted being gay and or was caught committing homosexual acts, no one is allowed to go after gays.
Click to expand...





NO your PERCEPTION is the first step to YOU ruining a man's LIFE because of your BIGOTED attitude!


----------



## amrchaos

Charlie Bass said:


> Faggots claim not to look at the butts and bodies of straight men, but this is refuted by the fact that for example, 50% of the readers of Playgirl magazine are faggots when the magazine's intended audience is heterosexual women. Taking this into account, who's to say that these same faggots will not look at the butts and bodies of straight men in communal showers, eventhough they and their fag loving supporters claim that faggots have no desire to do so?



Let say you are wrong, for arguements sake--ok Bass.


Then what attract homosexuals to homosexuals? If it is not the physique or the package, then what do Homosexuals look for?


Personality?  That is what women say and we males know that is not true.  A horny woman wants service and she does not care if the man is a bastard if he is serving the right stuff.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> Why does it seem as though the most professional servicemembers in this forum are soldiers and marines? We have much more strict standards than the other two branches, but airmen and sailors are no less professional, the ones outside of this forum that is.



Back off.  I am every bit as professional as you will EVER be... and I am just as proud of my country, my navy, and my service to it as anyone else.


----------



## maineman

Gunny said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
> 
> sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed.  Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit.  If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual.  What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
> 
> So?  You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference.  Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander.  There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason.  This is one.  Suck it up .... sir.
Click to expand...


Gunny... I have NEVER tolerated homosexual acts done by sailors under my command... and never would.  The fact is this:  it was quite clear, in several instances, that sailors serving with me WERE gay, even though they did not admit to it or ever engage in any illegal activity.  I saw no reason, nor any regulation requiring me to hound them out of the service... and therefore, I did not, but served with them and found them to be every bit as talented, and professional as the next guy.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
Click to expand...


bullshit.  I never willfully, or even unwittingly, disobeyed any regulation.

You should not be so quick to accuse your seniors of such conduct.


----------



## csbarry

csbarry said:


> As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or for that matter openly display your preference; please don't apply. None of the afore mentioned behavior is accepted in the civilian business world, and one shouldn't have to be subjected to it in the armed forces. Take your pick; in the civilian business world, any of that behavior would be considered sexual harassment, an established crime.


----------



## Father Time

Gunny said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stereotyping and I disagree.
> 
> True, gays already serve in the military and most likely always have.  So where's the problem?
> 
> This demand that gays be allowed to serve openly in the military is pushed by those who are gay first, servicemember second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone demanding the right to flaunt his/her deviant sexual behavior isn't worth a single one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
Click to expand...


A homosexual is defined by who they are attracted to not by their behavior.

Your argument appears to be that if someone wants to talk about their sexuality once they obviously care about it more than being a soldier which is just stupid.


----------



## Father Time

Gunny said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
> 
> sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed.  Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit.  If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual.  What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
> 
> So?  You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference.  Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander.  There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason.  This is one.  Suck it up .... sir.
Click to expand...


And what pray tell is the good reason to not tolerate being gay?


----------



## ABikerSailor

So, a person's ability to speak a foreign language, of a people we are currently at war with, which also happens to be very difficult to learn (Arabic), is less important to you than his sexual orientation?

You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

Have I known gay sailors while in the Navy?  Yes.  Did I know that some of them participated in homosexual behaviors?  Never asked, didn't want to know, and besides, it really isn't my business if I'm not interested in having sex with them.

DADT needs to be repealed now.

By the way Flaylo, stating that your service is so much better than the Navy people on this board, lemmie ask you something......did you see the fucked up way a soldier (namely the retired delivery boy Ollie) treated an officer he KNEW was an officer?

Yeah.....tell me again how much better military bearing the Army has.........if Ollie the Pissed is any representative, glad I didn't become a lobotomized ground pounder.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

If its good enough israel, its good enough for america

Let gays serve openly.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you honestly believe all of the opponents of DADT are gay? Obama is against it and he's not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you believe being openly gay shouldn't be immediate grounds for dismissal you must be gay.  Yup makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same was true with blacks. Also in any other job if you don't trust gays you would still be expected to work with them. Although should we make sure all troops have the same political views in the name of 'unit cohesion'. I'll betcha a hard left troop wouldn't really trust a hard right troop and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> I love how mentioning it once becomes shoving it in people's faces and flaunting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A homosexual is defined by who they are attracted to not by their behavior.
> 
> Your argument appears to be that if someone wants to talk about their sexuality once they obviously care about it more than being a soldier which is just stupid.
Click to expand...


Homosexuality is defined by sexual acts, not attraction, why else would faggots keep talking about "homosexuality" in the animal world? They base it on two animals of the same sex screwing each other, not by attraction. A man who has sex with other men but claims to be attracted to women is a faggot.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

da bass, i Have not personally attacked you in any way, so i will ask you and others, why do israel, and a lot of the other nato nations allow gays to serve openly?

can someone please explain that?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

actsnoblemartin said:


> da bass, i Have not personally attacked you in any way, so i will ask you and others, why do israel, and a lot of the other nato nations allow gays to serve openly?
> 
> can someone please explain that?



The Bass doesn't give a damn what Israelis do, there's a lot of things we do that Israelis don't do, so why don't they do what we do?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact remains, when Truman wanted to desegregate the armed forces, there were plenty of senior officers and lifers who said that doing so would be BAD for their services...
> 
> sodomy is still forbidden in the UCMJ and will remain so if DADT is repealed.  Gay servicemen and women will still not be able to engage in homosexual acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit.  If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual.  What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
> 
> So?  You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference.  Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander.  There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason.  This is one.  Suck it up .... sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what pray tell is the good reason to not tolerate being gay?
Click to expand...



Give a good reason why people *HAVE* to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that disgust them?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

because whats the alternative?



Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit.  If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual.  What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
> 
> So?  You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference.  Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander.  There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason.  This is one.  Suck it up .... sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what pray tell is the good reason to not tolerate being gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give a good reason why people *HAVE* to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that disgust them?
Click to expand...


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is based on ... ummm ... nothing?
> 
> Once again, blacks are defined by ethnicity.  Women are defined by gender.  Neither ethnicity nor gender are behaviors.  There is no comparison.
> 
> "Mentioning it once" hardly addresses anything I stated, and is nothing more than an arbitrarily fabricated parameter on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A homosexual is defined by who they are attracted to not by their behavior.
> 
> Your argument appears to be that if someone wants to talk about their sexuality once they obviously care about it more than being a soldier which is just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is defined by sexual acts, not attraction, why else would faggots keep talking about "homosexuality" in the animal world? They base it on two animals of the same sex screwing each other, not by attraction. A man who has sex with other men but claims to be attracted to women is a faggot.
Click to expand...


So a woman who's sexually aroused by other women but has never had a sexual experience with them isn't gay?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that you're comparing apples to oranges and trying to make it sound legit.  If you look at the actual regulations, you can be homosexual in the military, and everyone know it without being discharged for being homosexual.  What violates the regs is engaging in homosexual acts.
> 
> So?  You're not allowed to have sex on the ship while it's on deployment no matter your gender preference.  Isn't THAT viloating MY rights to screw whatever I want to?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water, as you WELL know, Commander.  There are a MYRIAD of behaviors not tolerated in the military, most for good reason.  This is one.  Suck it up .... sir.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what pray tell is the good reason to not tolerate being gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Give a good reason why people *HAVE* to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that disgust them?
Click to expand...


Answer my question first.

You're the one who advocates we keep a policy that is costing us troops you tell us why we should keep it.


----------



## ACG22

"The Bass"

Is this a joke?  It should be.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

he's right. I am disgusted by anal sex (heterosexual style), perhaps we should imprison them too 





ACG22 said:


> "The Bass"
> 
> Is this a joke?  It should be.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

"The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.

The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS. 

Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.


----------



## Oscar Wao

ACG22 said:


> "The Bass"
> 
> Is this a joke? It should be.


That's his rap name...it's the title for his debut album.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

"The Bass. sanctimonious ass. so anal retentive he doesn't pass gas. YO YO YO YO."


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Cold Fusion38 said:


> "The Bass. sanctimonious ass. so anal retentive he doesn't pass gas. YO YO YO YO."


----------



## CurveLight

amrchaos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever serve?
> 
> If so, how many years?
> 
> During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.
> 
> Just like the straights are expected to do.
> 
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not serve
> 
> But If I did, I would want Strippers in the showers to set the "sexual preference problem" correct.
> 
> Excuse me if I am trying to score some R&R for striaght soldiers.  The government is throwing money away on everything else, why not on some Playboy towel girls??
Click to expand...



Maybe if you had served you would have known not everything revolves around your projection that everyone else is sex obsessed.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I think men are obsessed with sex, sometimes it can be unhealthy, sometimes its a good thing.

Men are different, not bad.

Gay and straight ones.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Cold Fusion38 said:


> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.



Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.

Married Couples

·  A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Looks like science says they play a bit more....


----------



## Cold Fusion38

SFC Ollie said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
> 
> Married Couples
> 
> ·  A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.
> 
> The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.
> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
> 
> Looks like science says they play a bit more....
Click to expand...





Not really a fair comparison since gays can't get married, but I'm SURE you know that.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I wonder how many "straights" have long lasting relationships that aren't MARRIED. I know I had SEVERAL before I got married.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I dont think its fair to compare marriage with common law marriages, one gets all the benefits, the other, well let them eat cake but still unfair in my judgment.

I completely understand why some want to perserve marriage, but the horse is already out of the barn. You wont save marriage by not letting gays marry in my humble view.

Youll save it, by fixing, or not choosing bad mates in the first place


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Oliver Pissed........gays have 1 out of every 6 relationships succeed.

What is it again for heteros?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.



There is no proof that faggots are born faggots, it hasn't been proven, faggots and fag lovers are all bark and no bite when it comes to posting evidence, they believe that emotionally repeating the same lies is evidence.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what pray tell is the good reason to not tolerate being gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give a good reason why people *HAVE* to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that disgust them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer my question first.
> 
> You're the one who advocates we keep a policy that is costing us troops you tell us why we should keep it.
Click to expand...


You're the one that wants to change the policy as well as you're the one that believes people should have to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that are disgusting and immoral.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give a good reason why people *HAVE* to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that disgust them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question first.
> 
> You're the one who advocates we keep a policy that is costing us troops you tell us why we should keep it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that wants to change the policy as well as you're the one that believes people should have to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that are disgusting and immoral.
Click to expand...


Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.

And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question first.
> 
> You're the one who advocates we keep a policy that is costing us troops you tell us why we should keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that wants to change the policy as well as you're the one that believes people should have to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that are disgusting and immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.
> 
> And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?
Click to expand...


I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it seem as though the most professional servicemembers in this forum are soldiers and marines? We have much more strict standards than the other two branches, but airmen and sailors are no less professional, the ones outside of this forum that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back off.  I am every bit as professional as you will EVER be... and I am just as proud of my country, my navy, and my service to it as anyone else.
Click to expand...



In this forum you and that other sailor have not been professional, especially that other sailor with his foul mouth and need I bring to your remembrance that thread Charlie Bass opened on ABikerSailor exposing his disregard for abused children?


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit.  I never willfully, or even unwittingly, disobeyed any regulation.
> 
> You should not be so quick to accuse your seniors of such conduct.
Click to expand...


You're not my senior, you are retired and chances are you would have never made the rank you have without the hard work and dedication of NCOs, we are the backbone of the military, officers, except for the ones in combat arms, are mostly chair-borne paper pushers who take the credit for what NCOs do.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that wants to change the policy as well as you're the one that believes people should have to tolerate homosexuality and sexual acts that are disgusting and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.
> 
> And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.
Click to expand...


Troops being discharged because of a stupid policy is still less troops. That's demonstrable harm. So unless you can show reason to keep it no amount of 'well it doesn't hurt that much' will make it a good rule.

So once again give us a good reason to keep it, because if it only does a small amount of damage then it's still a damaging unneeded rule.


----------



## Flaylo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT!!! You HATE gays so OF COURSE you are going to try to run them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the regulation simpleton, and I must and will enforce it, thats what NCOs do, we are not pawns to be used by the one sided homosexual agenda. If it is found out that I knew a soldier was engaging in homosexual acts and or admitted to me that he was gay and I failed to report it I am in violation of the regulation and would have to face consequences my self. Maineman would be retroactively punished if it was possible because he willfully disobeyed the regulation in violation of Article 92.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PERCEIVED asshole PERCEIVED!!! You would RUIN a man's life if you PERCEIVED him to be gay. Don't come here after that comment and try to tell me you are not on an anti-gay WITCH HUNT!!! We BOTH know you ARE!
Click to expand...



I have never witchunted a homosexual, it is illegal to do so, I don't initiate administrative action to separate a soldier based on "perceived acts," I base everything off of truthful, substantiated facts, nobody is discharged under DADT for perceived homosexual acts.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe people shouldn't be intolerant of people just because they do acts that do not harm them or others in any way, how dare I.
> 
> And we've all ready shown some harm caused by DADT, now quit stalling and show us some benefit. Or do you not have any good reason to keep it around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troops being discharged because of a stupid policy is still less troops. That's demonstrable harm. So unless you can show reason to keep it no amount of 'well it doesn't hurt that much' will make it a good rule.
> 
> So once again give us a good reason to keep it, because if it only does a small amount of damage then it's still a damaging unneeded rule.
Click to expand...



You haven't shown any demonstrable harm, what you have shown is your one sided homosexual biased agenda and total disregard for servicemembers discharged for reasons other than DADT and it is these discharges that are more numerous, if we take your version of "demonstrable harm" the military should do away with all discharges and thats not how the military works, I don't care about which policies you feel are stupid because what is stupid is subjective. Your statement that DADT is damaging and damaging is flat out untruthful, you're not in the military so how would you know whats damaging? When did you and one sided homosexual biased activist become experts on military readiness?


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the Army and I'm stating that DADT does not hurt the Army, we have far more many soldiers separated from the Army for reasons other than DADT, very few soldiers are lost to DADT compared to the other reason, I even made a thread about which you and the other one sided homosexual activists ignored. I'm in the Army now are you going to tell me different? You and that sailor keep bringing individual cases of homosexuals being discharged and try to present these cases as drastically hurting the military when the truth is such discharges are low compared to the other conditions under which servicemembers are discharged. The fact of the matter is that DADT does not hurt the military, there are always people covering down and getting the mission done when someone is discharged, thats how the military works, don't dare try nto convince me that the military and more importantly my soldiers cannot get the job done without the small numbers of homosexuals who are discharged under DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troops being discharged because of a stupid policy is still less troops. That's demonstrable harm. So unless you can show reason to keep it no amount of 'well it doesn't hurt that much' will make it a good rule.
> 
> So once again give us a good reason to keep it, because if it only does a small amount of damage then it's still a damaging unneeded rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown any demonstrable harm, what you have shown is your one sided homosexual biased agenda and total disregard for servicemembers discharged for reasons other than DADT and it is these discharges that are more numerous, if we take your version of "demonstrable harm" the military should do away with all discharges and thats not how the military works, I don't care about which policies you feel are stupid because what is stupid is subjective. Your statement that DADT is damaging and damaging is flat out untruthful, you're not in the military so how would you know whats damaging? When did you and one sided homosexual biased activist become experts on military readiness?
Click to expand...


People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.




By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> By the way Flaylo, stating that your service is so much better than the Navy people on this board, lemmie ask you something......did you see the fucked up way a soldier (namely the retired delivery boy Ollie) treated an officer he KNEW was an officer?
> 
> Yeah.....tell me again how much better military bearing the Army has.........if Ollie the Pissed is any representative, glad I didn't become a lobotomized ground pounder.




SFC Ollie has been very professional, he supports the regulations and doesn't let any personal biases he may have influence his decisions on how military policy should be enforced. He has demonstrated care and concern for the health and welfare of all service members as well as unit cohesion.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.
Click to expand...


You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?


----------



## Father Time

Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> People being discharged because of a rule is a harm, now if one can demonstrate a reason to have the rule in place then one can (possibly) justify it. Now quit stalling and give a reason why we should keep the rule, because if there is no reason to keep the rule then we should get rid of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?
Click to expand...


Loss is sometimes addition by substraction and I support military regulations, even the ones I don't agree with because its my job, personal opinion and bias will not affect nor stop me from carrying out policy. Discharges have been put in place for a reason, to preserve the good order, discipline, morale and welfare of servicemembers. You are not in the military so you don't understand.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?



What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.
Click to expand...


the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs.  Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125?  Did Ollie?

I'll bet not.

can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs.  Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125?  Did Ollie?
> 
> I'll bet not.
> 
> can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
Click to expand...


I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs.  Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125?  Did Ollie?
> 
> I'll bet not.
> 
> can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.
Click to expand...


have YOU ever gotten a blowjob?  Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?

and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loss is sometimes addition by substraction and I support military regulations, even the ones I don't agree with because its my job, personal opinion and bias will not affect nor stop me from carrying out policy. Discharges have been put in place for a reason, to preserve the good order, discipline, morale and welfare of servicemembers. You are not in the military so you don't understand.
Click to expand...



You can shove that fascist shit.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the UCMJ bans blowjobs too.... my guess is that, in your career, you have heard soldiers admit to getting blowjobs.  Did you charge them with a violation of Article 125?  Did Ollie?
> 
> I'll bet not.
> 
> can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have YOU ever gotten a blowjob?  Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?
> 
> and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?
Click to expand...



What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard a soldier mention those things around me nor to me and if I did I would give them an on the spot correction and tell them to move out. Discussing sexual acts in the workplace is not allowed. Its forbidden, anyone can lie and say that they've received oral sex, but the claim would have to be substantiated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have YOU ever gotten a blowjob?  Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?
> 
> and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.
Click to expand...


I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> have YOU ever gotten a blowjob?  Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?
> 
> and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
Click to expand...


I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.


----------



## CurveLight

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> have YOU ever gotten a blowjob?  Did you self-report your violation of Article 125?
> 
> and are you telling me that, late at night, sitting in the barracks or berthing spaces, soldiers don't talk about their lives with one another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
Click to expand...



I gotta agree.  It's good to be cautious about accusing people of lying about their Service but usually Vets have a good sense of language identification.  So far his rhetoric sounds like a B movie script currently being given away as free kitty litter tray liners.


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta agree.  It's good to be cautious about accusing people of lying about their Service but usually Vets have a good sense of language identification.  So far his rhetoric sounds like a B movie script currently being given away as free kitty litter tray liners.
Click to expand...



Oh my God, my feelings are supposed to be hurt by your childish attacks? I used to be on the trail as a drill sergeant so I used to dish this stuff out. I'm not fazed.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
Click to expand...



What Unit are you in?  I'd like to contact your CO and applaud your dedication to upholding the UCMJ and doing your best to maintain discipline inside a framework of equitable enforcement of Regulations.  I can't promise an ARCOM but will definitely make sure your COC is aware of the valuable asset of having an NCO like you in their charge.


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What Unit are you in?  I'd like to contact your CO and applaud your dedication to upholding the UCMJ and doing your best to maintain discipline inside a framework of equitable enforcement of Regulations.  I can't promise an ARCOM but will definitely make sure your COC is aware of the valuable asset of having an NCO like you in their charge.
Click to expand...


I'm not divulging that information, for all I know you could be al-Qaida in disguise.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Unit are you in?  I'd like to contact your CO and applaud your dedication to upholding the UCMJ and doing your best to maintain discipline inside a framework of equitable enforcement of Regulations.  I can't promise an ARCOM but will definitely make sure your COC is aware of the valuable asset of having an NCO like you in their charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not divulging that information, for all I know you could be al-Qaida in disguise.
Click to expand...







LOL!!!! What a FRAUD!


----------



## Flaylo

The al-Gayda posters need to stick to the facts and not fanatical one sided homosexual activism.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Unit are you in?  I'd like to contact your CO and applaud your dedication to upholding the UCMJ and doing your best to maintain discipline inside a framework of equitable enforcement of Regulations.  I can't promise an ARCOM but will definitely make sure your COC is aware of the valuable asset of having an NCO like you in their charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not divulging that information, for all I know you could be al-Qaida in disguise.
Click to expand...



You're nothing but a lying little cuntrag weasel.  I take it when you said you are a NCO you meant to say you are a Nagging C
ocksucking Orphan.


----------



## Gunny

csbarry said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or for that matter openly display your preference; please don't apply. None of the afore mentioned behavior is accepted in the civilian business world, and one shouldn't have to be subjected to it in the armed forces. Take your pick; in the civilian business world, any of that behavior would be considered sexual harassment, an established crime.
Click to expand...


So what does this mean?  You're such a bright, shining star you can quote yourself?  

The obvious flaw to your comment follows your first semi-colon -- you left out MARINES.  That, of course, puts you on THE shitlist.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do in my personal sexual life is just that, its personal and only for me to know. Did you self report yourself for your violations of Articles 92 and 125 of the UCMJ? Soldiers are nt allowed to discuss intimate details of their personal lives, I always verbally counsel and warn my soldiers against it because what they mention out in the open about their sex lives could be used against them later on, not to mention that its not professional to discuss such things in the workplace anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
Click to expand...


I don't think you've ever LIVED in a barracks or been deployed.  If you think that soldiers (or sailors) keep their discussions to private conversations between two individuals, it would seem clear to ME that you have ZERO experience in living in a communal, males only environment.  It would seem that you have never been cooped up with the same group of guys for months on end and worked hard with them, stood countless watches with them, stood in line on the mess decks with them, played poker with them, traded sea stories with them... I am sorry... you might say that I "better" believe you, but, I was in the Navy a long time, and I have spent countless hours hanging out in the chief's mess or in the goat locker playing cribbage, and a namby pamby goody two shoes like you would have been laughed out of any of them.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really ARE a noncom.  I actually can't believe that you have ever served.  If you think that men, when put together for extended periods of time, do not naturally talk about  their lives - including their sex lives - then you clearly have never been among men in that situation.  And for you to call the barracks, or the berthing space, after hours, the "workplace" only shows how out of touch you really are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you've ever LIVED in a barracks or been deployed.  If you think that soldiers (or sailors) keep their discussions to private conversations between two individuals, it would seem clear to ME that you have ZERO experience in living in a communal, males only environment.  It would seem that you have never been cooped up with the same group of guys for months on end and worked hard with them, stood countless watches with them, stood in line on the mess decks with them, played poker with them, traded sea stories with them... I am sorry... you might say that I "better" believe you, but, I was in the Navy a long time, and I have spent countless hours hanging out in the chief's mess or in the goat locker playing cribbage, and a namby pamby goody two shoes like you would have been laughed out of any of them.
Click to expand...


When soldiers are at work all that talking about who they had sex with is not allowed in the working place, I have soldiers both male and female who are not interested in anyone's sexual exploits whether they're gay exploits, heterosexual exploits or drunken exploits. In my shop I outlaw those kinds of conversations, I have a reputation for being hard but fair. What soldiers talk about and do on the personal time is their business and their concern, as long as it doesn't violate regulations that is, because the regulations apply 24 hours a day off and on duty.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you've ever LIVED in a barracks or been deployed.  If you think that soldiers (or sailors) keep their discussions to private conversations between two individuals, it would seem clear to ME that you have ZERO experience in living in a communal, males only environment.  It would seem that you have never been cooped up with the same group of guys for months on end and worked hard with them, stood countless watches with them, stood in line on the mess decks with them, played poker with them, traded sea stories with them... I am sorry... you might say that I "better" believe you, but, I was in the Navy a long time, and I have spent countless hours hanging out in the chief's mess or in the goat locker playing cribbage, and a namby pamby goody two shoes like you would have been laughed out of any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When soldiers are at work all that talking about who they had sex with is not allowed in the working place, I have soldiers both male and female who are not interested in anyone's sexual exploits whether they're gay exploits, heterosexual exploits or drunken exploits. In my shop I outlaw those kinds of conversations, I have a reputation for being hard but fair. What soldiers talk about and do on the personal time is their business and their concern, as long as it doesn't violate regulations that is, because the regulations apply 24 hours a day off and on duty.
Click to expand...



Since your "Shop" is a barbie house I completely believe you do control the topics of discussion.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The pro-sodomites are resorting to personal attacks since they can't defend faggots with the truth.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your thinking all discharges are harmful because it causes loss of servicemembers so the military should drop all discharges. You have to demonstrate harm on the part of DADT, that is, harm to the military, not the people discharged under DADT because they knew what they were getting into before they join so its a risk that they're taking. Now quit stalling and show "demonstrable harm" by the DADT policy. I don't care what you personally feel is stupid, I just want facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think loss of servicemen harms the military in even the slightest way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loss is sometimes addition by substraction and I support military regulations, even the ones I don't agree with because its my job, personal opinion and bias will not affect nor stop me from carrying out policy. Discharges have been put in place for a reason, to preserve the good order, discipline, morale and welfare of servicemembers. You are not in the military so you don't understand.
Click to expand...


We're talking removing DADT which would be changing the policy, not simply ignoring it and not enforcing it.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-sodomites are resorting to personal attacks since they can't defend faggots with the truth.



You mean like you?


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.
Click to expand...


Oh goody the "it's not necessary" crap. Well it's not necessary for straights to reveal their sex life why can't we make DADT apply to them? It was never necessary to integrate blacks either and it probably wasn't good for unit cohesion.


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-sodomites are resorting to personal attacks since they can't defend faggots with the truth.




I called out someone who is clearly impersonating a NCO and all you can do is think about a dick in your mouth........not surprised.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-sodomites are resorting to personal attacks since they can't defend faggots with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like you?
Click to expand...



The Bass has used the truth, it is you who can't provide facts and explanations, maybe if you cleared your mind of its relentless pro-sodomania you would see clearly.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

CurveLight said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pro-sodomites are resorting to personal attacks since they can't defend faggots with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called out someone who is clearly impersonating a NCO and all you can do is think about a dick in your mouth........not surprised.
Click to expand...


No, you're personally attacking someone who doesn't agree with your position, the Bass has seen it in this forum too many times, how do you know Flaylo isn't an NCO?


----------



## csbarry

Gunny said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a heterosexual, my personal opinion on the matter is this; if it is your desire to come and serve your Country as an airman, sailor or soldier, that's fine with me. If it is your desire to use the armed forces as a sexual hunting ground, playground, or for that matter openly display your preference; please don't apply. None of the afore mentioned behavior is accepted in the civilian business world, and one shouldn't have to be subjected to it in the armed forces. Take your pick; in the civilian business world, any of that behavior would be considered sexual harassment, an established crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does this mean?  You're such a bright, shining star you can quote yourself?
> 
> The obvious flaw to your comment follows your first semi-colon -- you left out MARINES.  That, of course, puts you on THE shitlist.
Click to expand...


My apologies Gunny, apparently I erred thinking that the "soldiers" would suffice for ground troops. I realize my mistake, Marines do it all. As for my repost, there's been so much activity in this thread I thought it may have been blown by, so I thought I'd put it out there one more time. Once again, I apologize for the exclusion.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ok why then should we subject troops to arbitrary rules that seem to serve no viable purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody the "it's not necessary" crap. Well it's not necessary for straights to reveal their sex life why can't we make DADT apply to them? It was never necessary to integrate blacks either and it probably wasn't good for unit cohesion.
Click to expand...



Please quit using African Americans in your pissy pro-sodomite arguments, being a fag and being black are obviously not the damn same. Its an insult to African Americans. Before make anymore comparisons learn a little more history about desegregation in the military, the military became segregated after the War of 1812, prior to that blacks and whites fought along side each other. White commanders started integrating units proper during the Korean War after all white units started suffering loses, and need quick replacements not because of huge outcry for integration. The circumstances were totally different so stop comparing the Bass' people to fags, and you wonder why so many blacks are hostile and indifferent to pro-faggot supporters.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does having to know someone elses sexual lifestyle serve? The UCMJ forbids homosexuals sex acts so why should anyone know someone's sexual preference? This is the military, not the civilian work sector, rules that seem to have no viable purpose to you mean a lot to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody the "it's not necessary" crap. Well it's not necessary for straights to reveal their sex life why can't we make DADT apply to them? It was never necessary to integrate blacks either and it probably wasn't good for unit cohesion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please quit using African Americans in your pissy pro-sodomite arguments, being a fag and being black are obviously not the damn same. Its an insult to African Americans. Before make anymore comparisons learn a little more history about desegregation in the military, the military became segregated after the War of 1812, prior to that blacks and whites fought along side each other. White commanders started integrating units proper during the Korean War after all white units started suffering loses, and need quick replacements not because of huge outcry for integration. The circumstances were totally different so stop comparing the Bass' people to fags, and you wonder why so many blacks are hostile and indifferent to pro-faggot supporters.
Click to expand...






Please quit using African Americans in your pissy pro-sodomite arguments, being a fag and being black are obviously not the damn same

Sure it is blacks are the FAGGOTS of the races. They ALWAYS want SPECIAL treatment RIGHT "The Bass"?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody the "it's not necessary" crap. Well it's not necessary for straights to reveal their sex life why can't we make DADT apply to them? It was never necessary to integrate blacks either and it probably wasn't good for unit cohesion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quit using African Americans in your pissy pro-sodomite arguments, being a fag and being black are obviously not the damn same. Its an insult to African Americans. Before make anymore comparisons learn a little more history about desegregation in the military, the military became segregated after the War of 1812, prior to that blacks and whites fought along side each other. White commanders started integrating units proper during the Korean War after all white units started suffering loses, and need quick replacements not because of huge outcry for integration. The circumstances were totally different so stop comparing the Bass' people to fags, and you wonder why so many blacks are hostile and indifferent to pro-faggot supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quit using African Americans in your pissy pro-sodomite arguments, being a fag and being black are obviously not the damn same
> 
> Sure it is blacks are the FAGGOTS of the races. They ALWAYS want SPECIAL treatment RIGHT "The Bass"?
Click to expand...


Blacks are not the faggots of races you stupid monkey, faggots are so called because of their sexual behavior which they have control of, blacks are so called because of their skin color and African ancestry, which is not debatable.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Nope blacks ARE the FAGGOTS of the races cause they ALWAYS want "special" treatment. You KNOW it's true.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I'm gonna use the SAME ignorant arguments that YOU use "The Bass".


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Ever notice how WAY more blacks than whites refer to themselves in the THIRD PERSON? I wonder why that is? Any thoughts "The Bass"? LMFAO!


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a NCO you better believe that if you don't believe anything else I say. What two soldiers discuss private is their business, however if it something thats going to cause one or the other trouble, disrupt cohesion and or can result in one or both getting administratively separated they need to keep their private lives to themselves. Barracks are not workplaces in the literal sense but they are public military quarters and anything you blurt out or do can still negatively impact the unit and disrupt unit cohesion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you've ever LIVED in a barracks or been deployed.  If you think that soldiers (or sailors) keep their discussions to private conversations between two individuals, it would seem clear to ME that you have ZERO experience in living in a communal, males only environment.  It would seem that you have never been cooped up with the same group of guys for months on end and worked hard with them, stood countless watches with them, stood in line on the mess decks with them, played poker with them, traded sea stories with them... I am sorry... you might say that I "better" believe you, but, I was in the Navy a long time, and I have spent countless hours hanging out in the chief's mess or in the goat locker playing cribbage, and a namby pamby goody two shoes like you would have been laughed out of any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When soldiers are at work all that talking about who they had sex with is not allowed in the working place, I have soldiers both male and female who are not interested in anyone's sexual exploits whether they're gay exploits, heterosexual exploits or drunken exploits. In my shop I outlaw those kinds of conversations, I have a reputation for being hard but fair. What soldiers talk about and do on the personal time is their business and their concern, as long as it doesn't violate regulations that is, because the regulations apply 24 hours a day off and on duty.
Click to expand...


and sailors at work keep their discussions to professional topics as well.... the point that you seem to be making (and simultaneously missing) is that when men live together, monastically, in close quarters, they are NOT working all the time... there are usually several waking hours during the day when sailors sit and relax and recreate as best they can given the restructions of their location, and maybe in today's squeaky clean army men don't talk about what they did at the last liberty port, in my day, those sorts of discussions were commonplace... and men shared (and no doubt, exaggerated) the details of their heterosexual exploits regularly.

And again... if you have not self reported YOURSELF for a violaton of Art 125, then you are in NO position to denigrate me for not following regulations to the letter.

got it?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Nope blacks ARE the FAGGOTS of the races cause they ALWAYS want "special" treatment. You KNOW it's true.



Blacks are not the faggots of all races using that logic, it would be whites because they special treatment, not blacks.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Here's something to consider.......

When you're deployed on a cruise aboard a ship, you've got to remember one thing......

Space is finite out at sea.  On my first ship it was said "you can only walk 571 feet away from anyone".

We lived that way for 6 - 8 months at a time.

The night before pulling back Stateside?  Nobody could sleep, there were people playing cards, watching CCTV, playing bingo, gathered together in groups on the mess decks.  It's known in the Navy as "Channel Fever Night" and NOBODY sleeps.

Know what the main point of conversation is?  What everyone is planning on doing to their spouses (repeatedly in some cases), and yes......the conversation got graphic.

I suppose that if you've only been on a base Stateside, with no deployments Flaylo, then your reasoning might work, because you could keep the on duty and off duty lives separate.

It's not possible on a ship.

As far as no harm being done by DADT?  I ask again about Lt. Daniel Cho, a front line operator who speaks Arabic, is patriotic, and loves his job.  What did the military gain by discharging him for sexual preference?

There are only 499 Arabic speaking servicemembers over the ENTIRE MILITARY!

Yes.  DADT has already caused harm.


----------



## csbarry

Cold Fusion38 said:


> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.



The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording. 

Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest. 

Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.

Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.


----------



## maineman

csbarry said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
Click to expand...


your entire post is opinion posing as fact.


----------



## csbarry

maineman said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your entire post is opinion posing as fact.
Click to expand...


No, it is science, but you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## ABikerSailor

csbarry said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
Click to expand...


First off........there is genetic proof that gay is a natural thing.  Interestingly enough, there isn't just "one gay gene", it's actually a combination of several genes along a certain area in the DNA strand.  

That is why scientists and doctors have measured physiological differences in places like the brain, the hormones, and in some cases, even physical manifestations.

Remember the Kenyan runner who was disqualified because genetically she's 2/3 male?  It happens.

There are also other considerations, one of the main ones being that the repugnance that most straight people feel when thinking about same gender sex, is exactly how gays feel about heterosexual sex.  It just doesn't feel "right" to them.

What is a problem is the perception of a lot of straight people when it comes to gays.  No, just like all you heteros have your idea of what is good looking or not to you, the gays are the same.

And, just like most straights don't go around trying to bone everything in sight, most gays don't either.  But, because most straight people are scared of gays (they think gay may be contagious), they don't bother to find these things out, preferring instead to create their own stories to show how much better they are than the gays.

Might wanna do some research on this subject before spewing forth bullshit csbarry.  You obviously haven't fully researched this.

And........incidentally.........why shouldn't gays be afforded the same legal rights as straights?  Do you realize how fucked over single people are in this country when it comes to taxes and working overtime?

That's not a moral issue, that is a legal one, and aren't all people created equal in this country?


----------



## csbarry

ABikerSailor said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off........there is genetic proof that gay is a natural thing.  Interestingly enough, there isn't just "one gay gene", it's actually a combination of several genes along a certain area in the DNA strand.
> 
> That is why scientists and doctors have measured physiological differences in places like the brain, the hormones, and in some cases, even physical manifestations.
> 
> Remember the Kenyan runner who was disqualified because genetically she's 2/3 male?  It happens.
> 
> There are also other considerations, one of the main ones being that the repugnance that most straight people feel when thinking about same gender sex, is exactly how gays feel about heterosexual sex.  It just doesn't feel "right" to them.
> 
> What is a problem is the perception of a lot of straight people when it comes to gays.  No, just like all you heteros have your idea of what is good looking or not to you, the gays are the same.
> 
> And, just like most straights don't go around trying to bone everything in sight, most gays don't either.  But, because most straight people are scared of gays (they think gay may be contagious), they don't bother to find these things out, preferring instead to create their own stories to show how much better they are than the gays.
> 
> Might wanna do some research on this subject before spewing forth bullshit csbarry.  You obviously haven't fully researched this.
> 
> And........incidentally.........why shouldn't gays be afforded the same legal rights as straights?  Do you realize how fucked over single people are in this country when it comes to taxes and working overtime?
> 
> That's not a moral issue, that is a legal one, and aren't all people created equal in this country?
Click to expand...


You've made my case as it pertains to the existence of a genetic anomaly in the human genome is concerned. You, as well as others, choose to interpret it in favor of your position on the matter. I choose to interpret it for what it is, a scientific fact, that a genetic anomaly is behind the behavior..


----------



## ABikerSailor

When physical, hormonal, and brain wave patterns are shown to be markedly different, there's something going on there.


----------



## Father Time

csbarry said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
Click to expand...


So when it happens amongst animals it's a genetic defect (fun fact if it's caused by genetics it's natural by its very definition) but when it happens in humans it's always a choice? 
 Did you choose to be straight?


----------



## Father Time

csbarry said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off........there is genetic proof that gay is a natural thing.  Interestingly enough, there isn't just "one gay gene", it's actually a combination of several genes along a certain area in the DNA strand.
> 
> That is why scientists and doctors have measured physiological differences in places like the brain, the hormones, and in some cases, even physical manifestations.
> 
> Remember the Kenyan runner who was disqualified because genetically she's 2/3 male?  It happens.
> 
> There are also other considerations, one of the main ones being that the repugnance that most straight people feel when thinking about same gender sex, is exactly how gays feel about heterosexual sex.  It just doesn't feel "right" to them.
> 
> What is a problem is the perception of a lot of straight people when it comes to gays.  No, just like all you heteros have your idea of what is good looking or not to you, the gays are the same.
> 
> And, just like most straights don't go around trying to bone everything in sight, most gays don't either.  But, because most straight people are scared of gays (they think gay may be contagious), they don't bother to find these things out, preferring instead to create their own stories to show how much better they are than the gays.
> 
> Might wanna do some research on this subject before spewing forth bullshit csbarry.  You obviously haven't fully researched this.
> 
> And........incidentally.........why shouldn't gays be afforded the same legal rights as straights?  Do you realize how fucked over single people are in this country when it comes to taxes and working overtime?
> 
> That's not a moral issue, that is a legal one, and aren't all people created equal in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've made my case as it pertains to the existence of a genetic anomaly in the human genome is concerned. You, as well as others, choose to interpret it in favor of your position on the matter. *I choose to interpret it for what it is, a scientific fact, that a genetic anomaly is behind the behavior*.
Click to expand...




csbarry said:


> homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.



You sure about that?


----------



## Queen

Equal rights for all.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

God will probably move the military heads to lift DADT, not because He wants gays to have "equals right," but to give them up to their own vile affections


Romans 1:21-29 

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 26 *For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;*

 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,


Let the gays and their supporters, both workers of iniquity, rejoice and glory in the possible lifting of DADT, they'll stupidly think they've put one over on God and those of us who follow the Word, but they will not be laughing when the day of judgment comes. Verse 21 says they became vain in their imaginations and they have, believing that their vile affections are naturally inborn and genetic.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

csbarry said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
Click to expand...





Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest. 


There IS and will CONTINUE to be a certain % of certain species that will be BORN with a NATURAL attraction to the same sex. If the homosexual gene weren't passed on then it would have died out MILLENIA ago doncha think? I don't know EXACTELY what causes homosexual behavior but it is a CONFIRMED FACT that there IS homosexual behavior in SEVERAL species so why is it so hard to understand that some HUMANS are BORN that way?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Charlie Bass said:


> God will probably move the military heads to lift DADT, not because He wants gays to have "equals right," but to give them up to their own vile affections
> 
> 
> Romans 1:21-29
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 *For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;*
> 
> 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 
> Let the gays and their supporters, both workers of iniquity, rejoice and glory in the possible lifting of DADT, they'll stupidly think they've put one over on God and those of us who follow the Word, but they will not be laughing when the day of judgment comes. Verse 21 says they became vain in their imaginations and they have, believing that their vile affections are naturally inborn and genetic.







Quit your Bible thumping you fucking FAGGOT black!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Get over yourself "The Bass" gays AREN'T interested in you. Most gays are NOT lecherous WEIRDOS like YOU!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I'd be willing to bet that women are VERY uncomfortable around "The Bass".


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you've ever LIVED in a barracks or been deployed.  If you think that soldiers (or sailors) keep their discussions to private conversations between two individuals, it would seem clear to ME that you have ZERO experience in living in a communal, males only environment.  It would seem that you have never been cooped up with the same group of guys for months on end and worked hard with them, stood countless watches with them, stood in line on the mess decks with them, played poker with them, traded sea stories with them... I am sorry... you might say that I "better" believe you, but, I was in the Navy a long time, and I have spent countless hours hanging out in the chief's mess or in the goat locker playing cribbage, and a namby pamby goody two shoes like you would have been laughed out of any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When soldiers are at work all that talking about who they had sex with is not allowed in the working place, I have soldiers both male and female who are not interested in anyone's sexual exploits whether they're gay exploits, heterosexual exploits or drunken exploits. In my shop I outlaw those kinds of conversations, I have a reputation for being hard but fair. What soldiers talk about and do on the personal time is their business and their concern, as long as it doesn't violate regulations that is, because the regulations apply 24 hours a day off and on duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and sailors at work keep their discussions to professional topics as well.... the point that you seem to be making (and simultaneously missing) is that when men live together, monastically, in close quarters, they are NOT working all the time... there are usually several waking hours during the day when sailors sit and relax and recreate as best they can given the restructions of their location, and maybe in today's squeaky clean army men don't talk about what they did at the last liberty port, in my day, those sorts of discussions were commonplace... and men shared (and no doubt, exaggerated) the details of their heterosexual exploits regularly.
Click to expand...


If its not work related its not necessary so DADT doesn't need to be changed just so gays can talk about their relationship life around people who most likely don't want to hear about it anyways. They'll probably say people who aren't interested in hearing it are homophobes too, they blame every disagreement with them and their one sided agenda of homophobia to the point where one thinks the only true side is their side.



> And again... if you have not self reported YOURSELF for a violaton of Art 125, then you are in NO position to denigrate me for not following regulations to the letter.
> 
> got it?



You don't know if I violated Article 125 or not and in accordance with regulation my sexual life shall be kept a personal and private matter, see that was very simple and easy, now why can't homosexuals do that?


----------



## Flaylo

The sailors in this thread are more unprofessional than the most unfit soldiers I've had to deal with, the retired officer is in blackout drive and the biker is more than a few cans short of a six-pack, how was he fit to enlist in the first place?


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> Here's something to consider.......
> 
> When you're deployed on a cruise aboard a ship, you've got to remember one thing......
> 
> Space is finite out at sea.  On my first ship it was said "you can only walk 571 feet away from anyone".
> 
> We lived that way for 6 - 8 months at a time.
> 
> The night before pulling back Stateside?  Nobody could sleep, there were people playing cards, watching CCTV, playing bingo, gathered together in groups on the mess decks.  It's known in the Navy as "Channel Fever Night" and NOBODY sleeps.
> 
> Know what the main point of conversation is?  What everyone is planning on doing to their spouses (repeatedly in some cases), and yes......the conversation got graphic.
> 
> I suppose that if you've only been on a base Stateside, with no deployments Flaylo, then your reasoning might work, because you could keep the on duty and off duty lives separate.
> 
> It's not possible on a ship.
> 
> As far as no harm being done by DADT?  I ask again about Lt. Daniel Cho, a front line operator who speaks Arabic, is patriotic, and loves his job.  What did the military gain by discharging him for sexual preference?
> 
> There are only 499 Arabic speaking servicemembers over the ENTIRE MILITARY!
> 
> Yes.  DADT has already caused harm.



Again, I disagree.  Whether or not the conversations take place is irrelevant to the fact such conversation is unprofessional behavior, and disrespectful to one's partner. 

 It is also against the rules to have sex on deployment.  The fact it happens doesn't make it okay.


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> I suppose that if you've only been on a base Stateside, with no deployments Flaylo, then your reasoning might work, because you could keep the on duty and off duty lives separate.



I'm currently stationed in Germany overseas and this is my second overseas assignment excluding deployments to Balad, Kanadahar, Kosovo and Bosnia and no matter where I am in the world I must always be professional at all times. 



> It's not possible on a ship.
> 
> .




It is possible but it seems that you're saying that sailors lack the focus, determination and motivation to stay professional and maintain their military bearing. Thats a problem of discpline and lack of attention to detail, not a problem that calls for rescinding DADT.


----------



## Gunny

ABikerSailor said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Bass" is most likely a self loathing homosexual that is really the only think that explains both his OBSESSION and his unreasoned HATRED of homosexuals.
> 
> The FACT is that the vast majority of homosexuals ARE born that way which is proven by the FACT that homosexual acts occure in nature. As much as people like to PRETEND we are not just higher functioning ANIMALS we are indeed just that ANIMALS.
> 
> Another interesting FACT of this argument is that heteros assume that gays are as LECHEROUS as they are. They act like a gay just couldn't go a DAY without NEEDING to look at some ass. Just freaking rediculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off........there is genetic proof that gay is a natural thing.  Interestingly enough, there isn't just "one gay gene", it's actually a combination of several genes along a certain area in the DNA strand.
> 
> That is why scientists and doctors have measured physiological differences in places like the brain, the hormones, and in some cases, even physical manifestations.
> 
> Remember the Kenyan runner who was disqualified because genetically she's 2/3 male?  It happens.
> 
> There are also other considerations, one of the main ones being that the repugnance that most straight people feel when thinking about same gender sex, is exactly how gays feel about heterosexual sex.  It just doesn't feel "right" to them.
> 
> What is a problem is the perception of a lot of straight people when it comes to gays.  No, just like all you heteros have your idea of what is good looking or not to you, the gays are the same.
> 
> And, just like most straights don't go around trying to bone everything in sight, most gays don't either.  But, because most straight people are scared of gays (they think gay may be contagious), they don't bother to find these things out, preferring instead to create their own stories to show how much better they are than the gays.
> 
> Might wanna do some research on this subject before spewing forth bullshit csbarry.  You obviously haven't fully researched this.
> 
> And........incidentally.........why shouldn't gays be afforded the same legal rights as straights?  Do you realize how fucked over single people are in this country when it comes to taxes and working overtime?
> 
> That's not a moral issue, that is a legal one, and aren't all people created equal in this country?
Click to expand...



There is zero evidence to support your argument.  The only real evidence that supports homosexuality is homosexual behavior.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When soldiers are at work all that talking about who they had sex with is not allowed in the working place, I have soldiers both male and female who are not interested in anyone's sexual exploits whether they're gay exploits, heterosexual exploits or drunken exploits. In my shop I outlaw those kinds of conversations, I have a reputation for being hard but fair. What soldiers talk about and do on the personal time is their business and their concern, as long as it doesn't violate regulations that is, because the regulations apply 24 hours a day off and on duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sailors at work keep their discussions to professional topics as well.... the point that you seem to be making (and simultaneously missing) is that when men live together, monastically, in close quarters, they are NOT working all the time... there are usually several waking hours during the day when sailors sit and relax and recreate as best they can given the restructions of their location, and maybe in today's squeaky clean army men don't talk about what they did at the last liberty port, in my day, those sorts of discussions were commonplace... and men shared (and no doubt, exaggerated) the details of their heterosexual exploits regularly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its not work related its not necessary so DADT doesn't need to be changed just so gays can talk about their relationship life around people who most likely don't want to hear about it anyways. They'll probably say people who aren't interested in hearing it are homophobes too, they blame every disagreement with them and their one sided agenda of homophobia to the point where one thinks the only true side is their side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again... if you have not self reported YOURSELF for a violaton of Art 125, then you are in NO position to denigrate me for not following regulations to the letter.
> 
> got it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know if I violated Article 125 or not and in accordance with regulation my sexual life shall be kept a personal and private matter, see that was very simple and easy, now why can't homosexuals do that?
Click to expand...


do I KNOW whether or not you ever got a blowjob since the day you raised you hand?  no.  I don't.  But I know if you DIDN'T you are one pathetic son of a bitch and I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> do I KNOW whether or not you ever got a blowjob since the day you raised you hand?  no.  I don't.  But I know if you DIDN'T you are one pathetic son of a bitch and I feel sorry for you.




An O-5 being proud of breaking Article 125 of the UCMJ, you mainatin a high level of professionalism even in retirement.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> do I KNOW whether or not you ever got a blowjob since the day you raised you hand?  no.  I don't.  But I know if you DIDN'T you are one pathetic son of a bitch and I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An O-5 being proud of breaking Article 125 of the UCMJ, you mainatin a high level of professionalism even in retirement.
Click to expand...


and you, sarge, are either a liar, or a terribly unimaginative sex partner.... or both.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> do I KNOW whether or not you ever got a blowjob since the day you raised you hand?  no.  I don't.  But I know if you DIDN'T you are one pathetic son of a bitch and I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An O-5 being proud of breaking Article 125 of the UCMJ, you mainatin a high level of professionalism even in retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you, sarge, are either a liar, or a terribly unimaginative sex partner.... or both.
Click to expand...



Its SFC to you and I find it inappropiate and unecessary to discuss the personal and private matter known as my sex life.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> An O-5 being proud of breaking Article 125 of the UCMJ, you mainatin a high level of professionalism even in retirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you, sarge, are either a liar, or a terribly unimaginative sex partner.... or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its SFC to you and I find it inappropiate and unecessary to discuss the personal and private matter known as my sex life.
Click to expand...


because you know it would expose your blatant hypocrisy.  You like to proudly proclaim your strict adherence to all regulations, yet don't really like to talk about Article 125. I understand,  SFC.  

Oh... and it's Commander or SIR to you.  Got it?  good.

oh... and maybe you weren't aware of this, but unlike enlisted personnel who complete their enlistment contract, commissioned officers do NOT resign their commission simply becuase they are placed on the retired rolls.  I am liable for recall by the Navy at any time.... I am still a commissioned officer, and probably you should take that into consideration as our conversation continues.  Thanks.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> An O-5 being proud of breaking Article 125 of the UCMJ, you mainatin a high level of professionalism even in retirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you, sarge, are either a liar, or a terribly unimaginative sex partner.... or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its SFC to you and I find it inappropiate and unecessary to discuss the personal and private matter known as my sex life.
Click to expand...


I guess the professionals like you aren't big on their spelling either, eh?  Inappropriate, unnecessary, and maintain are the ways to spell those words ya 3rd grade 'tard.

I understand you find it inappropriate as well as unnecessary to discuss your sex life.  

Why?  Most times pedophiles don't like to advertise.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you, sarge, are either a liar, or a terribly unimaginative sex partner.... or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its SFC to you and I find it inappropiate and unecessary to discuss the personal and private matter known as my sex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the professionals like you aren't big on their spelling either, eh?  Inappropriate, unnecessary, and maintain are the ways to spell those words ya 3rd grade 'tard.
> 
> I understand you find it inappropriate as well as unnecessary to discuss your sex life.
> 
> Why?  *Most times pedophiles don't like to advertise*.
Click to expand...


This coming from someone who jokes about child anal rape as a way of attacking his opposition.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

So personally attacking someone for not openly talking about what goes on in their sex life is a sure fir way of discrediting his position on DADT?


----------



## ABikerSailor

'Scuse me Ass Ho?  What the fuck do you call all the bullshit you spew?  Love notes?

DADT is a failed policy that needs to be repealed.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> 'Scuse me Ass Ho?  What the fuck do you call all the bullshit you spew?  Love notes?
> 
> DADT is a failed policy that needs to be repealed.



DADT hasn't failed the military, its working just fine the only people its bothering is faggots who are mad that they can't say they're faggots openly, its not bothering anyone else.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sure would bug the shit outta you if it was repealed tomorrow, and the gays serving in the military were able to get BAQ and VHA for their partners, wouldn't it?

You know people, the main reason that a lot of people in this thread are so against it is because they know that if DADT is repealed, the next thing that will happen will be legalization of gay marriage.

Or, if gay marriage is legalize over the entire country, the military is going to have to get rid of DADT.

THAT is what they are scared of.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Sure would bug the shit outta you if it was repealed tomorrow, and the gays serving in the military were able to get BAQ and VHA for their partners, wouldn't it?
> 
> You know people, the main reason that a lot of people in this thread are so against it is because they know that if DADT is repealed, the next thing that will happen will be legalization of gay marriage.
> 
> Or, if gay marriage is legalize over the entire country, the military is going to have to get rid of DADT.
> 
> THAT is what they are scared of.



They wouldn't get entitlements for 'partners' unless they're married, thats not going to happen any time soon, at least the service heads are saying slow down to better evaluate the issue and actually talk to servicemembers and their families.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Scuse me Ass Ho?  What the fuck do you call all the bullshit you spew?  Love notes?
> 
> DADT is a failed policy that needs to be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DADT hasn't failed the military, its working just fine the only people its bothering is faggots who are mad that they can't say they're faggots openly, its not bothering anyone else.
Click to expand...


You must have your head in the sand if you honestly believe DADT only bothers gays.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Scuse me Ass Ho?  What the fuck do you call all the bullshit you spew?  Love notes?
> 
> DADT is a failed policy that needs to be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DADT hasn't failed the military, its working just fine the only people its bothering is faggots who are mad that they can't say they're faggots openly, its not bothering anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have your head in the sand if you honestly believe DADT only bothers gays.
Click to expand...



You mus have you head up your four point of contact if you think most heteros in the military wants to hear someone openly saying they're a faggot. Come join the military and find out if most troops want to hear faggots openly saying they're while in uniform.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> DADT hasn't failed the military, its working just fine the only people its bothering is faggots who are mad that they can't say they're faggots openly, its not bothering anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have your head in the sand if you honestly believe DADT only bothers gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mus have you head up your four point of contact if you think most heteros in the military wants to hear someone openly saying they're a faggot. *Come join the military and find out if most troops want to hear faggots openly saying they're while in uniform*.
Click to expand...


Hey Ass Ho, since when did the Air Force start letting reservist rejects start recruiting?

You're not a poster boy of the military, you're a poster boy for Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have your head in the sand if you honestly believe DADT only bothers gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mus have you head up your four point of contact if you think most heteros in the military wants to hear someone openly saying they're a faggot. *Come join the military and find out if most troops want to hear faggots openly saying they're while in uniform*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Ass Ho, since when did the Air Force start letting reservist rejects start recruiting?
> 
> You're not a poster boy of the military, you're a poster boy for Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...


When does a squid that loves child anal rape have the right to call a former AF officer a reject? The Bass did his military time and got a great job as a result of it, no need to be 20 career soup sandwich like you to prove true worth to the military.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Don't hate, Da Bass.  Hate is whack, yo.

How'd I do trying to speak ebonics?


----------



## csbarry

ABikerSailor said:


> Sure would bug the shit outta you if it was repealed tomorrow, and the gays serving in the military were able to get BAQ and VHA for their partners, wouldn't it?
> 
> You know people, the main reason that a lot of people in this thread are so against it is because they know that if DADT is repealed, the next thing that will happen will be legalization of gay marriage.
> 
> Or, if gay marriage is legalize over the entire country, the military is going to have to get rid of DADT.
> 
> THAT is what they are scared of.



It's not so much that we're scared, it's just that we're going to do everything possible to insure DADT remains intact.


----------



## maineman

csbarry said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure would bug the shit outta you if it was repealed tomorrow, and the gays serving in the military were able to get BAQ and VHA for their partners, wouldn't it?
> 
> You know people, the main reason that a lot of people in this thread are so against it is because they know that if DADT is repealed, the next thing that will happen will be legalization of gay marriage.
> 
> Or, if gay marriage is legalize over the entire country, the military is going to have to get rid of DADT.
> 
> THAT is what they are scared of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much that we're scared, it's just that we're going to do everything possible to insure DADT remains intact.
Click to expand...


that's kind of an uphill swim, isn't it?      The president, SECDEF and CJCS all want to eliminate it.


----------



## Rambunctious

Everyone serving knows there are gay men and women serving in today's military, not just enlisted personnel either but senior brass even married brass, but when a lesbian ties a tourniquet on your leg to save your life or a fag shields his platoon from an IED saving his men I can assure you no one is thinking about sexuality.


----------



## csbarry

maineman said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure would bug the shit outta you if it was repealed tomorrow, and the gays serving in the military were able to get BAQ and VHA for their partners, wouldn't it?
> 
> You know people, the main reason that a lot of people in this thread are so against it is because they know that if DADT is repealed, the next thing that will happen will be legalization of gay marriage.
> 
> Or, if gay marriage is legalize over the entire country, the military is going to have to get rid of DADT.
> 
> THAT is what they are scared of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much that we're scared, it's just that we're going to do everything possible to insure DADT remains intact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's kind of an uphill swim, isn't it?      The president, SECDEF and CJCS all want to eliminate it.
Click to expand...


Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.


----------



## csbarry

Rambunctious said:


> Everyone serving knows there are gay men and women serving in today's military, not just enlisted personnel either but senior brass even married brass, but when a lesbian ties a tourniquet on your leg to save your life or a fag shields his platoon from an IED saving his men I can assure you no one is thinking about sexuality.



That's all well and good, just DADT.


----------



## maineman

csbarry said:


> Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.



bullshit.  we live in a representative democracy.  We elect our congressmen and our senators and our president and task THEM with running this country.  We do NOT place everything out to referendum.  It IS the commander-in-chief's responsibility to set the policies of our military.  If you don't LIKE the policies that he sets, you can wait for the next presidential election and then try and replace him with someone more to your liking.

Did you even TAKE civics?


----------



## ABikerSailor

csbarry said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much that we're scared, it's just that we're going to do everything possible to insure DADT remains intact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's kind of an uphill swim, isn't it?      The president, SECDEF and CJCS all want to eliminate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.
Click to expand...


You know, that may have some truth to it, but sadly, it doesn't.

I'm gonna start calling you Crazy Shit Barry (or fairy, depending).  

As far as putting it on a ballot?  Well, interestingly enough, I just watched an interview with Barry Levin (you know, the guy that just took over the chairmanship of Ways and Means), and when he was asked about the fucked up policy of DADT, he stated that everyone said (including McStupid), there should be a 1 year study for the policy.

He also stated that during that 1 year policy, when looking to see if it should be rescinded or not, NOBODY should be discharged during that time for being gay.  Other things such as discipline, EAOS and all the others?  Business as usual, just no discharges for homosexuality during the study.

The bill is already working it's way through Congress.

Oh yeah........Mr. Levin?  He supports getting rid of DADT.

Try again Cat Shit Fairy.


----------



## HUGGY

Rambunctious said:


> Everyone serving knows there are gay men and women serving in today's military, not just enlisted personnel either but senior brass even married brass, but when a lesbian ties a tourniquet on your leg to save your life or a fag shields his platoon from an IED saving his men I can assure you no one is thinking about sexuality.



Ya normal people would just appreciate the help they were getting.  After seeing several hundred offerings by the Bass Asser I honestly believe that even if his life blood was running out of his veins he would be interested to know who was or was not gay.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mus have you head up your four point of contact if you think most heteros in the military wants to hear someone openly saying they're a faggot. *Come join the military and find out if most troops want to hear faggots openly saying they're while in uniform*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Ass Ho, since when did the Air Force start letting reservist rejects start recruiting?
> 
> You're not a poster boy of the military, you're a poster boy for Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When does a squid that loves child anal rape have the right to call a former AF officer a reject? The Bass did his military time and got a great job as a result of it, no need to be 20 career soup sandwich like you to prove true worth to the military.
Click to expand...


A Squid?  Yep, spent 20 years in the Navy.

Loves child anal rape?  No..........I didn't learn about parenting from where you've apparently learned it.  Sounds like a methodology you would use.

Do I have a right to call you a reservist reject?  Yep.  As someone who has been in the military, as well as has deployed to front line areas rather than use some bullshit excuse to say that I couldn't deploy OUTCONUS.

And, since there is a right to free speech in this country (also evidenced by the slanderous posts you put up), I CAN call you a reservist reject that only did 1 hitch.

Go ahead........tell me I'm wrong, refute ANY of this Bass Hole.


----------



## woodjack

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you ever serve?
> 
> If so, how many years?
> 
> During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.
> 
> Just like the straights are expected to do.
> 
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.



I really do not care about the dadt policy either way.  In my experience I have seen 8 people kicked out because of it, and it was because they did not want to serve they hated their job and used it as an excuse to get out.  I would guess that over half of the cases are because the individual just wants to get out period.  the others are probably revenge from scorned lovers and such.  but they never show the stats for that, it is just  all these "good soldiers" getting kicked out.....bull

As to serving openly gay in the military........what the hell does that mean?   go to gay pride parades dressed in your bdu's or service dress? can't happen period.  this is all a political scheme and means nothing.  

the only thing this will do is let military members be able to go to gay and lesbian clubs without fear of recrimination, but if you go now gay and lesbian bar near a military base you still find military members there anyway dadt.  talk about you sexual prefrence while in uniform in the work place is prohibited anyway just do the mission or task that you have been trained for period.

it is a joke that this is stiring up controvercy.  do away with it or keep it in place it will not change the military at all they still vote conservative even after the dadt policy was put in place.

The thing with doing away with it might bring up is base housing......will gay lovers that got married in a state that allows it, will they be elligible to move into base housing......you may laugh but about the base housing issue I can see where military families will be very uncomfortable with this if that were allowed ...putting a light on things that should be kept in the bedroom.

but they are not talking about that...politicians are sooo short sighted and never look at the big picture of what this might entail...will the significant other have access to medical attention, will they get a raise because they have a dependant? base housing?  if they get aids they will get kicked out reguardless or will that be considered discrimination because of ones lifestyle lead to the disease?....I know straight people get this affliction as well but they get kicked out the same...look at the big picture please these are just a few issues that will require to be dealt with all for a small fraction of military members is it really worth wasting time over?

"If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military."

The only people I have seen get out because of this policy is because they hated it ...if they do not like their job and do not want to be there I do not want to train them because it wastes my time and theirs.  Yes I have heard of other people getting kicked out that want to stay in but read between the lines please there are other reasons why they are getting booted period.  

If they were that good at their jobs then people will look past that.  As a leadership position commissioned officer you are held to a higher standard and if your personel life brings into question trust issues or integrity and morale then you have a major problem be there a dadt policy or not.  There are certain things you cannot do as a commissioned officer.


----------



## ABikerSailor

What is your opinion on Daniel Choi (in previous posts, I'd spelled his name wrong).

He was at 18 years, and looking forward to retirement.  He speaks Arabic, and was a front line operator, who had served several tours in the ME.

His evaluations were outstanding, and all the men under his command respected and admired him.

How is he one of those ones that didn't want to stay in?


----------



## SFC Ollie

woodjack said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever serve?
> 
> If so, how many years?
> 
> During that time, did you know any gays or lesbians?
> 
> If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.
> 
> Daniel Cho is one of them.  He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military.  We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people
> 
> They kicked him out.
> 
> An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC.  He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down.  He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.
> 
> They want to kick him out.
> 
> Almost every ally that we have in NATO allows gays to serve openly.  Only thing they have to do is abide by the rules of good order and discipline.
> 
> Just like the straights are expected to do.
> 
> Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.
> 
> Wanna know why?  Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".
> 
> The gays make sure they've got at least 1001  atta boys.  Why?  They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really do not care about the dadt policy either way.  In my experience I have seen 8 people kicked out because of it, and it was because they did not want to serve they hated their job and used it as an excuse to get out.  I would guess that over half of the cases are because the individual just wants to get out period.  the others are probably revenge from scorned lovers and such.  but they never show the stats for that, it is just  all these "good soldiers" getting kicked out.....bull
> 
> As to serving openly gay in the military........what the hell does that mean?   go to gay pride parades dressed in your bdu's or service dress? can't happen period.  this is all a political scheme and means nothing.
> 
> the only thing this will do is let military members be able to go to gay and lesbian clubs without fear of recrimination, but if you go now gay and lesbian bar near a military base you still find military members there anyway dadt.  talk about you sexual prefrence while in uniform in the work place is prohibited anyway just do the mission or task that you have been trained for period.
> 
> it is a joke that this is stiring up controvercy.  do away with it or keep it in place it will not change the military at all they still vote conservative even after the dadt policy was put in place.
> 
> The thing with doing away with it might bring up is base housing......will gay lovers that got married in a state that allows it, will they be elligible to move into base housing......you may laugh but about the base housing issue I can see where military families will be very uncomfortable with this if that were allowed ...putting a light on things that should be kept in the bedroom.
> 
> but they are not talking about that...politicians are sooo short sighted and never look at the big picture of what this might entail...will the significant other have access to medical attention, will they get a raise because they have a dependant? base housing?  if they get aids they will get kicked out reguardless or will that be considered discrimination because of ones lifestyle lead to the disease?....I know straight people get this affliction as well but they get kicked out the same...look at the big picture please these are just a few issues that will require to be dealt with all for a small fraction of military members is it really worth wasting time over?
> 
> "If not, shut the fuck up.  We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military."
> 
> The only people I have seen get out because of this policy is because they hated it ...if they do not like their job and do not want to be there I do not want to train them because it wastes my time and theirs.  Yes I have heard of other people getting kicked out that want to stay in but read between the lines please there are other reasons why they are getting booted period.
> 
> If they were that good at their jobs then people will look past that.  As a leadership position commissioned officer you are held to a higher standard and if your personel life brings into question trust issues or integrity and morale then you have a major problem be there a dadt policy or not.  There are certain things you cannot do as a commissioned officer.
Click to expand...


Seems as though some people want to change DADT just because they want to. As far as the President its a political victory for him if he can change it. He really could care less. The people who do care are those directly affected in a negative way from any change. and that would be many more than the few gays who probably wouldn't come out anyway.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......

You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy.  The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.

He then states he's gay.

Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.

Question is.........when you return, do you report them?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......
> 
> You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy.  The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.
> 
> He then states he's gay.
> 
> Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.
> 
> Question is.........when you return, do you report them?




Why is it that the examples you use for justifying faggots in the military are always the extreme cases when they're not the norm?


----------



## JW Frogen

I was in the military for a long while and I am proud to say I never reported anyone. Never had to, it was always between them and me. I did not need regulations to work it out. This in some ways means more to me than any of my medals.


----------



## Dr Grump

Gunny said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is; despite what some quack doctors or otherwise mis-informed individuals may claim, homosexuality is not a natural occurrence in the human species, nor are sexual encounters among same sex partners in the "animal" kingdom. Please note my wording.
> 
> Same sex encounters within the "animal" kingdom are the result of a genetic anomaly. Whatever the anomaly is, the un-natural sexual behavior will negate its ability to reproduce, thus strengthening and insuring the survival of the rest of the species. I'm sure you've heard the term, survival of the fittest.
> 
> Unfortunately for the human race, or homo sapien if you will, there are those individuals who think they know better than "Mother Nature" and claim homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species. I disagree, and it is my opinion that for the most part, homosexuality has been a choice of the participants and not a genetic anomaly affecting those same participants as the afore mentioned individuals would have you believe.
> 
> Before the backlash begins, you should know this. I acknowledge and will protect anyones right to live their life as they see fit. However; I don't believe in gay unions of any kind; I don't believe gay individuals should be allowed to adopt children; and I don't believe heterosexuals serving in the military should be exposed to any form of behavior other than that which would be considered prevalent in the military, a predominantly heterosexual community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off........there is genetic proof that gay is a natural thing.  Interestingly enough, there isn't just "one gay gene", it's actually a combination of several genes along a certain area in the DNA strand.
> 
> That is why scientists and doctors have measured physiological differences in places like the brain, the hormones, and in some cases, even physical manifestations.
> 
> Remember the Kenyan runner who was disqualified because genetically she's 2/3 male?  It happens.
> 
> There are also other considerations, one of the main ones being that the repugnance that most straight people feel when thinking about same gender sex, is exactly how gays feel about heterosexual sex.  It just doesn't feel "right" to them.
> 
> What is a problem is the perception of a lot of straight people when it comes to gays.  No, just like all you heteros have your idea of what is good looking or not to you, the gays are the same.
> 
> And, just like most straights don't go around trying to bone everything in sight, most gays don't either.  But, because most straight people are scared of gays (they think gay may be contagious), they don't bother to find these things out, preferring instead to create their own stories to show how much better they are than the gays.
> 
> Might wanna do some research on this subject before spewing forth bullshit csbarry.  You obviously haven't fully researched this.
> 
> And........incidentally.........why shouldn't gays be afforded the same legal rights as straights?  Do you realize how fucked over single people are in this country when it comes to taxes and working overtime?
> 
> That's not a moral issue, that is a legal one, and aren't all people created equal in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence to support your argument.  The only real evidence that supports homosexuality is homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence to support Barry's either...


----------



## SFC Ollie

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......
> 
> You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy.  The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.
> 
> He then states he's gay.
> 
> Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.
> 
> Question is.........when you return, do you report them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the examples you use for justifying faggots in the military are always the extreme cases when they're not the norm?
Click to expand...


Charlie, this fool doesn't even realize that I don't see his posts unless someone else quotes them. And it's laughable also that he uses an example about someplace he's never been. 

But just for the hell of it I'll answer.  Yes, as required by regulation.


----------



## ABikerSailor

So, Ollie Pissed would rat out his own people, even the one that saves their life.

Yep.......I can see he's a real piece of work.  Glad I didn't serve with a cowardly craven asshole like that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......
> 
> You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy.  The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.
> 
> He then states he's gay.
> 
> Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.
> 
> Question is.........when you return, do you report them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the examples you use for justifying faggots in the military are always the extreme cases when they're not the norm?
Click to expand...


Bass Ho, these are cases that could happen.  If you had ever spent time in a war zone, you would understand.  I've been in 4.  Beruit in '83 (when the Marines died), Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, and Kosovo.

Ollie Twisted has probably never even seen a gun.


----------



## Oscar Wao

ABikerSailor said:


> So, Ollie Pissed would rat out his own people, even the one that saves their life.
> 
> Yep.......I can see he's a real piece of work. Glad I didn't serve with a cowardly craven asshole like that.


He's probably never heard of the term "situational ethics."


----------



## Oscar Wao

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......
> 
> You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy. The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.
> 
> He then states he's gay.
> 
> Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.
> 
> Question is.........when you return, do you report them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the examples you use for justifying faggots in the military are always the extreme cases when they're not the norm?
Click to expand...

Because "normal" is a relative concept.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......
> 
> You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy.  The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.
> 
> He then states he's gay.
> 
> Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.
> 
> Question is.........when you return, do you report them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the examples you use for justifying faggots in the military are always the extreme cases when they're not the norm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bass Ho, these are cases that could happen.  If you had ever spent time in a war zone, you would understand.  I've been in 4.  Beruit in '83 (when the Marines died), Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, and Kosovo.
> 
> Ollie Twisted has probably never even seen a gun.
Click to expand...



Using your extreme example would you allow child molestors and felons in the military.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Oscar Wao said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question for Oliver Pissed and Failed Load.......
> 
> You're in a hot zone, getting over run by enemy. The guy in the foxhole next to you states that he thinks that everyone is finished and wants to come clean.
> 
> He then states he's gay.
> 
> Because of the relief he feels from no longer carrying around that heavy mental load, he then charges the enemy, takes out quite a few, and saves the squad.
> 
> Question is.........when you return, do you report them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the examples you use for justifying faggots in the military are always the extreme cases when they're not the norm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because "normal" is a relative concept.
Click to expand...


That situation you described is not normal and doesn't happen frequently enough if at all, to justify lifting DADT. Extreme situations are always the exception.


----------



## Oscar Wao

I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle.  There is NO SUCH THING as "normal."  Normal is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.

You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Oscar Wao said:


> I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle.  There is NO SUCH THING as "normal."  Normal is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.
> 
> You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.



There is no such thing as situational ethics in the US Army. If a Bronze Star winner breaks the regulations then they are still punished the same as anyone else under the UCMJ. Any NCO who does not report an infraction of the UCMJ is wrong. Under any situation, even one as off the wall as gaybiker made up.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Oscar Wao said:


> I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle.  There is NO SUCH THING as "normal."  Normal is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.
> 
> You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.



Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle.  There is NO SUCH THING as "normal."  Normal is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.
> 
> You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle.  There is NO SUCH THING as "normal."  Normal is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.
> 
> You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted
Click to expand...


Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a faggot is not comparable to being black or left handed, you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense.


----------



## editec

Charley you must be_ so_ gay.

What else would explain your obsession with homosexuality?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

editec said:


> Charley you must be_ so_ gay.
> 
> What else would explain your obsession with homosexuality?




The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charley you must be_ so_ gay.
> 
> What else would explain your obsession with homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.
Click to expand...


0 for 2 would you like to try again?

Animals have been observed to be homosexual and since there's no way to artificially make animals do so, it's natural.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural.
Click to expand...


Whether or not it's natural has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.


----------



## Father Time

Oh and if people don't choose to be attracted to the same sex, then comparing discrimination of it to discrimination of races or left handeds would be a fine analogy.


----------



## editec

Charlie Bass said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charley you must be_ so_ gay.
> 
> What else would explain your obsession with homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.
Click to expand...

 

Not obsessed, you say?

Seems to me that you want to discuss homsexuality almost exclusively.

Now the only people I know who think about gays and gayhood all the time are gay themselves.

You might be the one exception to that generalization, but I rather doubt it.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a faggot is not comparable to being black or left handed, _you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense._
Click to expand...


You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.

Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.

Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.

And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.

"It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.

"Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## editec

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a faggot is not comparable to being black or left handed, _you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.
> 
> Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.
> 
> Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.
> 
> And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.
> 
> "It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.
> 
> "Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

 
Whether you know it or not, Homosexuals have always been in our military.

The lifers (or career men in the military, if you prefer)  had an even higher percentage of gays honorably servicing back when the military had the draft, than the drafees.

Some of the most honorable and effective soldiers I knew in USMC and NAV were homos.

I'd put my life in their hands (and did, too) without reservation.

Who they screw was entirely  irrelevant to how well they did their duty.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charley you must be_ so_ gay.
> 
> What else would explain your obsession with homosexuality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 0 for 2 would you like to try again?
> 
> Animals have been observed to be homosexual and since there's no way to artificially make animals do so, it's natural.
Click to expand...


No, homosexuality is not natural and no the Bass isn't obsessed with, but you sure as hell are obsessed with defending it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a faggot is not comparable to being black or left handed, _you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.
> 
> Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.
> 
> Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.
> 
> And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.
> 
> "It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.
> 
> "Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not the same so they can never be seen as equals, if homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals so are all the sexual deviants. You can't show any evidence where faggots openly serving is going to help the military. The benefit is that troops don't have to hear faggots openly stating they're faggots, especially when they do want to hear it most likely.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

editec said:


> *Who they screw was entirely  irrelevant to how well they did their duty*.



If thats so why do you supports faggots openly stating they're fags in uniform? Why can't it be kept to themselves while they do their duty? Why is it necessary for them to openly say they're faggots?


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a faggot is not comparable to being black or left handed, you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense.
Click to expand...



Wow great point! I've never seen people compare homosexuals to rapists, pedophiles, bestiality, newborn cannibalism, and fake expiration dates on gallons of milk, just to try and justify their bigotry.  

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural or not because even if it were a choice that would not justify discrimination.  Every single argument you homophobes have ever presented to justify your bigotry is based on an illusion.  It's the only logical conclusion because your bigotry is a self-made social cancer.


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who they screw was entirely  irrelevant to how well they did their duty*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If thats so why do you supports faggots openly stating they're fags in uniform? Why can't it be kept to themselves while they do their duty? Why is it necessary for them to openly say they're faggots?
Click to expand...



When have you ever bitched about heterosexuals proclaiming their orientation?  It's also a strawman to claim it is "necessary" for sexual orientations to be announced.  The problem here is you define the world by orientations instead of people.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a faggot is not comparable to being black or left handed, _you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.
> 
> Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.
> 
> Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.
> 
> And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.
> 
> "It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.
> 
> "Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not the same so they can never be seen as equals, if homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals so are all the sexual deviants. You can't show any evidence where faggots openly serving is going to help the military. The benefit is that troops don't have to hear faggots openly stating they're faggots, especially when they do want to hear it most likely.
Click to expand...


So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?

Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 for 2 would you like to try again?
> 
> Animals have been observed to be homosexual and since there's no way to artificially make animals do so, it's natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, homosexuality is not natural and no the Bass isn't obsessed with, but you sure as hell are obsessed with defending it.
Click to expand...



nat·u·ral
1.
existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge. 

Homosexuality exists in nature therefore it's natural. Although do tell me why natural should be the standard for anything? If we only stuck to natural medicine we'd be a lot worse off.

And I'm not obsessed with defending it, I haven't made dozens upon dozens of topics about homosexuality (in fact I don't even think I made 1 if that) unlike yourself.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who they screw was entirely  irrelevant to how well they did their duty*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If thats so why do you supports faggots openly stating they're fags in uniform? Why can't it be kept to themselves while they do their duty? Why is it necessary for them to openly say they're faggots?
Click to expand...


Why was it necessary to integrate blacks?

Why is it necessary to concoct straw men?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.
> 
> Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.
> 
> Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.
> 
> And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.
> 
> "It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.
> 
> "Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not the same so they can never be seen as equals, if homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals so are all the sexual deviants. You can't show any evidence where faggots openly serving is going to help the military. The benefit is that troops don't have to hear faggots openly stating they're faggots, especially when they do want to hear it most likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?
> 
> Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.
Click to expand...



Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Who they screw was entirely  irrelevant to how well they did their duty*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If thats so why do you supports faggots openly stating they're fags in uniform? Why can't it be kept to themselves while they do their duty? Why is it necessary for them to openly say they're faggots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary to integrate blacks?
> 
> Why is it necessary to concoct straw men?
Click to expand...


The Bass already posted the reason to many times, blacks were integrated into all white units because whites units were rapidly losing people and didn't have enough reinforcements on hand immediately. Now stop comparing faggots to blacks when there is no comparison.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have faggot sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.


----------



## maineman

Charlie Bass said:


> Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have faggot sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.



this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make.  Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway.  Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces.  the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays.  Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination.  That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest.  The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one.  I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays.  The DoD is better off without them.


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not the same so they can never be seen as equals, if homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals so are all the sexual deviants. You can't show any evidence where faggots openly serving is going to help the military. The benefit is that troops don't have to hear faggots openly stating they're faggots, especially when they do want to hear it most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?
> 
> Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.
Click to expand...



There are many gays who are more fertile and capable of reproduction than many heteros.  

wait. What the fuck am I doing?  People like Bass are thieves and not worth the energy......


----------



## SFC Ollie

maineman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have faggot sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make.  Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway.  Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces.  the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays.  Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination.  That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest.  The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one.  I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays.  The DoD is better off without them.
Click to expand...


So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have faggot sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make.  Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway.  Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces.  the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays.  Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination.  That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest.  The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one.  I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays.  The DoD is better off without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.
Click to expand...


Yes it would be a good thing.  The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people.  Not objects.  Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves.  Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor.  Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.  

Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who.  It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make.  Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway.  Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces.  the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays.  Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination.  That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest.  The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one.  I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays.  The DoD is better off without them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it would be a good thing.  The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people.  Not objects.  Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves.  Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor.  Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.
> 
> Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who.  It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be a good thing.  The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people.  Not objects.  Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves.  Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor.  Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.
> 
> Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who.  It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
Click to expand...


When people like you call me an idiot I'm confident the sails are pointed in the correct direction.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

The USMB pro-gay lobby wants everyone in the military who doesn't support the gay agenda to be out of the military in favor of faggots and only those who support their agenda because those who don't support the gay agenda are weak and unworthy to serve. Nevermind that these people make up the bulk of the military and do the bulk of the missions and run the military.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

CurveLight said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be a good thing.  The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people.  Not objects.  Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves.  Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor.  Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.
> 
> Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who.  It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When people like you call me an idiot I'm confident the sails are pointed in the correct direction.
Click to expand...


No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have done, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. Gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.


----------



## maineman

SFC Ollie said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have faggot sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make.  Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway.  Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces.  the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays.  Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination.  That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest.  The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one.  I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays.  The DoD is better off without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.
Click to expand...


If, 63 years ago, if five seasoned veterans found it unpalatable to serve with "*******", I am quite sure you would have sided with them then as well.

The fact is reagrding your suggested situation: it AIN'T UP to THEM!  Just like it wasn't up to their predecessors 63 years ago.  Don't like it?  leave.  I am quite sure that the Armed Forces lost their share of seasoned veterans who left rather than share a shower with a black man, but somehow, our military survived.  It will now as well.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not the same so they can never be seen as equals, if homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals so are all the sexual deviants. You can't show any evidence where faggots openly serving is going to help the military. The benefit is that troops don't have to hear faggots openly stating they're faggots, especially when they do want to hear it most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?
> 
> Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.
Click to expand...


But they still are not the same so according to your logic they shouldn't be treated equally.

And do you treat straights that can't have children the same way you treat gays?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If thats so why do you supports faggots openly stating they're fags in uniform? Why can't it be kept to themselves while they do their duty? Why is it necessary for them to openly say they're faggots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary to integrate blacks?
> 
> Why is it necessary to concoct straw men?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bass already posted the reason to many times, blacks were integrated into all white units because whites units were rapidly losing people and didn't have enough reinforcements on hand immediately. Now stop comparing faggots to blacks when there is no comparison.
Click to expand...


I'm not comparing them I'm using your logic and applying it to something else.

Also this is the first I heard of white units rapidly losing people, you have a source for that one?


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be a good thing.  The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people.  Not objects.  Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves.  Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor.  Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.
> 
> Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who.  It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
Click to expand...


Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.

Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people like you call me an idiot I'm confident the sails are pointed in the correct direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have down, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.
Click to expand...



Shoonicky bang bang!  Are you serious?  Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations?  Was it gays who said:

"We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"

Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT?  You!  Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.

You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of.  Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?"  You're fucking sick.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?
> 
> Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they still are not the same so according to your logic they shouldn't be treated equally.
> 
> And do you treat straights that can't have children the same way you treat gays?
Click to expand...



Skin colors due to adaptation and heredity are not comparable to voluntary sexual behaviors, homosexuality is not comparable to skin color ethnicity.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

CurveLight said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people like you call me an idiot I'm confident the sails are pointed in the correct direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have down, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shoonicky bang bang!  Are you serious?  Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations?  Was it gays who said:
> 
> "We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"
> 
> Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT?  You!  Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.
> 
> You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of.  Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?"  You're fucking sick.
Click to expand...


Faggots are politicizing their sexual behavior, it was gays who politicized their deviant sexual behavior in order to openly live it while in uniform. Voluntary sexual acts between two adults should not legislated and politicized for gain.


----------



## CurveLight

Charlie Bass said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have down, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoonicky bang bang!  Are you serious?  Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations?  Was it gays who said:
> 
> "We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"
> 
> Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT?  You!  Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.
> 
> You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of.  Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?"  You're fucking sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faggots are politicizing their sexual behavior, it was gays who politicized their deviant sexual behavior in order to openly live it while in uniform. Voluntary sexual acts between two adults should not legislated and politicized for gain.
Click to expand...


Bigshit geysers!  Look at the last sentence.  If voluntary sexual acts should not be legislated or politicized for gain then why in the fuck do you scream for legislation based on:

Voluntary sexual acts.

??????????

The greatest evidence witnessing the stoopidity of bigotry is talking with bigots.


----------



## manu1959

ABikerSailor said:


> Never served eh?
> 
> Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.



so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....

is that the rule....


----------



## Bass v 2.0

CurveLight said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoonicky bang bang!  Are you serious?  Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations?  Was it gays who said:
> 
> "We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"
> 
> Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT?  You!  Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.
> 
> You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of.  Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?"  You're fucking sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots are politicizing their sexual behavior, it was gays who politicized their deviant sexual behavior in order to openly live it while in uniform. Voluntary sexual acts between two adults should not legislated and politicized for gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigshit geysers!  Look at the last sentence.  If voluntary sexual acts should not be legislated or politicized for gain then why in the fuck do you scream for legislation based on:
> 
> Voluntary sexual acts.
> 
> ??????????
> 
> The greatest evidence witnessing the stoopidity of bigotry is talking with bigots.
Click to expand...


The Bass is exactly anti against that, the Bass is the resistance against such politicizing, faggots started now the Bass must finish.


----------



## maineman

manu1959 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never served eh?
> 
> Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....
> 
> is that the rule....
Click to expand...


of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.


----------



## CurveLight

maineman said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never served eh?
> 
> Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....
> 
> is that the rule....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.
Click to expand...


That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.


----------



## maineman

CurveLight said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....
> 
> is that the rule....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.
Click to expand...


no it's not... it's like stating that, unless you are a brain surgeon, you really can't talk, with any level of understanding, about the nuances of brain surgery.  NOBODY knows what it's like to be in the military until they've actually been there.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they still are not the same so according to your logic they shouldn't be treated equally.
> 
> And do you treat straights that can't have children the same way you treat gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Skin colors due to adaptation and heredity are not comparable to voluntary sexual behaviors, homosexuality is not comparable to skin color ethnicity.
Click to expand...








You said if they're different they should be treated differently. Blacks are different than whites even if it is through genes, so by your logic they should be treated differently.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Charlie Bass said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle. There is NO SUCH THING as "normal." Normal is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.
> 
> You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

You're still gay or straight even if you never act on your desires in ANY WAY a single time in your life.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey........if the Vatican can have a homosexual prostitution ring, I think it would be okay to let gays serve openly.

At least, out in the open, people are honest and better behaved about it.


----------



## csbarry

maineman said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit.  we live in a representative democracy.  We elect our congressmen and our senators and our president and task THEM with running this country.  We do NOT place everything out to referendum.  It IS the commander-in-chief's responsibility to set the policies of our military.  If you don't LIKE the policies that he sets, you can wait for the next presidential election and then try and replace him with someone more to your liking.
> 
> Did you even TAKE civics?
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, I have. I know how our government is suppose to work, but it doesn't because our _representatives_ do as they wish and not as we ask. This is suppose to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; not a self important group of individuals in Washington that look to take care of themselves. I have no problem in believing that the vast majority of Americans would prefer to see DADT remain in effect permanently, and further, that gay relationships not be officially recognized in the military or the civilian community.


----------



## csbarry

ABikerSailor said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's kind of an uphill swim, isn't it?      The president, SECDEF and CJCS all want to eliminate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, that may have some truth to it, but sadly, it doesn't.
> 
> I'm gonna start calling you Crazy Shit Barry (or fairy, depending).
> 
> As far as putting it on a ballot?  Well, interestingly enough, I just watched an interview with Barry Levin (you know, the guy that just took over the chairmanship of Ways and Means), and when he was asked about the fucked up policy of DADT, he stated that everyone said (including McStupid), there should be a 1 year study for the policy.
> 
> He also stated that during that 1 year policy, when looking to see if it should be rescinded or not, NOBODY should be discharged during that time for being gay.  Other things such as discipline, EAOS and all the others?  Business as usual, just no discharges for homosexuality during the study.
> 
> The bill is already working it's way through Congress.
> 
> Oh yeah........Mr. Levin?  He supports getting rid of DADT.
> 
> Try again Cat Shit Fairy.
Click to expand...


Come on, do you think what you call me, or who you quote matters to me? Don't flatter yourself. You're acting like a five year old that can't get its way; behave or I'll have to send you to bed without your supper.


----------



## csbarry

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey........if the Vatican can have a homosexual prostitution ring, I think it would be okay to let gays serve openly.
> 
> At least, out in the open, people are honest and better behaved about it.



Another brilliant...NOT, comment from the peanut gallery.


----------



## CurveLight

csbarry said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit.  we live in a representative democracy.  We elect our congressmen and our senators and our president and task THEM with running this country.  We do NOT place everything out to referendum.  It IS the commander-in-chief's responsibility to set the policies of our military.  If you don't LIKE the policies that he sets, you can wait for the next presidential election and then try and replace him with someone more to your liking.
> 
> Did you even TAKE civics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I have. I know how our government is suppose to work, but it doesn't because our _representatives_ do as they wish and not as we ask. This is suppose to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; not a self important group of individuals in Washington that look to take care of themselves. I have no problem in believing that the vast majority of Americans would prefer to see DADT remain in effect permanently, and further, that gay relationships not be officially recognized in the military or the civilian community.
Click to expand...



Our government is not structured around the majority rules philosophy.  It was set up specifically to prohibit such a structure.


----------



## CurveLight

maineman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it's not... it's like stating that, unless you are a brain surgeon, you really can't talk, with any level of understanding, about the nuances of brain surgery.  NOBODY knows what it's like to be in the military until they've actually been there.
Click to expand...



So if someone spent five years studying brain surgery, was tutored by brain surgeons, and watched many operations they wouldn't be abe to intelligently discuss brain surgery unless they physically did it?  There is legitimacy to your empirical claim but it's not nearly as cut dry as being stated.  People who have never served can make their contributions to how the military is run.  Ask Dick Cheney.


----------



## maineman

CurveLight said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not... it's like stating that, unless you are a brain surgeon, you really can't talk, with any level of understanding, about the nuances of brain surgery.  NOBODY knows what it's like to be in the military until they've actually been there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone spent five years studying brain surgery, was tutored by brain surgeons, and watched many operations they wouldn't be abe to intelligently discuss brain surgery unless they physically did it?  There is legitimacy to your empirical claim but it's not nearly as cut dry as being stated.  People who have never served can make their contributions to how the military is run.  Ask Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...


the few exceptions prove the general rule, however.  Everyone can have an opinion as to how the military will react if gays are allowed to serve openly, but those individuals who have served, have the most valid basis for their opinions.

I served.  My opinion is that the military will be just fine if gays are allowed to serve openly.  More importantly, however, I really think that it is the sole decision of the commander in chief and he ought not to worry even a little bit as to how the service members will respond to his decision.  The military exists to do the bidding of the civilian command authority, not the other way around.  "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do our die."  Soldier and sailors with less than professional attitudes about their service who somehow forget the relationship between those in uniform and those in suits are free to leave if they do not wish to serve under changed circumstances.  I would suggest that they not let the door hit them in the ass on their way out.


----------



## Flaylo

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be a good thing.  The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people.  Not objects.  Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves.  Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor.  Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.
> 
> Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who.  It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.
> 
> Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.
Click to expand...


Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.


----------



## CurveLight

maineman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not... it's like stating that, unless you are a brain surgeon, you really can't talk, with any level of understanding, about the nuances of brain surgery.  NOBODY knows what it's like to be in the military until they've actually been there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone spent five years studying brain surgery, was tutored by brain surgeons, and watched many operations they wouldn't be abe to intelligently discuss brain surgery unless they physically did it?  There is legitimacy to your empirical claim but it's not nearly as cut dry as being stated.  People who have never served can make their contributions to how the military is run.  Ask Dick Cheney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the few exceptions prove the general rule, however.  Everyone can have an opinion as to how the military will react if gays are allowed to serve openly, but those individuals who have served, have the most valid basis for their opinions.
> 
> I served.  My opinion is that the military will be just fine if gays are allowed to serve openly.  More importantly, however, I really think that it is the sole decision of the commander in chief and he ought not to worry even a little bit as to how the service members will respond to his decision.  The military exists to do the bidding of the civilian command authority, not the other way around.  "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do our die."  Soldier and sailors with less than professional attitudes about their service who somehow forget the relationship between those in uniform and those in suits are free to leave if they do not wish to serve under changed circumstances.  I would suggest that they not let the door hit them in the ass on their way out.
Click to expand...


I just don't like seeing the claim the absence of service is the presence of justified forced silence.  As I said, Serving does give empirical evidence so we agree there.  

However, the "ours is..." cliche is pure bullshit and the Prez should never be elevated to dictatorship type levels.  The UCMJ outright contradicts that cliche because by Oath, every Soldier has a duty to question the morality and legality of ever order issued.  Many career Officers, after resigning of course, have admitted they failed in their duties by simply following orders and not questioning the legitimacy of invading iraq.  Our Soldiers are our Americans.  They are not stoopid.  They do not need a muzzle to maintain discipline.  Theirs is to question why lest they die without understanding why.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.
> 
> Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
Click to expand...


you can't always get what you want...

if DADT is repealed, your nation expects you to salute and soldier on.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.
> 
> Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
Click to expand...



Why would it upset you?


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> the few exceptions prove the general rule, however.  Everyone can have an opinion as to how the military will react if gays are allowed to serve openly, but those individuals who have served, have the most valid basis for their opinions.



I am currently serving in today's military and in the Army and I say rescinding DADT will hurt unit cohesion. I am now an NCO in the Aviation branch but for the first five years of my career I was a Forward Observer in Field Artillery Units, Cavalry Units and Infrantry Units and I can attest firsthand how homosexuality is looking down upon by the ground pounders who make the the bulk of the Army. maybe there were some gays in those units I served in, maybe not, but if there were you would never know and the entire unit prefered that. Having gays openly serve is going to dilute the espirit de corp and warrior attitude of the combat arms branches. When you think of the gallant infrantry or comabt arms soldier you don't think gay.



> I served.  My opinion is that the military will be just fine if gays are allowed to serve openly.  More importantly, however, I really think that it is the sole decision of the commander in chief and he ought not to worry even a little bit as to how the service members will respond to his decision.




What military were you in? Lest you forget, you stated you served around men you knew to be gay and did nothing about it, so of course it would be fine with you, but you don't speak for the military. What works best for lonely sailors on a ship doesn't bode for the Army.



> The military exists to do the bidding of the civilian command authority, not the other way around.



And if the military did the bidding of civilians and did those things that would lower recruitment and retention what good is that going to do? 



> "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do our die."



That being your thinking I presume, why can't gays do the same thing with DADT? Why are you asking the proponents of DADT to do something you're not asking the opponents of DADT to do likewise? This isn't a one way avenue, it applies to all.




> Soldier and sailors with less than professional attitudes about their service who somehow forget the relationship between those in uniform and those in suits are free to leave if they do not wish to serve under changed circumstances.  I would suggest that they not let the door hit them in the ass on their way out.



Those servicemembers who are proponents of DADT are most certainly not "less than professional' just because your opinion isn't congruent with theirs. If those who you deem as less than professional really left the military in huge numbers and outnumbered the amount of those discharged under DADT, what are you to do? I know, instead of blaming a flawed decision to rescind DADT, you'd call all of those who left the military "unprofessional" homophobes.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.
> 
> Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't always get what you want...
> 
> if DADT is repealed, your nation expects you to salute and soldier on.
Click to expand...



What I want is for the military to increase cohesion and readiness, not promote and support one-sided homosexual activism just because some gays can't hack keeping their homosexuality to themselves while serving and want the entire military to know about it.


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.
> 
> Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it upset you?
Click to expand...


Anything immoral upsets me, no matter if its done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. I want the Army I serve in to be seen as the most professional and disciplined Army in the world where people put away selfishness and personal want in place of selfless service, scarifice and duty first.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> I am currently serving in today's military and in the Army and I say rescinding DADT will hurt unit cohesion. I am now an NCO in the Aviation branch but for the first five years of my career I was a Forward Observer in Field Artillery Units, Cavalry Units and Infrantry Units and I can attest firsthand how homosexuality is looking down upon by the ground pounders who make the the bulk of the Army. maybe there were some gays in those units I served in, maybe not, but if there were you would never know and the entire unit prefered that. Having gays openly serve is going to dilute the espirit de corp and warrior attitude of the combat arms branches. When you think of the gallant infrantry or comabt arms soldier you don't think gay.




Again... it really has NOTHING to do with your opinion of what will happen to esprit de corps... the only question that is germane here is, will you salute and soldier on if DADT is repealed, or will you not?  Will you do your best to implement the policies that are delineated by your chain of command, or will you be unprofessional and only pay them lip service?  



> What military were you in? Lest you forget, you stated you served around men you knew to be gay and did nothing about it, so of course it would be fine with you, but you don't speak for the military. What works best for lonely sailors on a ship doesn't bode for the Army.



I was in the United States Navy, but you already knew that, didn't you?  Lest YOU forget, I did not break any regulations or fail to uphold ANY policies in place regarding gays in the military while I was on active duty.  I never claimed to speak for the military, or even the Navy.  You, however, do seem to be saying that YOU speak for all the groundpounders in the Army.  A bit presumptious (and hypocritical), don't you think?



> And if the military did the bidding of civilians and did those things that would lower recruitment and retention what good is that going to do?



That is none of your concern.  If the civilian command authority told you that, starting tomorrow, you would walk around on your hands, the only two responses from you would be to either follow the directives of your chain of command like a professional, or leave the military.  Take your choice.



> That being your thinking I presume, why can't gays do the same thing with DADT? Why are you asking the proponents of DADT to do something you're not asking the opponents of DADT to do likewise? This isn't a one way avenue, it applies to all.



They do that today.  Gay personnel serve in the closet now... and do so with bravery and professionalism.  The decision to lift DADT is a civilian decision... you need to be ready to deal with it.



> Those servicemembers who are proponents of DADT are most certainly not "less than professional' just because your opinion isn't congruent with theirs. If those who you deem as less than professional really left the military in huge numbers and outnumbered the amount of those discharged under DADT, what are you to do? I know, instead of blaming a flawed decision to rescind DADT, you'd call all of those who left the military "unprofessional" homophobes.



What would you have called those professionals in the military who left in 1947 rather than serve alongside blacks?  You could have called them racists... I would have simply call them unprofessional, because that is undoubtedly what they were.  

I have no doubt that the military will survive the removal of DADT, just like it survived racial integration a generation ago.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't always get what you want...
> 
> if DADT is repealed, your nation expects you to salute and soldier on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I want is for the military to increase cohesion and readiness, not promote and support one-sided homosexual activism just because some gays can't hack keeping their homosexuality to themselves while serving and want the entire military to know about it.
Click to expand...


as I said... the only question is whether or not you will salute and soldier on if DADT is repealed.  I am well aware of many people who do not want the policy repealed... their wants matter naught to me.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't always get what you want...
> 
> if DADT is repealed, your nation expects you to salute and soldier on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I want is for the military to increase cohesion and readiness, not promote and support one-sided homosexual activism just because some gays can't hack keeping their homosexuality to themselves while serving and want the entire military to know about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as I said... the only question is whether or not you will salute and soldier on if DADT is repealed.  I am well aware of many people who do not want the policy repealed... their wants matter naught to me.
Click to expand...


The wants of homosexuals is what matters to you, not the proponents of DADT and unit cohesion and readiness.


----------



## Flaylo

maineman said:


> Again... it really has NOTHING to do with your opinion of what will happen to esprit de corps... the only question that is germane here is, will you salute and soldier on if DADT is repealed, or will you not?  Will you do your best to implement the policies that are delineated by your chain of command, or will you be unprofessional and only pay them lip service?



I'm in the military and I'm telling that most of those whom I've spoken with do not like the idea of DADT being repealed, what kind of an affect you think thats going to have if it is repealed and people start walking around openly saying the gay? The one thats going to have to deal with the stress of managing that will be me because I'm a Senior NCO, not the gay activists who are going to blame everything on homophobia.




> You, however, do seem to be saying that YOU speak for all the groundpounders in the Army.  A bit presumptious (and hypocritical), don't you think?



I was a ground pounder and served in both 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne Divisions, as well as 3rd ID, those are 3 of the most prestigious Army divisions and I was a Forward Observer in all of them, which is just as rough as being a ground pounder. I was in of course, all-male units and I'm telling you that any hint of homosexuality was looked down upon and not just from junior leaders but even at the top. I know what I'm talking about and don't speak from what is going to happen hypothetically.





> That is none of your concern.  If the civilian command authority told you that, starting tomorrow, you would walk around on your hands, the only two responses from you would be to either follow the directives of your chain of command like a professional, or leave the military.  Take your choice.




Civilians don't run the everyday business of the Army and they make decisions based on the advice and suggestions of those in uniform because those that serve see what goes on everyday, civilians don't. The only civilians I take orders from are the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of Defense along with the President. If they're smart they will not do anything to ruin unit cohesion, morale and readiness.









> What would you have called those professionals in the military who left in 1947 rather than serve alongside blacks?  You could have called them racists... I would have simply call them unprofessional, because that is undoubtedly what they were.



I woud say they were racists, that simple. Resigning because of who somebody's skin color and resigning because of someone's actions are two different things.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> I'm in the military and I'm telling that most of those whom I've spoken with do not like the idea of DADT being repealed, what kind of an affect you think thats going to have if it is repealed and people start walking around openly saying the gay? The one thats going to have to deal with the stress of managing that will be me because I'm a Senior NCO, not the gay activists who are going to blame everything on homophobia.



again... since when did CinC's poll the enlisted troops before deciding what policy to implement.  No one really CARES whether you think it is a good idea or not.  Follow orders, implement policy, or get out.  




> You, however, do seem to be saying that YOU speak for all the groundpounders in the Army.  A bit presumptious (and hypocritical), don't you think?





> I was a ground pounder and served in both 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne Divisions, as well as 3rd ID, those are 3 of the most prestigious Army divisions and I was a Forward Observer in all of them, which is just as rough as being a ground pounder. I was in of course, all-male units and I'm telling you that any hint of homosexuality was looked down upon and not just from junior leaders but even at the top. I know what I'm talking about and don't speak from what is going to happen hypothetically.



again... why should anyone care?  All levels of the chain of command have the option of being professionals or leaving...  I can remember LOTS of policy decisions that I didn't particularly care for, but I only voiced my concerns to my superiors behind closed doors, and, after having done so, took ownership of the policies and implemented them enthusiastically.  You nation expects you to do the same.



> Civilians don't run the everyday business of the Army and they make decisions based on the advice and suggestions of those in uniform because those that serve see what goes on everyday, civilians don't. The only civilians I take orders from are the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of Defense along with the President. If they're smart they will not do anything to ruin unit cohesion, morale and readiness.



I never suggested that civilians run the everyday business of the military.  They DO, however, run the military and the folks in uniform take their marching orders from them.  If you are smart, you will not question the wisdom of your chain of command, especially in front of subordinates.



> I woud say they were racists, that simple. Resigning because of who somebody's skin color and resigning because of someone's actions are two different things.



tell yourself whatever lies you need to in order to justify your lack of professionalism... the fact is:  in 1947, there were a lot of professional soldiers and sailors who were dead set against intergrating the armed forces.  They either adapted and maintained their professionalism or they didn't.  Your choice... and my guess is:  if you are true to your decision, and stick to it with professionalism and integrity, the Army will be better off either way.


----------



## maineman

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want is for the military to increase cohesion and readiness, not promote and support one-sided homosexual activism just because some gays can't hack keeping their homosexuality to themselves while serving and want the entire military to know about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as I said... the only question is whether or not you will salute and soldier on if DADT is repealed.  I am well aware of many people who do not want the policy repealed... their wants matter naught to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wants of homosexuals is what matters to you, not the proponents of DADT and unit cohesion and readiness.
Click to expand...


the "wants" of homosexuals are of little concern to me... no more or less than the concern I have for YOUR "wants".  I care a great deal about the United States and I care a great deal about the military.  I served through a period of great change and, in retrospect, most all of it was for the better and, in every instance, the true professionals who loved their service did the right thing and were part of the implementation solutions for those changes.

the jury's out as to how you will act.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> the few exceptions prove the general rule, however.  Everyone can have an opinion as to how the military will react if gays are allowed to serve openly, but those individuals who have served, have the most valid basis for their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am currently serving in today's military and in the Army and I say rescinding DADT will hurt unit cohesion. I am now an NCO in the Aviation branch but for the first five years of my career I was a Forward Observer in Field Artillery Units, Cavalry Units and Infrantry Units and I can attest firsthand how homosexuality is looking down upon by the ground pounders who make the the bulk of the Army. maybe there were some gays in those units I served in, maybe not, but if there were you would never know and the entire unit prefered that. Having gays openly serve is going to dilute the espirit de corp and warrior attitude of the combat arms branches. When you think of the gallant infrantry or comabt arms soldier you don't think gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I served.  My opinion is that the military will be just fine if gays are allowed to serve openly.  More importantly, however, I really think that it is the sole decision of the commander in chief and he ought not to worry even a little bit as to how the service members will respond to his decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What military were you in? Lest you forget, you stated you served around men you knew to be gay and did nothing about it, so of course it would be fine with you, but you don't speak for the military. What works best for lonely sailors on a ship doesn't bode for the Army.
> 
> 
> 
> And if the military did the bidding of civilians and did those things that would lower recruitment and retention what good is that going to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do our die."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That being your thinking I presume, why can't gays do the same thing with DADT? Why are you asking the proponents of DADT to do something you're not asking the opponents of DADT to do likewise? This isn't a one way avenue, it applies to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soldier and sailors with less than professional attitudes about their service who somehow forget the relationship between those in uniform and those in suits are free to leave if they do not wish to serve under changed circumstances.  I would suggest that they not let the door hit them in the ass on their way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those servicemembers who are proponents of DADT are most certainly not "less than professional' just because your opinion isn't congruent with theirs. If those who you deem as less than professional really left the military in huge numbers and outnumbered the amount of those discharged under DADT, what are you to do? I know, instead of blaming a flawed decision to rescind DADT, you'd call all of those who left the military "unprofessional" homophobes.
Click to expand...




You're a fucking idiot.  Stop parading your homophobia behind moldy terms like "unit cohesion" because it's embarrassing to watch and I fought in AirCav so don't try to pull any of that other nonsense.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it upset you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything immoral upsets me, no matter if its done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. *I want the Army I serve in to be seen as the most professional and disciplined Army in the world where people put away selfishness and personal want in place of selfless service, scarifice and duty first.*
Click to expand...


Okay.............I just bolded your words.........what part of keeping someone down because it makes you feel uncomfortable is "selfless" about YOU?

You're not a leader, your a bully prick that thinks the entire military should conform to their narrow world view.

Failed Load, you keep digging yourself in deeper.  You know....put down the shovel of hatred and quit digging, and accept the hand that will pull you out of the hole of your own ignorance.

Even if it is attached to a homosexual.

Or.......to put it in your John Wayne language.......

You go out on a mission.  The sniper assigned to keep your squad alive lets it slip that he's gay.

Do you refuse the mission, just because the guy covering your ass is homosexual?  Don't you think he'd take good care of your tight ass just because he likes seeing it in the shower?


----------



## amrchaos

ABikerSailor said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it upset you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything immoral upsets me, no matter if its done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. *I want the Army I serve in to be seen as the most professional and disciplined Army in the world where people put away selfishness and personal want in place of selfless service, scarifice and duty first.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.............I just bolded your words.........what part of keeping someone down because it makes you feel uncomfortable is "selfless" about YOU?
> 
> You're not a leader, your a bully prick that thinks the entire military should conform to their narrow world view.
> 
> Failed Load, you keep digging yourself in deeper.  You know....put down the shovel of hatred and quit digging, and accept the hand that will pull you out of the hole of your own ignorance.
> 
> Even if it is attached to a homosexual.
> 
> Or.......to put it in your John Wayne language.......
> 
> You go out on a mission.  The sniper assigned to keep your squad alive lets it slip that he's gay.
> 
> Do you refuse the mission, just because the guy covering your ass is homosexual?  Don't you think he'd take good care of your tight ass just because he likes seeing it in the shower?
Click to expand...


OK 

We get it

You are gay and you are upset about a policy that discriminates against you.

NOW TELL US
Why should we get rid of a policy that turned you into a super soldier?

Our military needs the best performing soldiers it can get--and all you can think about is your damn feelings!! 

What you are doing is not called selflessness, Biker!!
What you are doing is called Bitching and whining!!

What We need is another reason to hold onto.  To push through that pink stuff in our heads we like to call a brain to justify, to ourselves, removing DADT.

Or else we are going to claim that we did it to shut the damn queers up. Get it??


----------



## ABikerSailor

amrchaos said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything immoral upsets me, no matter if its done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. *I want the Army I serve in to be seen as the most professional and disciplined Army in the world where people put away selfishness and personal want in place of selfless service, scarifice and duty first.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.............I just bolded your words.........what part of keeping someone down because it makes you feel uncomfortable is "selfless" about YOU?
> 
> You're not a leader, your a bully prick that thinks the entire military should conform to their narrow world view.
> 
> Failed Load, you keep digging yourself in deeper.  You know....put down the shovel of hatred and quit digging, and accept the hand that will pull you out of the hole of your own ignorance.
> 
> Even if it is attached to a homosexual.
> 
> Or.......to put it in your John Wayne language.......
> 
> You go out on a mission.  The sniper assigned to keep your squad alive lets it slip that he's gay.
> 
> Do you refuse the mission, just because the guy covering your ass is homosexual?  Don't you think he'd take good care of your tight ass just because he likes seeing it in the shower?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> We get it
> 
> You are gay and you are upset about a policy that discriminates against you.
> 
> NOW TELL US
> Why should we get rid of a policy that turned you into a super soldier?
> 
> Our military needs the best performing soldiers it can get--and all you can think about is your damn feelings!!
> 
> What you are doing is not called selflessness, Biker!!
> What you are doing is called Bitching and whining!!
> 
> What We need is another reason to hold onto.  To push through that pink stuff in our heads we like to call a brain to justify, to ourselves, removing DADT.
> 
> Or else we are going to claim that we did it to shut the damn queers up. Get it??
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm heterosexual and retired from the Navy.

However.........I did see the effects of DADT when it was put in.  One of the best computer techs that I ever knew was a man named John L.  EVERYONE on the ship knew he was gay, but didn't fuck with him.  Why?  He was a valuable asset to the ship, and never "acted out" in front of the crew.

Also knew several others.........2 of which were lesbians when I was stationed in Norfolk.  Lived with 'em for 2 years, and because I lived there, everyone thought I was doing them regularly like Three's Company.  

Actually, all I did was rent a room and live with them.  Both were in what is known as CREO Group 1, which means they were in undermanned fields.  

Know what is really unfair about it?  Those 2 women had lived with each other for over 10 years, had a house they'd bought together, and were probably more "married" than most couples I know.

They were also ineligible for being at the bedside of the other one if something happened. 

Now.......quick question........if YOUR significant other was hurt because of an accident, wouldn't you want to be able to go to their bedside and be with them?

Gay military members can't do that. 

Incidentally, have you ever had someone important to you in the hospital?  If so, how was your days during that time, were you able to concentrate fully on your job, or did things slip?

THAT is why they need to get rid of DADT.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Flaylo is in the army serving to protect faggots and faggot lovers and you all do is personally and verbally attack him. You guys can't disagree without personal attacks and calling people homophobes.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

What Bikerfaggot fails to realize is that being a good troop in the military is not just about doing one's job well, its about also maintaining discipline, exemplary conduct and being and being a good example off and on duty. You join the military, whatever branch, because you want to serve, not to make a social statement that your gay and proud to screw people of the same sex up the anus while serving.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah.....right Ass Chucker........you are the epitome of good order and discipline.

Shit boy........I wouldn't follow you to your car unless it was to beat you over the head with a stick for being such an idiot.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.....right Ass Chucker........you are the epitome of good order and discipline.
> 
> Shit boy........I wouldn't follow you to your car unless it was to beat you over the head with a stick for being such an idiot.



Violence, violence, you're such a whining pro-homosexual idiot and it you ever tried to beat the Bass with a stick that would be the last time you ever raised a stick in your life. Why are you so deep into being so pro gay?


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I, who am still in the military, would feel a whole lot better not knowing if someone is gay and I would like for the military to keep it that way. I don't want to know and don't need to know, if it isn't going to help the Army and enhance readiness it doesn't need to be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it upset you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything immoral upsets me, no matter if its done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. I want the Army I serve in to be seen as the most professional and disciplined Army in the world where people put away selfishness and personal want in place of selfless service, scarifice and duty first.
Click to expand...



Forgive me Your Majesty.  I was unaware God went on vacation and personally handed you the tag machine to label people according to your personal views.  If you are an NCO who did you pay off to get through BNOC?

Going by your posts and sig you sound like the kid who wore camo pants to school but went home to play with an easy bake oven.  It's a shame you try to define other people through such a narrow, blind, and foggy lens.  It's even scarier thinking others would rely on you for leadership.


----------



## Gadawg73

Charlie Bass said:


> What Bikerfaggot fails to realize is that being a good troop in the military is not just about doing one's job well, its about also maintaining discipline, exemplary conduct and being and being a good example off and on duty. You join the military, whatever branch, because you want to serve, not to make a social statement that your gay and proud to screw people of the same sex up the anus while serving.



When we objected to the blacks getting the worst kind of duty many a year ago in the service you were the one calling us ****** lovers. They said all the blacks wanted our white women.

Take a good look at yourself son. 
Listen to JCS Mullen and Gates as a source to better inform yourself. Open your ears. They want the law changed because they believe that will maintain better discipline.
The gay boogey man is not going to get you. They want to serve as who they are. Get over your immature insecurities. Gays are not interested in you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....right Ass Chucker........you are the epitome of good order and discipline.
> 
> Shit boy........I wouldn't follow you to your car unless it was to beat you over the head with a stick for being such an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence, violence, you're such a whining pro-homosexual idiot and it you ever tried to beat the Bass with a stick that would be the last time you ever raised a stick in your life. Why are you so deep into being so pro gay?
Click to expand...


Tell ya what fuckwit............bring a stick to Southlawn Park in Amarillo.

I'll show you what I mean.

5-6 pm, Monday - Friday, weather permitting.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....right Ass Chucker........you are the epitome of good order and discipline.
> 
> Shit boy........I wouldn't follow you to your car unless it was to beat you over the head with a stick for being such an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence, violence, you're such a whining pro-homosexual idiot and it you ever tried to beat the Bass with a stick that would be the last time you ever raised a stick in your life. Why are you so deep into being so pro gay?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....right Ass Chucker........you are the epitome of good order and discipline.
> 
> Shit boy........I wouldn't follow you to your car unless it was to beat you over the head with a stick for being such an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence, violence, you're such a whining pro-homosexual idiot and it you ever tried to beat the Bass with a stick that would be the last time you ever raised a stick in your life. Why are you so deep into being so pro gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Amazing how fathertime accuses the Bass of being an E-thug and ad-hominems and says nothing about Bikerfaggots exploits especially when the Bass only responded to Bikerfaggots dumb post that made no poin germane to the discussion as is his own ad-hominem posts comparing blacks to faggots.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Gadawg73 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Bikerfaggot fails to realize is that being a good troop in the military is not just about doing one's job well, its about also maintaining discipline, exemplary conduct and being and being a good example off and on duty. You join the military, whatever branch, because you want to serve, not to make a social statement that your gay and proud to screw people of the same sex up the anus while serving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we objected to the blacks getting the worst kind of duty many a year ago in the service you were the one calling us ****** lovers. They said all the blacks wanted our white women.
> 
> Take a good look at yourself son.
> Listen to JCS Mullen and Gates as a source to better inform yourself. Open your ears. They want the law changed because they believe that will maintain better discipline.
> The gay boogey man is not going to get you. They want to serve as who they are. Get over your immature insecurities. Gays are not interested in you.
Click to expand...


Blacks and faggots cannot be compared, end of that nonsense, don't compare my people who are called such because of their skin color and ancestry to a group of people known only by their immoral and sexually aberrant behavior, its just isn't the same. The Bass doesn't give a damn what Gates says or any other black person says.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it upset you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything immoral upsets me, no matter if its done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. I want the Army I serve in to be seen as the most professional and disciplined Army in the world where people put away selfishness and personal want in place of selfless service, scarifice and duty first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me Your Majesty.  I was unaware God went on vacation and personally handed you the tag machine to label people according to your personal views.  If you are an NCO who did you pay off to get through BNOC?
> 
> Going by your posts and sig you sound like the kid who wore camo pants to school but went home to play with an easy bake oven.  It's a shame you try to define other people through such a narrow, blind, and foggy lens.  It's even scarier thinking others would rely on you for leadership.
Click to expand...


This is the epitome of ad-hominem and flame baiting right here.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violence, violence, you're such a whining pro-homosexual idiot and it you ever tried to beat the Bass with a stick that would be the last time you ever raised a stick in your life. Why are you so deep into being so pro gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how fathertime accuses the Bass of being an E-thug and ad-hominems and says nothing about Bikerfaggots exploits especially when the Bass only responded to Bikerfaggots dumb post that made no poin germane to the discussion as is his own ad-hominem posts comparing blacks to faggots.
Click to expand...


I don't recall biker ever acting like an e-thug talking about how tough he was or that he could beat all of us up. Not unless someone else started it.


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> You're a fucking idiot.  Stop parading your homophobia behind moldy terms like "unit cohesion" because it's embarrassing to watch and I fought in AirCav so don't try to pull any of that other nonsense.



You "fought" in the Air Cav, when thats a new one because Air Cavalry are normally used for recon like the rest of the cavalry as their primary job is not to make contact with the enemy.

Unit cohesion and wanting to have it is not homophobia, is that the only comeback you one sided homosexual activists can come up with when people don't see things eye to eye with you?

Rescinding DADT would be de facto forcing servicemembers to accept homosexuality and a sign that the military is concurring it.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Father Time said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how fathertime accuses the Bass of being an E-thug and ad-hominems and says nothing about Bikerfaggots exploits especially when the Bass only responded to Bikerfaggots dumb post that made no poin germane to the discussion as is his own ad-hominem posts comparing blacks to faggots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall biker ever acting like an e-thug talking about how tough he was or that he could beat all of us up. Not unless someone else started it.
Click to expand...


Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.  Stop parading your homophobia behind moldy terms like "unit cohesion" because it's embarrassing to watch and I fought in AirCav so don't try to pull any of that other nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "fought" in the Air Cav, when thats a new one because Air Cavalry are normally used for recon like the rest of the cavalry as their primary job is not to make contact with the enemy.
> 
> Unit cohesion and wanting to have it is not homophobia, is that the only comeback you one sided homosexual activists can come up with when people don't see things eye to eye with you?
> 
> Rescinding DADT would be de facto forcing servicemembers to accept homosexuality and a sign that the military is concurring it.
Click to expand...



Great.  Another homophobe pretending to be in the military.  You're a shitbag.


----------



## Flaylo

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how fathertime accuses the Bass of being an E-thug and ad-hominems and says nothing about Bikerfaggots exploits especially when the Bass only responded to Bikerfaggots dumb post that made no poin germane to the discussion as is his own ad-hominem posts comparing blacks to faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall biker ever acting like an e-thug talking about how tough he was or that he could beat all of us up. Not unless someone else started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.
Click to expand...


I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick. 

I didn't know the biker was a desk-borne chair ranger, its easy to understand his docility towards officers.


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.  Stop parading your homophobia behind moldy terms like "unit cohesion" because it's embarrassing to watch and I fought in AirCav so don't try to pull any of that other nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "fought" in the Air Cav, when thats a new one because Air Cavalry are normally used for recon like the rest of the cavalry as their primary job is not to make contact with the enemy.
> 
> Unit cohesion and wanting to have it is not homophobia, is that the only comeback you one sided homosexual activists can come up with when people don't see things eye to eye with you?
> 
> Rescinding DADT would be de facto forcing servicemembers to accept homosexuality and a sign that the military is concurring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another homophobe pretending to be in the military.  You're a shitbag.
Click to expand...



I am in the military and been through and completed PLDC, BNCOC, Battle Staff, Master Fitness Training and Drill Sergeant School, and have Airborne and Air Assault badges and the Aircrewmember Badge along with my CAB. Calling me a homophobe and obscene names can't change that. You "fought" in the Air Cav? When and where and against who?


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You "fought" in the Air Cav, when thats a new one because Air Cavalry are normally used for recon like the rest of the cavalry as their primary job is not to make contact with the enemy.
> 
> Unit cohesion and wanting to have it is not homophobia, is that the only comeback you one sided homosexual activists can come up with when people don't see things eye to eye with you?
> 
> Rescinding DADT would be de facto forcing servicemembers to accept homosexuality and a sign that the military is concurring it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another homophobe pretending to be in the military.  You're a shitbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the military and been through and completed PLDC, BNCOC, Battle Staff, Master Fitness Training and Drill Sergeant School, and have Airborne and Air Assualt badges and the Aircrewmember Badge along with my CIB. Calling me a homophobe and obscene names can't change that. You "fought" in the Air Cav? When and where and against who?
Click to expand...



Only a fuxxing complete jackass would try to claim Cavalry's primary job is to not have direct contact with the enemy.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flaylo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall biker ever acting like an e-thug talking about how tough he was or that he could beat all of us up. Not unless someone else started it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
> 
> I didn't know the biker was a desk-borne chair ranger, its easy to understand his docility towards officers.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Personnelman was the only job that could go anywhere and still be eligible for SEALS.

SEALS only allow 13 different fields.  Personnelman and medic are 2.

And yeah......I've got the service record to back it up......what you got wiki warrior?


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Another homophobe pretending to be in the military.  You're a shitbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the military and been through and completed PLDC, BNCOC, Battle Staff, Master Fitness Training and Drill Sergeant School, and have Airborne and Air Assualt badges and the Aircrewmember Badge along with my CIB. Calling me a homophobe and obscene names can't change that. You "fought" in the Air Cav? When and where and against who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fuxxing complete jackass would try to claim Cavalry's primary job is to not have direct contact with the enemy.
Click to expand...


The prime job of the Cav is information and intelligence gathering, not to engage the enemy through contact, thats what the 11Bs do, I used to be a forward observer and some of what we do overlaps with that of the 19Ds, Cavalry Scouts, the name of the MOS tells it all. Some do have missions where the engage the enemy, some don't. The only "Cav" that engages the enmy are those in 1st Cavalry Division which is really a heavy armored division despite the name.


----------



## Flaylo

ABikerSailor said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
> 
> I didn't know the biker was a desk-borne chair ranger, its easy to understand his docility towards officers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Personnelman was the only job that could go anywhere and still be eligible for SEALS.
> 
> SEALS only allow 13 different fields.  Personnelman and medic are 2.
> 
> And yeah......I've got the service record to back it up......what you got wiki warrior?
Click to expand...


A personnel man, LMAO, a paper pusher, I was a Forward Observer(Fire Support), do you know what that is? That means I call for fire on targets but I have to be close enough to have a visual with a range finder, thats front line duty bud. You could never hack being a SEAL, you wouldn't even make it past  Ranger School.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the military and been through and completed PLDC, BNCOC, Battle Staff, Master Fitness Training and Drill Sergeant School, and have Airborne and Air Assualt badges and the Aircrewmember Badge along with my CIB. Calling me a homophobe and obscene names can't change that. You "fought" in the Air Cav? When and where and against who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fuxxing complete jackass would try to claim Cavalry's primary job is to not have direct contact with the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prime job of the Cav is to recon and intelligence gathering, not to engage the enemy through contact, thats what the 11Bs do, I used to be a forward observer and some of what we do overlaps with that of the 19Ds, Cavalry Scouts, the name of the MOS tells it all. Some do have missions where the engage the enemy, some don't. The only "Cav" that engages the enmy are those in 1st Cavalry Division which is really a heavy armored division despite the name.
Click to expand...


Actually it was 1st Cav that was depicted in the movie "We were Soldiers". Have to give credit where credit is due.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the military and been through and completed PLDC, BNCOC, Battle Staff, Master Fitness Training and Drill Sergeant School, and have Airborne and Air Assualt badges and the Aircrewmember Badge along with my CIB. Calling me a homophobe and obscene names can't change that. You "fought" in the Air Cav? When and where and against who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fuxxing complete jackass would try to claim Cavalry's primary job is to not have direct contact with the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prime job of the Cav is to recon and intelligence gathering, not to engage the enemy through contact, thats what the 11Bs do, I used to be a forward observer and some of what we do overlaps with that of the 19Ds, Cavalry Scouts, the name of the MOS tells it all. Some do have missions where the engage the enemy, some don't. The only "Cav" that engages the enmy are those in 1st Cavalry Division which is really a heavy armored division despite the name.
Click to expand...


Wiki warriors suck


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fuxxing complete jackass would try to claim Cavalry's primary job is to not have direct contact with the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prime job of the Cav is to recon and intelligence gathering, not to engage the enemy through contact, thats what the 11Bs do, I used to be a forward observer and some of what we do overlaps with that of the 19Ds, Cavalry Scouts, the name of the MOS tells it all. Some do have missions where the engage the enemy, some don't. The only "Cav" that engages the enmy are those in 1st Cavalry Division which is really a heavy armored division despite the name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki warriors suck
Click to expand...


Wiki? I suppose you really know what Cavalry Scouts do, please enlighten us all.


----------



## CurveLight

Flaylo said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prime job of the Cav is to recon and intelligence gathering, not to engage the enemy through contact, thats what the 11Bs do, I used to be a forward observer and some of what we do overlaps with that of the 19Ds, Cavalry Scouts, the name of the MOS tells it all. Some do have missions where the engage the enemy, some don't. The only "Cav" that engages the enmy are those in 1st Cavalry Division which is really a heavy armored division despite the name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki warriors suck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki? I suppose you really know what Cavalry Scouts do, please enlighten us all.
Click to expand...



You tried claiming Cavalry's primary job is not to directly engage the enemy you fuxxing lying bitch.


----------



## Father Time

Flaylo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall biker ever acting like an e-thug talking about how tough he was or that he could beat all of us up. Not unless someone else started it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
Click to expand...


He did? I didn't see it. Well if he did then he's an e-thug as well.


----------



## bodecea

SFC Ollie said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how fathertime accuses the Bass of being an E-thug and ad-hominems and says nothing about Bikerfaggots exploits especially when the Bass only responded to Bikerfaggots dumb post that made no poin germane to the discussion as is his own ad-hominem posts comparing blacks to faggots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall biker ever acting like an e-thug talking about how tough he was or that he could beat all of us up. Not unless someone else started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you are referring to the Clerk there.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Father Time said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, the fool is always bragging about how bad he is and where he's been. First sign of someone who isn't all that. And then it turns out the great warrior was indeed a personnel desk jockey. (Glorified secretary) LOL you gotta love it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did? I didn't see it. Well if he did then he's an e-thug as well.
Click to expand...



Jackass, you actually quoted the Bass' posted where the Bass quoted Bikkerfaggot talking about beating the Bass in the head with a stick. There is no if to it, he did, all you have to do and look back in this thread to see. Don't play dumb as if you didn't see, you're so full of do-do.


----------



## bodecea

Charlie Bass said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Bikerfaggot fails to realize is that being a good troop in the military is not just about doing one's job well, its about also maintaining discipline, exemplary conduct and being and being a good example off and on duty. You join the military, whatever branch, because you want to serve, not to make a social statement that your gay and proud to screw people of the same sex up the anus while serving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we objected to the blacks getting the worst kind of duty many a year ago in the service you were the one calling us ****** lovers. They said all the blacks wanted our white women.
> 
> Take a good look at yourself son.
> Listen to JCS Mullen and Gates as a source to better inform yourself. Open your ears. They want the law changed because they believe that will maintain better discipline.
> The gay boogey man is not going to get you. They want to serve as who they are. Get over your immature insecurities. Gays are not interested in you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks and faggots cannot be compared, end of that nonsense, don't compare my people who are called such because of their skin color and ancestry to a group of people known only by their immoral and sexually aberrant behavior, its just isn't the same. The Bass doesn't give a damn what Gates says or any other black person says.
Click to expand...


Civil Rights are Civil Rights.   But, I don't expect you to be smart enough to see that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Flaylo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
> 
> I didn't know the biker was a desk-borne chair ranger, its easy to understand his docility towards officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Personnelman was the only job that could go anywhere and still be eligible for SEALS.
> 
> SEALS only allow 13 different fields.  Personnelman and medic are 2.
> 
> And yeah......I've got the service record to back it up......what you got wiki warrior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A personnel man, LMAO, a paper pusher, I was a Forward Observer(Fire Support), do you know what that is? That means I call for fire on targets but I have to be close enough to have a visual with a range finder, thats front line duty bud. You could never hack being a SEAL, you wouldn't even make it past  Ranger School.
Click to expand...


Considering the variety I've enjoyed, as well as all the qualifications I've gotten along the way, I'm very happy I chose something other than living in a tent all my life.

First tour?  Combat ship in Beruit.

Second?  Land based.

Third?  FA-18's.  Even got allowed up on the flight deck during operations (most dangerous piece of real estate on the planet) because of the collateral duties that I volunteered, and qualified for.

Fourth?  Naval War College in Newport RI.  Also volunteered for Security forces and made squad leader in 6 months.  Also qualified as DAPA.

Fifth?  Forward deployed on an MSC vessel.  Only 10 percent of the Navy gets to do that.

Sixth?  Served with distinction as Head Classifier at Amarillo MEPS.  Was also LPO and didn't answer to anyone in Amarillo.

Just a Master Chief in San Antonio.

Yeah......boring being a paper pusher,  huh?  Know why I took the job?  Because I knew that I didn't want to settle into just one rut, and wanted a chance to do stuff that they advertised on the television.

Nothing you can say can make me ashamed of my service. 

You should be as proud of yours.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did? I didn't see it. Well if he did then he's an e-thug as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jackass, you actually quoted the Bass' posted where the Bass quoted Bikkerfaggot talking about beating the Bass in the head with a stick. There is no if to it, he did, all you have to do and look back in this thread to see. Don't play dumb as if you didn't see, you're so full of do-do.
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension yet again you dumb fuck.  Pull your head outta your ass once in a while and take a breath.

I stated that the ONLY REASON I WOULD FOLLOW YOU would be to follow you to your car to beat you with a stick.

It's for your stupid posts on this thread.

And......because you're such a failure as a man and a human, that would be the only reason to follow you.

But, why waste the time?  It's much more fun to watch you grow keyboard muscles and twitch like a Tourrett's gimp with epilepsy.

All I gotta do is say something about you.  By the way Bass Ho.........it would be wonderful poetic Karma if your future family had a gay child in it from your loins.

Maybe then, you'd learn some compassion.


----------



## Father Time

Charlie Bass said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find FatherTime's picture post to be most amusing considering that it was the biker that initially made the threat of beating someone in the head with a stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did? I didn't see it. Well if he did then he's an e-thug as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jackass, you actually quoted the Bass' posted where the Bass quoted Bikkerfaggot talking about beating the Bass in the head with a stick. There is no if to it, he did, all you have to do and look back in this thread to see. Don't play dumb as if you didn't see, you're so full of do-do.
Click to expand...


'I wouldn't follow you to your car unless it was to beat you with a stick'

meaning 'I'd sooner beat you with a stick than want to screw you' or something.

Not the same thing as a threat or bragging about how badass you are.

Care to try again?


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did? I didn't see it. Well if he did then he's an e-thug as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackass, you actually quoted the Bass' posted where the Bass quoted Bikkerfaggot talking about beating the Bass in the head with a stick. There is no if to it, he did, all you have to do and look back in this thread to see. Don't play dumb as if you didn't see, you're so full of do-do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension yet again you dumb fuck.  Pull your head outta your ass once in a while and take a breath.
> 
> I stated that the ONLY REASON I WOULD FOLLOW YOU would be to follow you to your car to beat you with a stick.
> 
> It's for your stupid posts on this thread.
> 
> And......because you're such a failure as a man and a human, that would be the only reason to follow you.
> 
> But, why waste the time?  It's much more fun to watch you grow keyboard muscles and twitch like a Tourrett's gimp with epilepsy.
> 
> All I gotta do is say something about you.  By the way Bass Ho.........it would be wonderful poetic Karma if your future family had a gay child in it from your loins.
> 
> Maybe then, you'd learn some compassion.
Click to expand...


Please don't wish that on an innocent  child.  They cannot choose their parents, can they?


----------



## Bass v 2.0

bodecea said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we objected to the blacks getting the worst kind of duty many a year ago in the service you were the one calling us ****** lovers. They said all the blacks wanted our white women.
> 
> Take a good look at yourself son.
> Listen to JCS Mullen and Gates as a source to better inform yourself. Open your ears. They want the law changed because they believe that will maintain better discipline.
> The gay boogey man is not going to get you. They want to serve as who they are. Get over your immature insecurities. Gays are not interested in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and faggots cannot be compared, end of that nonsense, don't compare my people who are called such because of their skin color and ancestry to a group of people known only by their immoral and sexually aberrant behavior, its just isn't the same. The Bass doesn't give a damn what Gates says or any other black person says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil Rights are Civil Rights.   But, I don't expect you to be smart enough to see that.
Click to expand...


Serving openly as a fag in the military is not a Civil Right you jackass, serving in the military itself is not a right.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Personnelman was the only job that could go anywhere and still be eligible for SEALS.
> 
> SEALS only allow 13 different fields.  Personnelman and medic are 2.
> 
> And yeah......I've got the service record to back it up......what you got wiki warrior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A personnel man, LMAO, a paper pusher, I was a Forward Observer(Fire Support), do you know what that is? That means I call for fire on targets but I have to be close enough to have a visual with a range finder, thats front line duty bud. You could never hack being a SEAL, you wouldn't even make it past  Ranger School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering the variety I've enjoyed, as well as all the qualifications I've gotten along the way, I'm very happy I chose something other than living in a tent all my life.
> 
> First tour?  Combat ship in Beruit.
> 
> Second?  Land based.
> 
> Third?  FA-18's.  Even got allowed up on the flight deck during operations (most dangerous piece of real estate on the planet) because of the collateral duties that I volunteered, and qualified for.
> 
> Fourth?  Naval War College in Newport RI.  Also volunteered for Security forces and made squad leader in 6 months.  Also qualified as DAPA.
> 
> Fifth?  Forward deployed on an MSC vessel.  Only 10 percent of the Navy gets to do that.
> 
> Sixth?  Served with distinction as Head Classifier at Amarillo MEPS.  Was also LPO and didn't answer to anyone in Amarillo.
> 
> Just a Master Chief in San Antonio.
> 
> Yeah......boring being a paper pusher,  huh?  Know why I took the job?  Because I knew that I didn't want to settle into just one rut, and wanted a chance to do stuff that they advertised on the television.
> 
> Nothing you can say can make me ashamed of my service.
> 
> You should be as proud of yours.
Click to expand...


A faggoty squid bragging about being a career paper pusher, you're just another bigmouth gorilla pounding your chest with a lot of noise but really you're about nothing.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A personnel man, LMAO, a paper pusher, I was a Forward Observer(Fire Support), do you know what that is? That means I call for fire on targets but I have to be close enough to have a visual with a range finder, thats front line duty bud. You could never hack being a SEAL, you wouldn't even make it past  Ranger School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the variety I've enjoyed, as well as all the qualifications I've gotten along the way, I'm very happy I chose something other than living in a tent all my life.
> 
> First tour?  Combat ship in Beruit.
> 
> Second?  Land based.
> 
> Third?  FA-18's.  Even got allowed up on the flight deck during operations (most dangerous piece of real estate on the planet) because of the collateral duties that I volunteered, and qualified for.
> 
> Fourth?  Naval War College in Newport RI.  Also volunteered for Security forces and made squad leader in 6 months.  Also qualified as DAPA.
> 
> Fifth?  Forward deployed on an MSC vessel.  Only 10 percent of the Navy gets to do that.
> 
> Sixth?  Served with distinction as Head Classifier at Amarillo MEPS.  Was also LPO and didn't answer to anyone in Amarillo.
> 
> Just a Master Chief in San Antonio.
> 
> Yeah......boring being a paper pusher,  huh?  Know why I took the job?  Because I knew that I didn't want to settle into just one rut, and wanted a chance to do stuff that they advertised on the television.
> 
> Nothing you can say can make me ashamed of my service.
> 
> You should be as proud of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A faggoty squid bragging about being a career paper pusher, you're just another bigmouth gorilla pounding your chest with a lot of noise but really you're about nothing.
Click to expand...


Better that than a craven, cowardly, malingering junior officer who stayed Stateside during a war.

I volunteered to go over there.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the variety I've enjoyed, as well as all the qualifications I've gotten along the way, I'm very happy I chose something other than living in a tent all my life.
> 
> First tour?  Combat ship in Beruit.
> 
> Second?  Land based.
> 
> Third?  FA-18's.  Even got allowed up on the flight deck during operations (most dangerous piece of real estate on the planet) because of the collateral duties that I volunteered, and qualified for.
> 
> Fourth?  Naval War College in Newport RI.  Also volunteered for Security forces and made squad leader in 6 months.  Also qualified as DAPA.
> 
> Fifth?  Forward deployed on an MSC vessel.  Only 10 percent of the Navy gets to do that.
> 
> Sixth?  Served with distinction as Head Classifier at Amarillo MEPS.  Was also LPO and didn't answer to anyone in Amarillo.
> 
> Just a Master Chief in San Antonio.
> 
> Yeah......boring being a paper pusher,  huh?  Know why I took the job?  Because I knew that I didn't want to settle into just one rut, and wanted a chance to do stuff that they advertised on the television.
> 
> Nothing you can say can make me ashamed of my service.
> 
> You should be as proud of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A faggoty squid bragging about being a career paper pusher, you're just another bigmouth gorilla pounding your chest with a lot of noise but really you're about nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better that than a craven, cowardly, malingering junior officer who stayed Stateside during a war.
> 
> I volunteered to go over there.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you volunteered to deploy so you could push more paper, the Bass is really impressed by your offer to sacrifice you life. The only "battle" you would have had was whether to use black ink or blue ink to sign documents and or whether to give your commanding officer decaf or regular coffee.

There is no way anyone could "malinger" having Type 2 diabetes, you'll have to seriously clue the Bass in on that one, not to mention that the Bass' unit was never called up for duty. You'll have to find something faggot.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

serving in the military is not a right

but since when should people have to lie about who they are?

how come israel is ok with gays in their ranks, but were not?



Charlie Bass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and faggots cannot be compared, end of that nonsense, don't compare my people who are called such because of their skin color and ancestry to a group of people known only by their immoral and sexually aberrant behavior, its just isn't the same. The Bass doesn't give a damn what Gates says or any other black person says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights are Civil Rights.   But, I don't expect you to be smart enough to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serving openly as a fag in the military is not a Civil Right you jackass, serving in the military itself is not a right.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flaylo

CurveLight said:


> Flaylo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki warriors suck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki? I suppose you really know what Cavalry Scouts do, please enlighten us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You tried claiming Cavalry's primary job is not to directly engage the enemy you fuxxing lying bitch.
Click to expand...


Because it isn't their primary job, they have their own website, try asking some of them. Its not uncommon for some to make contact with and engage the enemy, but that is not what they're primarily used for. They conduct dismounted and mounted patrols to collect information about the enemy and the OH-58D pilots usually do the equivalent in the air in specially designed birds(helicopters) that you would never know was watching you unless they're right up on you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Really?  The crew of my first ship might disagree with you.

Why?  Because of being fired at by heavy artillery 1 mile off shore while we were anchored out.

After that?  Standard procedure was to make little boxes off shore.  Moving targets are harder to hit.

If you'd actually done something rather than hide back in the States, you'd understand that.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Just read the entire real story about Daniel Choi, the gay officer who decided to out himself on equally gay Rachel Maddow's show and they whines when the army takes the correct action by processing him for separation under DADT, all because he claims that he finally found his "first love" as if the military cared. He has no one to blame but himself with his stupidity. He had no justifiable reason for outing himself other than to gain sympathy for his lying, immoral, sexually aberrant lifestyle.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> Just read the entire real story about Daniel Choi, the gay officer who decided to out himself on equally gay Rachel Maddow's show and they whines when the army takes the correct action by processing him for separation under DADT, all because he claims that he finally found his "first love" as if the military cared. He has no one to blame but himself with his stupidity. He had no justifiable reason for outing himself other than to gain sympathy for his lying, immoral, sexually aberrant lifestyle.



Yeah.......I also suppose that by your reasoning, the United States Army should totally forget that he's fluent in Arabic.

I suppose that you think the Army doesn't need any valuable, actionable, intelligence that he could have provided.

By the way Bass Ho..........do YOU speak Arabic?  Do you know anyone who can?

Final question..........are they willing to join the military?

No wonder you're so fucking stupid........you are a REMF, and weapons grade stupid to boot.


----------



## bodecea

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the entire real story about Daniel Choi, the gay officer who decided to out himself on equally gay Rachel Maddow's show and they whines when the army takes the correct action by processing him for separation under DADT, all because he claims that he finally found his "first love" as if the military cared. He has no one to blame but himself with his stupidity. He had no justifiable reason for outing himself other than to gain sympathy for his lying, immoral, sexually aberrant lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......I also suppose that by your reasoning, the United States Army should totally forget that he's fluent in Arabic.
> 
> I suppose that you think the Army doesn't need any valuable, actionable, intelligence that he could have provided.
> 
> By the way Bass Ho..........do YOU speak Arabic?  Do you know anyone who can?
> 
> Final question..........are they willing to join the military?
> 
> No wonder you're so fucking stupid........you are a REMF, and weapons grade stupid to boot.
Click to expand...


Army Intelligence?    Oxymoron.


----------



## ABikerSailor

No mam...........the Bass Hole is an Air Force reservist who used his condition to stay behind Stateside so he didn't have to go to the ME.

He claims to be an intelligence officer, but due to lack of his intelligence, I'm betting he's also not an officer.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the entire real story about Daniel Choi, the gay officer who decided to out himself on equally gay Rachel Maddow's show and they whines when the army takes the correct action by processing him for separation under DADT, all because he claims that he finally found his "first love" as if the military cared. He has no one to blame but himself with his stupidity. He had no justifiable reason for outing himself other than to gain sympathy for his lying, immoral, sexually aberrant lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......I also suppose that by your reasoning, the United States Army should totally forget that he's fluent in Arabic.
> 
> I suppose that you think the Army doesn't need any valuable, actionable, intelligence that he could have provided.
> 
> By the way Bass Ho..........do YOU speak Arabic?  Do you know anyone who can?
> 
> Final question..........are they willing to join the military?
> 
> No wonder you're so fucking stupid........you are a REMF, and weapons grade stupid to boot.
Click to expand...



Your rant is stupid and non-sequitir, it has no bearing on the fact that Choi outed himself and got booted out in accordance with military policy, whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant. The army lost a translator because of a publicity stunt for sympathy. Choi has himself, not DADT to blame for his situation.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> No mam...........the Bass Hole is an Air Force reservist who used his condition to stay behind Stateside so he didn't have to go to the ME.
> 
> He claims to be an intelligence officer, but due to lack of his intelligence, I'm betting he's also not an officer.



Never claimed to be intel you dumb squid, the Bass was Signal and Communications and there is no way to use Type 2 diabetes do avoid deploying with a unit that wasn't even tapped for a deployment. Repeating it isn't going to make it true, especially from a career paper pushing  squid.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the entire real story about Daniel Choi, the gay officer who decided to out himself on equally gay Rachel Maddow's show and they whines when the army takes the correct action by processing him for separation under DADT, all because he claims that he finally found his "first love" as if the military cared. He has no one to blame but himself with his stupidity. He had no justifiable reason for outing himself other than to gain sympathy for his lying, immoral, sexually aberrant lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......I also suppose that by your reasoning, the United States Army should totally forget that he's fluent in Arabic.
> 
> I suppose that you think the Army doesn't need any valuable, actionable, intelligence that he could have provided.
> 
> By the way Bass Ho..........do YOU speak Arabic?  Do you know anyone who can?
> 
> Final question..........are they willing to join the military?
> 
> No wonder you're so fucking stupid........you are a REMF, and weapons grade stupid to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your rant is stupid and non-sequitir, it has no bearing on the fact that Choi outed himself and got booted out in accordance with military policy, whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant. The army lost a translator because of a publicity stunt for sympathy. Choi has himself, not DADT to blame for his situation.
Click to expand...


No......that wasn't the point you fucking 'tard...........

I asked how many people speak Arabic.  When Choi was discharged, we lost an exceedingly valuable asset.

Is your comfort about not seeing gays worth the actionable intelligence that we lost in his being discharged?

Yeah........tell that to the families of some soldiers who get killed because someone mis translated the info.

I'm sure that they will appreciate the fact that you're comfortable that there are no gays in the military serving openly.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No mam...........the Bass Hole is an Air Force reservist who used his condition to stay behind Stateside so he didn't have to go to the ME.
> 
> He claims to be an intelligence officer, but due to lack of his intelligence, I'm betting he's also not an officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never claimed to be intel you dumb squid, the Bass was Signal and Communications and there is no way to use Type 2 diabetes do avoid deploying with a unit that wasn't even tapped for a deployment. Repeating it isn't going to make it true, especially from a career paper pushing  squid.
Click to expand...


Wasn't even tapped for deployment?  What?  Permanent stateside billet or you just read the deployment schedules to avoid it?

We already know you're a coward Bass Ho.

BTW...........I hope you have kids.  I hope they are happy, healthy, and beautiful.

And.......queer as 3 dollar bills.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.......I also suppose that by your reasoning, the United States Army should totally forget that he's fluent in Arabic.
> 
> I suppose that you think the Army doesn't need any valuable, actionable, intelligence that he could have provided.
> 
> By the way Bass Ho..........do YOU speak Arabic?  Do you know anyone who can?
> 
> Final question..........are they willing to join the military?
> 
> No wonder you're so fucking stupid........you are a REMF, and weapons grade stupid to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your rant is stupid and non-sequitir, it has no bearing on the fact that Choi outed himself and got booted out in accordance with military policy, whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant. The army lost a translator because of a publicity stunt for sympathy. Choi has himself, not DADT to blame for his situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No......that wasn't the point you fucking 'tard...........
> 
> I asked how many people speak Arabic.  When Choi was discharged, we lost an exceedingly valuable asset.
> 
> Is your comfort about not seeing gays worth the actionable intelligence that we lost in his being discharged?
> 
> Yeah........tell that to the families of some soldiers who get killed because someone mis translated the info.
> 
> I'm sure that they will appreciate the fact that you're comfortable that there are no gays in the military serving openly.
Click to expand...


Had he kept his mouth shut he wouldn't be in the situation he's in, you don't willfully break regulations for 10 years, admit it and then asked for public sympathy not to face consequences. The army lost a linguist because of his stupidity, not DADT, no exception are to be made.


----------



## bodecea

Charlie Bass said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your rant is stupid and non-sequitir, it has no bearing on the fact that Choi outed himself and got booted out in accordance with military policy, whether you agree with it or not isn't relevant. The army lost a translator because of a publicity stunt for sympathy. Choi has himself, not DADT to blame for his situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No......that wasn't the point you fucking 'tard...........
> 
> I asked how many people speak Arabic.  When Choi was discharged, we lost an exceedingly valuable asset.
> 
> Is your comfort about not seeing gays worth the actionable intelligence that we lost in his being discharged?
> 
> Yeah........tell that to the families of some soldiers who get killed because someone mis translated the info.
> 
> I'm sure that they will appreciate the fact that you're comfortable that there are no gays in the military serving openly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had he kept his mouth shut he wouldn't be in the situation he's in, you don't willfully break regulations for 10 years, admit it and then asked for public sympathy not to face consequences. The army lost a linguist because of his stupidity, not DADT, no exception are to be made.
Click to expand...


Let's say that the Military has a policy not allowing African Americans to serve.   Now...you can "pass", but your parents could not...your family could not.   Do you join and keep your mouth shut and pretend to be what you are not?  Or do you...in the fine tradition of MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks, stand up against a policy you know is wrong...even if it means they use that policy against you.


Now, mind you....I am talking about IF you had any integrity.


----------

