Homophobe Hillbilly Defeated in Iowa Special Election

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Craig is just as fucking daft as you, both extremists on either side, i don't give a fuck about either of you, you are both equally fucked up.

Is that clear enough or do i need to explain it further?

The "you are intolerant against the intolerant" argument is one i'll leave behind, it's so fucking stupid that even YOU should be able to understand that it's an idiotic argument.

It is not an "idiotic argument". Every bigot feels his bigotry is justified. I'm not saying that all forms of bigotry are equal, only that bigotry in any form is just that. The big difference between Craig and myself is that while we are *all* bigots I wouldn't point the finger at anyone without looking inward first, generally (hey, I ain't perfect). Craig's on my radar because he's a hypocrite, always the first to point his finger and scream without turing it on himself when it is most assuredly deserved.

An interesting tidbit is that if you looked closely at my posts over the years you would find that socially, I'm about as liberal as they come. My sardonic barbs find targets in all directions, its just that nanny state lefty hypocrites strike my fancy more often than the ridiculous righties. Prolly cuz I'm more bigoted against one than the other. Ah well.

I think that because of the pejorative nature of the term 'bigot' we ought to assign some elements to the term. I'd think 'irrational' ought to be an element as well as 'against a particular group of society', 'hate' and maybe a few other elements. One can call a bigot 'intolerant' but that is not being a bigot imo unless that intolerance is irrational and against a race, gender, sexual preference etc...

I'm going to go right ahead and agree with this post with this addition: irrational thoughts can never be a starting point for a rational argument.

I'm not so sure about this. I know of few people besides myself who claim to be irrational, but I see a lot of argument. and would be willing to bet that those other idiots like myself don't see they are irrational. This, however, may be irrational.

 

[Moonbeam]

JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Craig is just as fucking daft as you, both extremists on either side, i don't give a fuck about either of you, you are both equally fucked up.

Is that clear enough or do i need to explain it further?

The "you are intolerant against the intolerant" argument is one i'll leave behind, it's so fucking stupid that even YOU should be able to understand that it's an idiotic argument.

It is not an "idiotic argument". Every bigot feels his bigotry is justified. I'm not saying that all forms of bigotry are equal, only that bigotry in any form is just that. The big difference between Craig and myself is that while we are *all* bigots I wouldn't point the finger at anyone without looking inward first, generally (hey, I ain't perfect). Craig's on my radar because he's a hypocrite, always the first to point his finger and scream without turing it on himself when it is most assuredly deserved.

An interesting tidbit is that if you looked closely at my posts over the years you would find that socially, I'm about as liberal as they come. My sardonic barbs find targets in all directions, its just that nanny state lefty hypocrites strike my fancy more often than the ridiculous righties. Prolly cuz I'm more bigoted against one than the other. Ah well.

IT'S A FUCKING FALLACY you fool, you can't use a logical fallacy to make a logical argument.

In the words of Theflyingpig, everyone knows this.

Check the bolded quote, and thanks for the undeserved insult. You've done wonders to further the discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But Corn - don't you know that libs/"progressives" get to set the definition of words these days?

You were the guy that was trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't use finance definitions while talking about taxes. I don't think you have any room to talk here.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Craig is just as fucking daft as you, both extremists on either side, i don't give a fuck about either of you, you are both equally fucked up.

Is that clear enough or do i need to explain it further?

The "you are intolerant against the intolerant" argument is one i'll leave behind, it's so fucking stupid that even YOU should be able to understand that it's an idiotic argument.

It is not an "idiotic argument". Every bigot feels his bigotry is justified. I'm not saying that all forms of bigotry are equal, only that bigotry in any form is just that. The big difference between Craig and myself is that while we are *all* bigots I wouldn't point the finger at anyone without looking inward first, generally (hey, I ain't perfect). Craig's on my radar because he's a hypocrite, always the first to point his finger and scream without turing it on himself when it is most assuredly deserved.

An interesting tidbit is that if you looked closely at my posts over the years you would find that socially, I'm about as liberal as they come. My sardonic barbs find targets in all directions, its just that nanny state lefty hypocrites strike my fancy more often than the ridiculous righties. Prolly cuz I'm more bigoted against one than the other. Ah well.

IT'S A FUCKING FALLACY you fool, you can't use a logical fallacy to make a logical argument.

In the words of Theflyingpig, everyone knows this.

Check the bolded quote, and thanks for the undeserved insult. You've done wonders to further the discussion.

I'm not going to apologise for calling you a fool after you continue to try to defend an argument like that and it's nothing personal. From what i know of your previous posts you are a good man.

[Edit because Corn edited his post]

I noted the bolded qote and dismissed it out of general principle since it's an argument made that not tolerating bigotry makes you a bigot and it's a ridiculous argument to make.

[/Edit]

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Actually, no. What i am sayinig is that tolerating bigotry (and let's all agree what bigotry means, ok?) makes you a bigot and that NOT tolerating bigotry does NOT make you a bigot.

i understand your point but from a rational point of view i am sure we can all agree that bigotry, for whatever reason and against whatever group, should not be tolerated by society since it does not further democracy nor individual rights, something both the US and the UK are founded upon and in both of our consitutions it's made VERY clear.

It's also part of the document i signed where i voughed to protect those values.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But Corn - don't you know that libs/"progressives" get to set the definition of words these days?

You were the guy that was trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't use finance definitions while talking about taxes. I don't think you have any room to talk here.

Again, you twit - I explained the context - you and others wanted to use a different one - which was an entirely different piece of the discussion. But back to this thread - you libs seem to think you get to control definitions and I was sarcastically pointing that out to Corn(not that he didn't already know)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But Corn - don't you know that libs/"progressives" get to set the definition of words these days?

You were the guy that was trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't use finance definitions while talking about taxes. I don't think you have any room to talk here.

Again, you twit - I explained the context - you and others wanted to use a different one - which was an entirely different piece of the discussion. But back to this thread - you libs seem to think you get to control definitions and I was sarcastically pointing that out to Corn(not that he didn't already know)

No, we wanted to use the correct one from the dictionary and you wanted to use one that you invented. Damn 'librul' dictionaries, controlling the definitions!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But Corn - don't you know that libs/"progressives" get to set the definition of words these days?

You were the guy that was trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't use finance definitions while talking about taxes. I don't think you have any room to talk here.

Again, you twit - I explained the context - you and others wanted to use a different one - which was an entirely different piece of the discussion. But back to this thread - you libs seem to think you get to control definitions and I was sarcastically pointing that out to Corn(not that he didn't already know)

No, we wanted to use the correct one from the dictionary and you wanted to use one that you invented. Damn 'librul' dictionaries, controlling the definitions!

Wrong.

Again, you libs do not control the definitions no matter how many times you try.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But Corn - don't you know that libs/"progressives" get to set the definition of words these days?

You were the guy that was trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't use finance definitions while talking about taxes. I don't think you have any room to talk here.

Again, you twit - I explained the context - you and others wanted to use a different one - which was an entirely different piece of the discussion. But back to this thread - you libs seem to think you get to control definitions and I was sarcastically pointing that out to Corn(not that he didn't already know)

Us Liberals? If you have to generalise would it really hurt you too much to use Democrats to distinguish between the party and an ideology that has indeed shaped both the US and pretty much every other western nation to what is the envy (population wise, i mean, leaders LOVE conservatism, keeps them in power, look at Kim Jong il, i doubt you can find a more conservative leader in all of the world) of ALL the conservative nations such as Iran, ex Soviet Union or China?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But Corn - don't you know that libs/"progressives" get to set the definition of words these days?

You were the guy that was trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't use finance definitions while talking about taxes. I don't think you have any room to talk here.

Again, you twit - I explained the context - you and others wanted to use a different one - which was an entirely different piece of the discussion. But back to this thread - you libs seem to think you get to control definitions and I was sarcastically pointing that out to Corn(not that he didn't already know)

No, we wanted to use the correct one from the dictionary and you wanted to use one that you invented. Damn 'librul' dictionaries, controlling the definitions!

Wrong.

Again, you libs do not control the definitions no matter how many times you try.

Go read the thread and decide for yourself.

People wanted to use the 'dictionary definition' of a word, you wanted to use your own made up one. This is particularly funny as now you're coming back here and whining about how other people want to control the definitions of words.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
(and let's all agree what bigotry means, ok?)

Lets agree to use the actual definition of bigotry instead of what you think it means.

Bigotry: 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Notice the lack of any adjectives in the definition. You hate the Taleban, that makes you a bigot. You are justified in your hatred of the Taleban, thusly I don't consider your bigotry to be something that reflects your personality in a negative light.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
(and let's all agree what bigotry means, ok?)

Lets agree to use the actual definition of bigotry instead of what you think it means.

Bigotry: 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Notice the lack of any adjectives in the definition. You hate the Taleban, that makes you a bigot. You are justified in your hatred of the Taleban, thusly I don't consider your bigotry to be something that reflects your personality in a negative light.

No i don't hate the Taliban, i think they are furry little bunnies jumping around shooting sunshine out their arse.

I'm sorry but not tolerating the Taliban for their actions does not a bigot make.

If your assessment is correct then every soldier, officer, police officer, law maker, judge or attorney per definition NEEDS TO BE a bigot and every single human being is a bigot if they are bigotted towards rapists and murderers.

Naturally you understand how ridiculous that notion is.

We don't use the word bigot against someone who thinks it's wrong to murder people based on their beliefs, do we? Well i an the rest of the fucking world don't but you seem to want to claim that we should.

Now, read that statement and for fucks sake understand that the argument you are putting forth is retarded.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realise equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...same old ignorant BS...

Yep, and my position is still the same. YOU and the others were trying to argue one thing and I was arguing another thing and here you still are trying to say that I was arguing the same contextual concept. Again - you libs do not define things. You do not get to define the context of my argument/statement when I clearly and repeatedly tried to tell you the context of my argument. If you can't handle that and want to continue with your ignorance - fine. However, that has nothing to do with this thread - nor my comment you responded to.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realize equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

In general I've not issue with your thinking.

I recall another thread that I wrestled with but can't recall if it was yesterday or 5 yrs ago.. Had to do with Gays in Military. AND, how I felt about that from A pov. I concluded I had to include military folks as part of society and Gay folks too no matter their location or function.
If I didn't like the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' position was I having rational feelings or somewhat bigoted ones toward the Gays on this issue. To be rational I'd have to be able to reject the notion that Gays could be good soldiers regardless of my knowledge of their Gayness. That I couldn't do. I would have to reject all the info about folks being Gay and being good soldiers. IF I knew they were Gay and had the attitude they could not be good soldiers it was then MY bigotry at play, I figured.
So why then can't Gays be open about their gayness and be in the military. I know I'd not have minded having a girl on a PBR with me... Might have made the time pass more um.... comfortably but a gay guy on board 'hitting' on me - notice I presumed 'hitting' on me, no way. That is what gay guys do, right? (rhetorical) I'd might have 'hit' on the girl, but that is different, I figured. So is my dilemma one where I'm afraid of a gay guy's advances and turned that into being a bigot to maintain my distance and dislike or what.
So... after pondering, I concluded that the DADT regulation was a bigoted position against Gays. The issue is not that the Gay can't be a good soldier but the non Gay in a foxhole with a known Gay can't be a good soldier because he'd be distracted or worse and no amount of training can alter that. Maybe he is bigoted but made so by society's majority and that it is, therefore, ok to be bigoted in this situation. Ergo, the regulation is ok too. (State sponsored bigotry)
The sense of that still eludes me. I support it because what is is... and I'd rather have a live soldier and a ticked off Gay than the opposite.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realize equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

In general I've not issue with your thinking.

I recall another thread that I wrestled with but can't recall if it was yesterday or 5 yrs ago.. Had to do with Gays in Military. AND, how I felt about that from A pov. I concluded I had to include military folks as part of society and Gay folks too no matter their location or function.
If I didn't like the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' position was I having rational feelings or somewhat bigoted ones toward the Gays on this issue. To be rational I'd have to be able to reject the notion that Gays could be good soldiers regardless of my knowledge of their Gayness. That I couldn't do. I would have to reject all the info about folks being Gay and being good soldiers. IF I knew they were Gay and had the attitude they could not be good soldiers it was then MY bigotry at play, I figured.
So why then can't Gays be open about their gayness and be in the military. I know I'd not have minded having a girl on a PBR with me... Might have made the time pass more um.... comfortably but a gay guy on board 'hitting' on me - notice I presumed 'hitting' on me, no way. That is what gay guys do, right? (rhetorical) I'd might have 'hit' on the girl, but that is different, I figured. So is my dilemma one where I'm afraid of a gay guy's advances and turned that into being a bigot to maintain my distance and dislike or what.
So... after pondering, I concluded that the DADT regulation was a bigoted position against Gays. The issue is not that the Gay can't be a good soldier but the non Gay in a foxhole with a known Gay can't be a good soldier because he'd be distracted or worse and no amount of training can alter that. Maybe he is bigoted but made so by society's majority and that it is, therefore, ok to be bigoted in this situation. Ergo, the regulation is ok too. (State sponsored bigotry)
The sense of that still eludes me. I support it because what is is... and I'd rather have a live soldier and a ticked off Gay than the opposite.

Wait, wait, wait, is it arrogance or idiocy you are portraying when you automatically assume that a gay guy would be attracted to you, a heterosesual male? Why would he be if he prefers a sex you don't, that would be like you hitting on a man, would it not? That is a hangup in this discussion that is not relevant to the important part of the discussion but i had to remark on that. Especially as my first Liutenant in Kosovo was a female and i didn't hit on her (and yeah, she was definently "hittable").

Well the rest is just related to what i just wrote and it's rubbish, complete and utter rubbish.

It's like thinking that if there are women where soldiers are going they will all get shot because they are distracted by women who don't want anything to do with them.

I don't support DADT and the UK SAS does not support it. If you do your duty i don't give a sheit if you are a woman or a gay, you carry out my orders because that is what soldiers do regardless of gender or sexual orientation, if you can't do that, it doesn't matter if you are heterosexual or half horse, you don't belong in the military.

Now the view you portray is that of a homophobe who thinks that every gay man, just because he is gay, is attracted to you in such a way you are a distraction for him, you are either extremely beautiful for gays or just plain stupid.

I'd rather have a good solder who follows orders and is gay than a fucker who spends his days thinking about gay men and if there are any in the platoon.

For fucks sake, they don't get less gay because they can't say they are gay, everyone still fucking knows. shape the fuck up Lunar and discard this bullsheit where it belongs, behind you.

 

[sandorski]

They all look like Hillbillys from these Ivory Towers.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

One can stand on his head to subjectively argue up is down, but objective reality exists regardless.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realize equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

In general I've not issue with your thinking.

I recall another thread that I wrestled with but can't recall if it was yesterday or 5 yrs ago.. Had to do with Gays in Military. AND, how I felt about that from A pov. I concluded I had to include military folks as part of society and Gay folks too no matter their location or function.
If I didn't like the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' position was I having rational feelings or somewhat bigoted ones toward the Gays on this issue. To be rational I'd have to be able to reject the notion that Gays could be good soldiers regardless of my knowledge of their Gayness. That I couldn't do. I would have to reject all the info about folks being Gay and being good soldiers. IF I knew they were Gay and had the attitude they could not be good soldiers it was then MY bigotry at play, I figured.So why then can't Gays be open about their gayness and be in the military. I know I'd not have minded having a girl on a PBR with me... Might have made the time pass more um.... comfortably but a gay guy on board 'hitting' on me - notice I presumed 'hitting' on me, no way. That is what gay guys do, right? (rhetorical) I'd might have 'hit' on the girl, but that is different, I figured. So is my dilemma one where I'm afraid of a gay guy's advances and turned that into being a bigot to maintain my distance and dislike or what.
So... after pondering, I concluded that the DADT regulation was a bigoted position against Gays. The issue is not that the Gay can't be a good soldier but the non Gay in a foxhole with a known Gay can't be a good soldier because he'd be distracted or worse and no amount of training can alter that. Maybe he is bigoted but made so by society's majority and that it is, therefore, ok to be bigoted in this situation. Ergo, the regulation is ok too. (State sponsored bigotry)
The sense of that still eludes me. I support it because what is is... and I'd rather have a live soldier and a ticked off Gay than the opposite.

Wait, wait, wait, is it arrogance or idiocy you are portraying when you automatically assume that a gay guy would be attracted to you, a heterosesual male? Why would he be if he prefers a sex you don't, that would be like you hitting on a man, would it not? That is a hangup in this discussion that is not relevant to the important part of the discussion but i had to remark on that. Especially as my first Liutenant in Kosovo was a female and i didn't hit on her (and yeah, she was definently "hittable").

Well the rest is just related to what i just wrote and it's rubbish, complete and utter rubbish.

It's like thinking that if there are women where soldiers are going they will all get shot because they are distracted by women who don't want anything to do with them.

I don't support DADT and the UK SAS does not support it. If you do your duty i don't give a sheit if you are a woman or a gay, you carry out my orders because that is what soldiers do regardless of gender or sexual orientation, if you can't do that, it doesn't matter if you are heterosexual or half horse, you don't belong in the military.

Now the view you portray is that of a homophobe who thinks that every gay man, just because he is gay, is attracted to you in such a way you are a distraction for him, you are either extremely beautiful for gays or just plain stupid.

I'd rather have a good solder who follows orders and is gay than a fucker who spends his days thinking about gay men and if there are any in the platoon.

For fucks sake, they don't get less gay because they can't say they are gay, everyone still fucking knows. shape the fuck up Lunar and discard this bullsheit where it belongs, behind you.

I think the key to understanding my third party rendition above is the word "A" which I bold above. I was thinking back to a posting I had read and my thinking on it.
The second bold bit is important to the context of what follows it.
The section of society's bigoted notions (including the rhetorical bit) flows from my context above it and culminates in my conclusion.
My conclusion is basically Why have a regulation like DADT when folks like JoS could give a crap so long as they are good soldiers... Well, apparently the DOD thinks Gays do what they are stereotyped to do. As I said, State sponsored Bigotry but I support it for the reason that there are lots of gay hating folks out there and in the services who ARE affected by the sexual orientation ... about the same amount as in Society in general and as I indicated initially, I consider the lot of us no matter where are part of society.

My personal views on Gay rights are simple... I support everyone's right to be who they are.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...same old ignorant BS...

Yep, and my position is still the same. YOU and the others were trying to argue one thing and I was arguing another thing and here you still are trying to say that I was arguing the same contextual concept. Again - you libs do not define things. You do not get to define the context of my argument/statement when I clearly and repeatedly tried to tell you the context of my argument. If you can't handle that and want to continue with your ignorance - fine. However, that has nothing to do with this thread - nor my comment you responded to.

You're so funny when you're wrong - you start spouting off insults and use smiley faces.

So when CAD misuses words, it's just a different "context" but when you disagree it's a matter of "controlling definitions." Got it, I'll be sure to remember that going forward.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realize equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

In general I've not issue with your thinking.

I recall another thread that I wrestled with but can't recall if it was yesterday or 5 yrs ago.. Had to do with Gays in Military. AND, how I felt about that from A pov. I concluded I had to include military folks as part of society and Gay folks too no matter their location or function.
If I didn't like the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' position was I having rational feelings or somewhat bigoted ones toward the Gays on this issue. To be rational I'd have to be able to reject the notion that Gays could be good soldiers regardless of my knowledge of their Gayness. That I couldn't do. I would have to reject all the info about folks being Gay and being good soldiers. IF I knew they were Gay and had the attitude they could not be good soldiers it was then MY bigotry at play, I figured.So why then can't Gays be open about their gayness and be in the military. I know I'd not have minded having a girl on a PBR with me... Might have made the time pass more um.... comfortably but a gay guy on board 'hitting' on me - notice I presumed 'hitting' on me, no way. That is what gay guys do, right? (rhetorical) I'd might have 'hit' on the girl, but that is different, I figured. So is my dilemma one where I'm afraid of a gay guy's advances and turned that into being a bigot to maintain my distance and dislike or what.
So... after pondering, I concluded that the DADT regulation was a bigoted position against Gays. The issue is not that the Gay can't be a good soldier but the non Gay in a foxhole with a known Gay can't be a good soldier because he'd be distracted or worse and no amount of training can alter that. Maybe he is bigoted but made so by society's majority and that it is, therefore, ok to be bigoted in this situation. Ergo, the regulation is ok too. (State sponsored bigotry)
The sense of that still eludes me. I support it because what is is... and I'd rather have a live soldier and a ticked off Gay than the opposite.

Wait, wait, wait, is it arrogance or idiocy you are portraying when you automatically assume that a gay guy would be attracted to you, a heterosesual male? Why would he be if he prefers a sex you don't, that would be like you hitting on a man, would it not? That is a hangup in this discussion that is not relevant to the important part of the discussion but i had to remark on that. Especially as my first Liutenant in Kosovo was a female and i didn't hit on her (and yeah, she was definently "hittable").

Well the rest is just related to what i just wrote and it's rubbish, complete and utter rubbish.

It's like thinking that if there are women where soldiers are going they will all get shot because they are distracted by women who don't want anything to do with them.

I don't support DADT and the UK SAS does not support it. If you do your duty i don't give a sheit if you are a woman or a gay, you carry out my orders because that is what soldiers do regardless of gender or sexual orientation, if you can't do that, it doesn't matter if you are heterosexual or half horse, you don't belong in the military.

Now the view you portray is that of a homophobe who thinks that every gay man, just because he is gay, is attracted to you in such a way you are a distraction for him, you are either extremely beautiful for gays or just plain stupid.

I'd rather have a good solder who follows orders and is gay than a fucker who spends his days thinking about gay men and if there are any in the platoon.

For fucks sake, they don't get less gay because they can't say they are gay, everyone still fucking knows. shape the fuck up Lunar and discard this bullsheit where it belongs, behind you.

I think the key to understanding my third party rendition above is the word "A" which I bold above. I was thinking back to a posting I had read and my thinking on it.
The second bold bit is important to the context of what follows it.
The section of society's bigoted notions (including the rhetorical bit) flows from my context above it and culminates in my conclusion.
My conclusion is basically Why have a regulation like DADT when folks like JoS could give a crap so long as they are good soldiers... Well, apparently the DOD thinks Gays do what they are stereotyped to do. As I said, State sponsored Bigotry but I support it for the reason that there are lots of gay hating folks out there and in the services who ARE affected by the sexual orientation ... about the same amount as in Society in general and as I indicated initially, I consider the lot of us no matter where are part of society.

My personal views on Gay rights are simple... I support everyone's right to be who they are.

First of all, you support bigotry because some people are bigots? That is BULLSHEIT and you know it, you support it because you, your very self, is for the bigotry, you don't come up to someone like me who have handled thousands of people based on nothing but emotions and expressions and think you can get away with a blatant falsification of your own views, you should fucking know better.

Second, who is going to change anything if not you and me?

You have gone from claiming they would want to do you to associating them with opposite sex officers and soldiers and when none of that works you go on to say "well others might not like them so i support the policy".

Come the FUCK on man, this sheit is beneath you.

I don't support everyones right to be who they are and neither do you, there are limits we all draw and for good reasons usually. The difference between you and me is that my intolerance is for people who hurt others while yours is based on other things.

I'm sorry if that is too clear and to the point for you but it's the way it is.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realize equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

In general I've not issue with your thinking.

I recall another thread that I wrestled with but can't recall if it was yesterday or 5 yrs ago.. Had to do with Gays in Military. AND, how I felt about that from A pov. I concluded I had to include military folks as part of society and Gay folks too no matter their location or function.
If I didn't like the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' position was I having rational feelings or somewhat bigoted ones toward the Gays on this issue. To be rational I'd have to be able to reject the notion that Gays could be good soldiers regardless of my knowledge of their Gayness. That I couldn't do. I would have to reject all the info about folks being Gay and being good soldiers. IF I knew they were Gay and had the attitude they could not be good soldiers it was then MY bigotry at play, I figured.So why then can't Gays be open about their gayness and be in the military. I know I'd not have minded having a girl on a PBR with me... Might have made the time pass more um.... comfortably but a gay guy on board 'hitting' on me - notice I presumed 'hitting' on me, no way. That is what gay guys do, right? (rhetorical) I'd might have 'hit' on the girl, but that is different, I figured. So is my dilemma one where I'm afraid of a gay guy's advances and turned that into being a bigot to maintain my distance and dislike or what.
So... after pondering, I concluded that the DADT regulation was a bigoted position against Gays. The issue is not that the Gay can't be a good soldier but the non Gay in a foxhole with a known Gay can't be a good soldier because he'd be distracted or worse and no amount of training can alter that. Maybe he is bigoted but made so by society's majority and that it is, therefore, ok to be bigoted in this situation. Ergo, the regulation is ok too. (State sponsored bigotry)
The sense of that still eludes me. I support it because what is is... and I'd rather have a live soldier and a ticked off Gay than the opposite.

Wait, wait, wait, is it arrogance or idiocy you are portraying when you automatically assume that a gay guy would be attracted to you, a heterosesual male? Why would he be if he prefers a sex you don't, that would be like you hitting on a man, would it not? That is a hangup in this discussion that is not relevant to the important part of the discussion but i had to remark on that. Especially as my first Liutenant in Kosovo was a female and i didn't hit on her (and yeah, she was definently "hittable").

Well the rest is just related to what i just wrote and it's rubbish, complete and utter rubbish.

It's like thinking that if there are women where soldiers are going they will all get shot because they are distracted by women who don't want anything to do with them.

I don't support DADT and the UK SAS does not support it. If you do your duty i don't give a sheit if you are a woman or a gay, you carry out my orders because that is what soldiers do regardless of gender or sexual orientation, if you can't do that, it doesn't matter if you are heterosexual or half horse, you don't belong in the military.

Now the view you portray is that of a homophobe who thinks that every gay man, just because he is gay, is attracted to you in such a way you are a distraction for him, you are either extremely beautiful for gays or just plain stupid.

I'd rather have a good solder who follows orders and is gay than a fucker who spends his days thinking about gay men and if there are any in the platoon.

For fucks sake, they don't get less gay because they can't say they are gay, everyone still fucking knows. shape the fuck up Lunar and discard this bullsheit where it belongs, behind you.

I think the key to understanding my third party rendition above is the word "A" which I bold above. I was thinking back to a posting I had read and my thinking on it.
The second bold bit is important to the context of what follows it.
The section of society's bigoted notions (including the rhetorical bit) flows from my context above it and culminates in my conclusion.
My conclusion is basically Why have a regulation like DADT when folks like JoS could give a crap so long as they are good soldiers... Well, apparently the DOD thinks Gays do what they are stereotyped to do. As I said, State sponsored Bigotry but I support it for the reason that there are lots of gay hating folks out there and in the services who ARE affected by the sexual orientation ... about the same amount as in Society in general and as I indicated initially, I consider the lot of us no matter where are part of society.

My personal views on Gay rights are simple... I support everyone's right to be who they are.

First of all, you support bigotry because some people are bigots? That is BULLSHEIT and you know it, you support it because you, your very self, is for the bigotry, you don't come up to someone like me who have handled thousands of people based on nothing but emotions and expressions and think you can get away with a blatant falsification of your own views, you should fucking know better.

Second, who is going to change anything if not you and me?

You have gone from claiming they would want to do you to associating them with opposite sex officers and soldiers and when none of that works you go on to say "well others might not like them so i support the policy".

Come the FUCK on man, this sheit is beneath you.

I don't support everyones right to be who they are and neither do you, there are limits we all draw and for good reasons usually. The difference between you and me is that my intolerance is for people who hurt others while yours is based on other things.

I'm sorry if that is too clear and to the point for you but it's the way it is.

Well... I'd not consider my self bigoted against anyone or thing.. cept may peanut butter. I really don't care what folks do or think or how they act so long as it don't affect me directly. I support their right to do what ever, be what ever and say what ever. I find denying a right repulsive even if it is not a fundamental right.

Perhaps it is my inarticulate writing style that conveys some what differently than I think. I don't think gay folks are any different than non gay folks in terms of what each desires. That is my point. I expect Gay guys to seek other gay guys and not hetro guys. However, does it bother me that some guy might find me desirable heheheheh and why wouldn't anyone feel that way bout me... the answer is no.. Ya see, I just don't care about such stuff. I care more about my dog scratching than what may be going on in some persons mind regarding such issues.

I do support DADT for the reasons stated. I'll restate. I'd rather have a policy that enables a bigoted view toward gays allowing them to serve than one in which otherwise fine soldiers can be drummed out or denied the right to serve because they were asked or cuz they may frequent a gay bar and the gay police found out. And, I'd not want OPENLY gay folks be allowed to serve because non gay folks are found to be bigoted as a % just like the rest of society and in a foxhole that condition is not in anyone's best interest.

Now you may disagree with my position on DADT and that is fine. I think as I do regardless of the right or wrong of it. Today I don't have folks lives under my command and my dogs care less so there it is.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
JoS, what I think you are saying is that it is bad to be a bigot and that because bigotry is bad it follows rationally one should be bigoted against bigots, to which Corn replies that it isn't OK if it is bigotry. So who is right? I don't know but I would say that bigotry is bad and whether you or Corn is right you both agree on that.

So the real issue, as it always really is, is what is really bad and what is bigotry, the irrational feeling that something is bad that isn't.

Is there any real truth in life or is everything what you were taught and individual opinion. Hehe.

Oh boy!... Is it rational for a person to hate all bigots? I don't think so, however, it is rational to look upon A bigot with contempt for their actions and belief. So... Is it OK for Corn to hate the haters as a group and be free of the bigot label? A yes vote would contradict the rational aspect and a no vote would sustain it, and that is a conundrum. I think.
But, If we define a Bigot within my narrow parameters and accept the notion that we as a society justify lots of double standards like killing the killer, etc. it not only becomes appropriate but also expected if not demanded. Perhaps!

I don't think it is, we, as normal empathic people do realize equal worth. What we do not accept are people who believe or act upon beliefs that people are NOT equal or share the same rights with the rest of us.

Naturally, this excludes people who step outside of that definition since they, by beliefs or actions, cannot belong within that definition and as such they are defined as criminals or even enemies.

Isn't this really what every nations court system is based off of? (i know the military protocol that i have served under for over 20 years is based off of that)

Or am i wrong in that assessment? I don't think i am.

In general I've not issue with your thinking.

I recall another thread that I wrestled with but can't recall if it was yesterday or 5 yrs ago.. Had to do with Gays in Military. AND, how I felt about that from A pov. I concluded I had to include military folks as part of society and Gay folks too no matter their location or function.
If I didn't like the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' position was I having rational feelings or somewhat bigoted ones toward the Gays on this issue. To be rational I'd have to be able to reject the notion that Gays could be good soldiers regardless of my knowledge of their Gayness. That I couldn't do. I would have to reject all the info about folks being Gay and being good soldiers. IF I knew they were Gay and had the attitude they could not be good soldiers it was then MY bigotry at play, I figured.So why then can't Gays be open about their gayness and be in the military. I know I'd not have minded having a girl on a PBR with me... Might have made the time pass more um.... comfortably but a gay guy on board 'hitting' on me - notice I presumed 'hitting' on me, no way. That is what gay guys do, right? (rhetorical) I'd might have 'hit' on the girl, but that is different, I figured. So is my dilemma one where I'm afraid of a gay guy's advances and turned that into being a bigot to maintain my distance and dislike or what.
So... after pondering, I concluded that the DADT regulation was a bigoted position against Gays. The issue is not that the Gay can't be a good soldier but the non Gay in a foxhole with a known Gay can't be a good soldier because he'd be distracted or worse and no amount of training can alter that. Maybe he is bigoted but made so by society's majority and that it is, therefore, ok to be bigoted in this situation. Ergo, the regulation is ok too. (State sponsored bigotry)
The sense of that still eludes me. I support it because what is is... and I'd rather have a live soldier and a ticked off Gay than the opposite.

Wait, wait, wait, is it arrogance or idiocy you are portraying when you automatically assume that a gay guy would be attracted to you, a heterosesual male? Why would he be if he prefers a sex you don't, that would be like you hitting on a man, would it not? That is a hangup in this discussion that is not relevant to the important part of the discussion but i had to remark on that. Especially as my first Liutenant in Kosovo was a female and i didn't hit on her (and yeah, she was definently "hittable").

Well the rest is just related to what i just wrote and it's rubbish, complete and utter rubbish.

It's like thinking that if there are women where soldiers are going they will all get shot because they are distracted by women who don't want anything to do with them.

I don't support DADT and the UK SAS does not support it. If you do your duty i don't give a sheit if you are a woman or a gay, you carry out my orders because that is what soldiers do regardless of gender or sexual orientation, if you can't do that, it doesn't matter if you are heterosexual or half horse, you don't belong in the military.

Now the view you portray is that of a homophobe who thinks that every gay man, just because he is gay, is attracted to you in such a way you are a distraction for him, you are either extremely beautiful for gays or just plain stupid.

I'd rather have a good solder who follows orders and is gay than a fucker who spends his days thinking about gay men and if there are any in the platoon.

For fucks sake, they don't get less gay because they can't say they are gay, everyone still fucking knows. shape the fuck up Lunar and discard this bullsheit where it belongs, behind you.

I think the key to understanding my third party rendition above is the word "A" which I bold above. I was thinking back to a posting I had read and my thinking on it.
The second bold bit is important to the context of what follows it.
The section of society's bigoted notions (including the rhetorical bit) flows from my context above it and culminates in my conclusion.
My conclusion is basically Why have a regulation like DADT when folks like JoS could give a crap so long as they are good soldiers... Well, apparently the DOD thinks Gays do what they are stereotyped to do. As I said, State sponsored Bigotry but I support it for the reason that there are lots of gay hating folks out there and in the services who ARE affected by the sexual orientation ... about the same amount as in Society in general and as I indicated initially, I consider the lot of us no matter where are part of society.

My personal views on Gay rights are simple... I support everyone's right to be who they are.

First of all, you support bigotry because some people are bigots? That is BULLSHEIT and you know it, you support it because you, your very self, is for the bigotry, you don't come up to someone like me who have handled thousands of people based on nothing but emotions and expressions and think you can get away with a blatant falsification of your own views, you should fucking know better.

Second, who is going to change anything if not you and me?

You have gone from claiming they would want to do you to associating them with opposite sex officers and soldiers and when none of that works you go on to say "well others might not like them so i support the policy".

Come the FUCK on man, this sheit is beneath you.

I don't support everyones right to be who they are and neither do you, there are limits we all draw and for good reasons usually. The difference between you and me is that my intolerance is for people who hurt others while yours is based on other things.

I'm sorry if that is too clear and to the point for you but it's the way it is.

Well... I'd not consider my self bigoted against anyone or thing.. cept may peanut butter. I really don't care what folks do or think or how they act so long as it don't affect me directly. I support their right to do what ever, be what ever and say what ever. I find denying a right repulsive even if it is not a fundamental right.

Perhaps it is my inarticulate writing style that conveys some what differently than I think. I don't think gay folks are any different than non gay folks in terms of what each desires. That is my point. I expect Gay guys to seek other gay guys and not hetro guys. However, does it bother me that some guy might find me desirable heheheheh and why wouldn't anyone feel that way bout me... the answer is no.. Ya see, I just don't care about such stuff. I care more about my dog scratching than what may be going on in some persons mind regarding such issues.

I do support DADT for the reasons stated. I'll restate. I'd rather have a policy that enables a bigoted view toward gays allowing them to serve than one in which otherwise fine soldiers can be drummed out or denied the right to serve because they were asked or cuz they may frequent a gay bar and the gay police found out. And, I'd not want OPENLY gay folks be allowed to serve because non gay folks are found to be bigoted as a % just like the rest of society and in a foxhole that condition is not in anyone's best interest.

Now you may disagree with my position on DADT and that is fine. I think as I do regardless of the right or wrong of it. Today I don't have folks lives under my command and my dogs care less so there it is.

I may have misunderstood some of your arguments and probably your personal views, for that i offer my apologies. No excuses offered but you have my apology for that.

I do indeed disagree with DADT and for one reason, if we are not going to accept them as they are then we are idiots. We still need a few good men and if some of them are homosexual, i really couldn't care less, we're not in the business of fucking people, we are in the business of fucking people up and i don't see how sexual affiliations have anything to do with that.

FWIW, i'm glad we got it cleared up proper and while i do not agree i do see your point of view, it's better that they can join than not and there is still too many who would have a problem with it if DADT wasn't in effect.

Let's just hope progression can be made so that not even DADT will be needed, i'm fairly sure you'll agree with me on that one.