DADT Vote - Live!!!

This is a great day for America.

Someone finally stood up to Republican bigotry.
1197086068917675051egore_Thumb_Up_.svg.med.png
1197086068917675051egore_Thumb_Up_.svg.med.png
 
McCain's legacy take a blow?

How funny is that it was a FRIGGEN DEMOCRAT President who signed the damn thing into law in the FIRST PLACE.

yet you don't hear the howls and accusations AGAINST HIM, now do ya.:lol:
Hmmmmmmmmmm......Geeeeeeee......and, what DID THAT LEAD-TO??!!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLEw6jYrEq8[/ame]


:woohoo:

:thewave:

(Don't ya' just hate it....when someone initiates a conversation Victorians DREAD??!!!
825.gif
)​
 
Last edited:
Are Muslim nations embracing homosexuality in an effort to become "global?"

Are you suggesting that we be more like Muslim nations?

C'Mon A15...you know damed well what the poster meant. Stop being so obtuse. You know damned well how GAYS in Muslim Society are dealt with.
....And, YOU quite-obviously DON'T!!!!! :cuckoo:

220px-Samarkand_A_group_of_musicians_playing_for_a_bacha_dancing_boy.jpg

Bacha Bazi (Persian: بچه بازی literally "playing with children"), also known as bacchá ' (from the Persian bacheh بچه* "child, young man, calf") is a practice recognized as sexual slavery and child prostitution in which prepubescent children and adolescents are sold to wealthy or powerful men for entertainment and sexual activities."

Your "conservative"-stupidity is showing....as usual.

:eusa_whistle:

"Less than a year after private security contractors in Afghanistan were fired for creating what was described as a "Lord of the Flies" environment at the U.S. embassy, a different security contractor paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in the northern part of the country.

The incident last summer caused such a scandal that the Afghan government pleaded with U.S. diplomats to intervene with a newspaper article being written about it, the Guardian newspaper of London reported Thursday.

The disclosure comes from the trove of secret State Department cables released to a number of news outlets by the document-dumping website WikiLeaks."
 
The Pentagon survey is so flawed that it shouldn't be referenced by either side of this issue.

How is the survey flawed? You keep saying that-so I'm just wondering why you think it's flawed?



Also I love how the conservatives on here are all for democracy-they just love it. They claim it's the cornerstone our society, and it's the best in the world (I agree with these things)..until it turns on their views. Then it's tyranny. :cuckoo:

10 Problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report - HUMAN EVENTS

And I don't really look at this as a left vs right issue. It is wrong for the armed forces, especially right now with the over stressed military we currently have. (At least that's what we keep getting told.)

Any unbiased source (or at least somewhat unbiased)? Even Human Events admit to being biased to conservatives. The motto on the top of the page is "Leading Conservative Media Since 1944". Doesn't seem like a legit news source now does it?

If it said "Leading Liberal Media Since 1944", would you take it as a legit news source? Probably not (and rightfully so).
 
McCain's legacy take a blow?

How funny is that it was a FRIGGEN DEMOCRAT President who signed the damn thing into law in the FIRST PLACE.

yet you don't hear the howls and accusations AGAINST HIM, now do ya.:lol:

We heard the howls from the religious right when Clinton signed DADT as a compromise to the right. The right complained that they would not be able to continue their witch hunts for gays

wow, that was some real bullshit spin there for your boy Billy boy Clinton signing the damn thing into LAW. Need a shovel.
.....And, it was more protection than Gays had BEEN getting; up-to-then!!!

How old ARE you???????
323.png


318.gif
 
We heard the howls from the religious right when Clinton signed DADT as a compromise to the right. The right complained that they would not be able to continue their witch hunts for gays

wow, that was some real bullshit spin there for your boy Billy boy Clinton signing the damn thing into LAW. Need a shovel.

It was a compromise and an interim step to the eventual acceptance of gays in the Military. The conservatives at the time wanted to continue the policy where you actively pursued and kicked out gays. If full acceptance could have been passed at the time, it would have

Keep in mind, Clinton had to deal with pig headed Republicans...just like today

See: Stephanie

:rolleyes:
 
The military is NO PLACE to be asking such questions...period.

Social experimentation does not belong here with the mission of the armed forces. It is an unwanted/unnecessary distraction.

A POX on the Legislators for this and during the Clinton Administration.

1859 called. it wants its ideas back.
mccain_sharpie.jpg
 
McCain's legacy take a blow?

How funny is that it was a FRIGGEN DEMOCRAT President who signed the damn thing into law in the FIRST PLACE.

yet you don't hear the howls and accusations AGAINST HIM, now do ya.:lol:

We heard the howls from the religious right when Clinton signed DADT as a compromise to the right. The right complained that they would not be able to continue their witch hunts for gays

I think god was gay, as well as his son jesus., so why would the church try to cover it up by cutting the bible in half and calling themselves christians?

jc2.gif
 
They will be able to openly serve. Seems some promises have been made to certain unnamed Senators that this would be phased in slowly so that it would not affect Unit cohesiveness. At least someone is thinking a little bit. I would love to know what else they were promised.

Do you care if the guy in your squad is a rapist when you are on patrol? I think this is really BS Ollie, because I know things happened in nam from torture, beheadings, murder, fragging, rapes, and frankly I didn't give a fuck as long as the guy held up his end like I would do for him, and I wouldn't leave him on trail if he went down. It's about survival, not anything else, no BS.

I mean, maybe we should make a list of what distractions you think apply in a field engagement?

1.How about a wife beater?
2.Dead beat dad?
3.Child Molester?
4.Robber?
5.Rapist?
6.Torturer
7.etc.

You put down whatever it is Ollie, because it don't mean nothing.

All BS Stawmen. Watch and see. That's all we can do now anyway.
.....Besides lookin' for some other form of entertainment....to supplant your neverending-bashing of active-duty servicemen/women.

Maybe you "conservatives" should consider membership in Westboro Baptist Church, you know.....to deal with your post-bashing PTSD.

6a00d8341c730253ef00e54f78153a8833-640wi1268187613.jpg
 
McCain's legacy take a blow?

How funny is that it was a FRIGGEN DEMOCRAT President who signed the damn thing into law in the FIRST PLACE.

yet you don't hear the howls and accusations AGAINST HIM, now do ya.:lol:

What I *THINK* you fail to acknowledge, is that at the time, it was a step in the direction of gay rights. DADT protected soldiers from their superiors meddling and attempting to ascertain their sexuality. Prior, gays were still not allowed to serve, and their superiors were allowed to investigate and attempt to find them out.

So yes, a FRIGGEN DEMOCRAT president signed the first stepping stone in the right direction, and this FRIGGEN DEMOCRAT president is going to sign the full lift on the ban.
 
The military is NO PLACE to be asking such questions...period.

Social experimentation does not belong here with the mission of the armed forces. It is an unwanted/unnecessary distraction.

A POX on the Legislators for this and during the Clinton Administration.

1859 called. it wants its ideas back.

Fuck Off Karl.
I'll Second THAT!!!!!!!!!!!

241.png


rovebook.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top