Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _tell.html

Political pandering or a real effort at change??????

He did campaign on that promise.

Of course I will believe it when I see it happen

I still do not see the major advantage of repealing this. I do not know many in the military, but the few I do think DADT is a useful program because of prejudices in the military. And even if there is no longer DADT many will still be quiet about the situation anyway.

Because it is a human rights issue

yes, there will be naysayers, but you can't cater to bigots.

dbackjon wrote:Because it is a human rights issue

yes, there will be naysayers, but you can't cater to bigots.

I understand it as a human rights issue, but my concern is will it help those in the military? Will the be open? If they are open will they be marginalized and offended? I just worry that there will not be a natural affinity for those with an alternative sexual orientation and will be more of a disaster.

dbackjon wrote:Because it is a human rights issue

yes, there will be naysayers, but you can't cater to bigots.

Catering to bigots is exactly what we have been doing for the LGBT lobby.

dgreco wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Because it is a human rights issue

yes, there will be naysayers, but you can't cater to bigots.

I understand it as a human rights issue, but my concern is will it help those in the military? Will the be open? If they are open will they be marginalized and offended? I just worry that there will not be a natural affinity for those with an alternative sexual orientation and will be more of a disaster.

from the West Wing (sorry for the poor resolution--the action starts at about :55)

youngterrier wrote:

dgreco wrote:
I understand it as a human rights issue, but my concern is will it help those in the military? Will the be open? If they are open will they be marginalized and offended? I just worry that there will not be a natural affinity for those with an alternative sexual orientation and will be more of a disaster.

from the West Wing (sorry for the poor resolution--the action starts at about :55)

Very slick argument.

I am not concerned about what consenting adults choose to do with each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and "Don't ask, Don't tell" may or may not be the best policy for the military, but no amount of legal mumbo jumbo, faux "civil rights," political bolshevism or LGBT acting out will improve society, resolve the personal problems of self-idenified LGBTs, or scratch dbjon's itch.

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote:


from the West Wing (sorry for the poor resolution--the action starts at about :55)

Very slick argument.

I am not concerned about what consenting adults choose to do with each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and "Don't ask, Don't tell" may or may not be the best policy for the military, but no amount of legal mumbo jumbo, faux "civil rights," political bolshevism or LGBT acting out will improve society, resolve the personal problems of self-idenified LGBTs, or scratch dbjon's itch.

There's truth in that statement.

There are queers in the military. There always have been. Repealing DADT will not change a thing in terms of homos being in the armed forces. They will still be there in the same capacities that they were before the repeal. This is nothing more than more fluff from Obama to try to win back the gays that he has been losing for the last year. Repealling DADT takes no courage and no conviction, because it is a policy without effect or teeth. Nobody will even notice that it is gone. It is just a political ploy to placate the left.

dgreco wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Because it is a human rights issue

yes, there will be naysayers, but you can't cater to bigots.

I understand it as a human rights issue, but my concern is will it help those in the military? Will the be open? If they are open will they be marginalized and offended? I just worry that there will not be a natural affinity for those with an alternative sexual orientation and will be more of a disaster.

It can only HELP. No more thousands of qualified soldiers kicked out.

THERE will be rough patches, but anytime there is change, there is.

In the long run, this only makes our country stronger

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Because it is a human rights issue

yes, there will be naysayers, but you can't cater to bigots.

Catering to bigots is exactly what we have been doing for the LGBT lobby.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

We are not bigots - we only seek equality. ANYONE THAT OPPOSES EQUALITY CAN EAT SHIT, for they are NOT AMERICANS, but traitors to everything this country stands for.

youngterrier wrote:

dgreco wrote:
I understand it as a human rights issue, but my concern is will it help those in the military? Will the be open? If they are open will they be marginalized and offended? I just worry that there will not be a natural affinity for those with an alternative sexual orientation and will be more of a disaster.

from the West Wing (sorry for the poor resolution--the action starts at about :55)

The West Wing- liberal fantasy TV.

I got no problem with queers in the military. I'm not joining, so they can go ahead.

dbackjon wrote:

dgreco wrote:
I understand it as a human rights issue, but my concern is will it help those in the military? Will the be open? If they are open will they be marginalized and offended? I just worry that there will not be a natural affinity for those with an alternative sexual orientation and will be more of a disaster.

It can only HELP. No more thousands of qualified soldiers kicked out.

THERE will be rough patches, but anytime there is change, there is.

In the long run, this only makes our country stronger

I agree with dback on this one. Let everyone serve who is of a mind to.

dbackjon wrote:

native wrote:
Catering to bigots is exactly what we have been doing for the LGBT lobby.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

We are not bigots - we only seek equality. ANYONE THAT OPPOSES EQUALITY CAN EAT SHIT, for they are NOT AMERICANS, but traitors to everything this country stands for.

The worst swamp-stinking ignorant red necked neanderthal is not any more bigoted than the typical intolerant, strident LGBT activist.

from Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

I do not begrudge you the opportunity to pack all the fudge you want with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom. We all deserve the opportunity to do stupid things as long as they are not harmful to others.

But you seek special privileges to go beyond the same freedom and liberty shared by your fellow citizens, trumping up a faux furor over non-existent "inequality," creating new rights out of whole cloth, and imposing your belief on the rest of society that LGBT life style is normal, starting with aggressive indoctrination of school children.

JSO smmarizes the issue appropriately: "The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is."

What special privledges am I looking for?

EQUALITY IS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVELEDGE.

ANYONE THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE in EQUALITY IS A FUCKING BIGOT.


YOU AND JSO are the neaderthals - unable to see the reality because your bigotry does not allow it.

AND FUCK OFF AND DIE FOR YOUR INDOCTRINATION OF SCHOOLCHILDREN BULLSHIT.


That is the lowest form of insult, demogogary imaginable.

dbackjon wrote:

native wrote:
Catering to bigots is exactly what we have been doing for the LGBT lobby.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

We are not bigots - we only seek equality. ANYONE THAT OPPOSES EQUALITY CAN EAT SHIT, for they are NOT AMERICANS, but traitors to everything this country stands for.

You'all hear that? Any of you'all that oppose the repeal of DADT aren't Americans but are traitors that can eat shit, cause the calm, tolerant dbackjon said so.

BDKJMU wrote:

youngterrier wrote:


from the West Wing (sorry for the poor resolution--the action starts at about :55)

The West Wing- liberal fantasy TV.

so you admit you have no rebuttal?

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

We are not bigots - we only seek equality. ANYONE THAT OPPOSES EQUALITY CAN EAT SHIT, for they are NOT AMERICANS, but traitors to everything this country stands for.

The worst swamp-stinking ignorant red necked neanderthal is not any more bigoted than the typical intolerant, strident LGBT activist.

from Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

I do not begrudge you the opportunity to pack all the fudge you want with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom. We all deserve the opportunity to do stupid things as long as they are not harmful to others.

But you seek special privileges to go beyond the same freedom and liberty shared by your fellow citizens, trumping up a faux furor over non-existent "inequality," creating new rights out of whole cloth, and imposing your belief on the rest of society that LGBT life style is normal, starting with aggressive indoctrination of school children.

JSO smmarizes the issue appropriately: "The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is."

the inability for one to serve in the military based on one's views (in this sense sexuality--how someone views the opposite or same sex) when one meets military codes= inequality

BDKJMU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

We are not bigots - we only seek equality. ANYONE THAT OPPOSES EQUALITY CAN EAT SHIT, for they are NOT AMERICANS, but traitors to everything this country stands for.

You'all hear that? Any of you'all that oppose the repeal of DADT aren't Americans but are traitors that can eat shit, cause the calm, tolerant dbackjon said so.

It is real easy to pontificate from behind a keyboard when you HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS ALREADY that I do not have.

This may be a game to some of you, and the outcome doesn't effect you one way or another. But for me, this is my life.

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
The worst swamp-stinking ignorant red necked neanderthal is not any more bigoted than the typical intolerant, strident LGBT activist.

from Wiki: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

I do not begrudge you the opportunity to pack all the fudge you want with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom. We all deserve the opportunity to do stupid things as long as they are not harmful to others.

But you seek special privileges to go beyond the same freedom and liberty shared by your fellow citizens, trumping up a faux furor over non-existent "inequality," creating new rights out of whole cloth, and imposing your belief on the rest of society that LGBT life style is normal, starting with aggressive indoctrination of school children.

JSO smmarizes the issue appropriately: "The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is."

the inability for one to serve in the military based on one's views (in this sense sexuality--how someone views the opposite or same sex) when one meets military codes= inequality

From the mouths of babes comes wisdom (hey, he's young to me)
props YT

dbackjon wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
You'all hear that? Any of you'all that oppose the repeal of DADT aren't Americans but are traitors that can eat ****, cause the calm, tolerant dbackjon said so.

It is real easy to pontificate from behind a keyboard when you HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS ALREADY that I do not have.

This may be a game to some of you, and the outcome doesn't effect you one way or another. But for me, this is my life.

I didn't realize you were in the military.

Do you support preferential treament for homos in the form of awarding them protected status for the purposes of hate crimes prosecutions?

Jon, let me ask you this straight up. Suppose the federal government passed a law tomorrow entitling gays to every legal right that marriage could possibly confer -- a jazzed civil unions bill -- but they couldn't call it marriage? Insurance, survivor benefits, wills, property division, you name it. Would that be enough?