Don't ask Don't Tell is dead...

[talisman]

Oh shut the fuck up you stupid bitch. Like you have a fucking clue. You've already proved to everyone here that you're a fucking moron. Begone.

Is there any reason you and StanlyTweedle have the same ip address? Seriously, Paladin, go fuck yourself and quit trying to hide you chickenshit motherfucker.

[Forever_frost]

I wonder if we can get Furries equal rights as well. Openly BDSM, Openly a Furry. Hell yes! Let's make all deviants open!

[davbrucas]

And I'm sure many will keep it to themselves... but now they won't get kicked out if somebody finds them out.

So you think it is okay to "eat da poo poo?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w

[exlude]

I wonder if we can get Furries equal rights as well. Openly BDSM, Openly a Furry. Hell yes! Let's make all deviants open!

So you're just going to keep pushing with that tired and beaten argument? Alrighty.

[Forever_frost]

Tired and beaten? Not at all. It has yet to be beaten. It is said that sexual preference is there by birth. Correct? And for it to be a valid and similar argument, it must consist of 2 or more consenting adults, correct?

Well then, BDSM is between consenting adults, so are furries and those who engage in orgies. Why are these not allowed to be openly engaged in? Why are there not pushes to allow those who like wearing the gimp outfits and ball gags to be allowed to openly do so? AFterall, it's who they are right? And sexual preference must be allowed to be exercised in an open and honest fashion because to do otherwise would be hiding things from the command structure and would hinder the combat effectiveness of a unit. Are those not the arguments?

Why do you liberals oppose any sexual deviance that do not fit your idea of okay?

[exlude]

Tired and beaten? Not at all. It has yet to be beaten. It is said that sexual preference is there by birth. Correct? And for it to be a valid and similar argument, it must consist of 2 or more consenting adults, correct?

Well then, BDSM is between consenting adults, so are furries and those who engage in orgies. Why are these not allowed to be openly engaged in? Why are there not pushes to allow those who like wearing the gimp outfits and ball gags to be allowed to openly do so? AFterall, it's who they are right? And sexual preference must be allowed to be exercised in an open and honest fashion because to do otherwise would be hiding things from the command structure and would hinder the combat effectiveness of a unit. Are those not the arguments?

Why do you liberals oppose any sexual deviance that do not fit your idea of okay?

Lol, yes it must be allowed to be exercised in the open...right infront of everybody.

The comparison has already been shown to be weak at best, retarded at worst. It's honestly not worth anybody's time to try to beat it into your head how the examples are different if you can't figure it out yourself.

[GSRGuy94]

Is that why I've been bouncing back and forth starting arguments with both sides of the conversation? I'm pretty sure I've attempted to piss on every single person in this thread who has posted up stupid shit. What you fail to see is that I just like belittling people who post ignorant shit and use poor logic. You can call it childish if you want, but I call it boredom.

My last post was definitely an example of why drunk-posting should be limited. We have actually agreed on several things in this thread, this being one of them...

Dozens of militaries have gotten thefuck over it in recent decades the us will be no different. If u worked around NATO forces in Bosnia and Afghanistan you probably already showered with few cock suckers without knowing it.even with dadt dead its not like rupaul is going to be enlisting. Chances are most will still try to stay under the radar.

So I'm not really sure why you say I am posting, "ignorant shit," and using, "poor logic." I've said that most of the gay people in the military aren't likely to become drag queens just because it's ok to be gay in the military now. I've said that people are either going to get over it, or they're going to find that the military just isn't for them. So what exactly do you not agree with, that I've said?

Well hell, that beats my military service all to hell. I think if you don't serve you shouldn't be able to vote. If you don't put ass to the line for this Republic, you shouldn't have a say in how it's run. Think Starship Troopers. Only those who serve are citizens and only citizens have full rights because they're owned.

I have a deep respect and admiration for people that are willing to put their lives on the line daily in the service of this country. Many of my best friends are either currently in the military, or have been in the past. But I think the idea that you should only have full rights if you serve in the military is pretty silly.

[Forever_frost]

Why? I also believe only tax payers should be able to vote and you should have to have some proof of your ID before you do. It only makes sense to allow those who have skin in the game to decide the course of the ship

[GSRGuy94]

Like I said previously, I respect those in the military. With that said, just because you ARE in the military, does not mean you know your ass from a hole in the ground. Some people are only in the military because they had no other option. I think an IQ/history/current events test would be more appropriate.

[ceyko]

To rephrase what I think FF is going for is that the military is a family of sorts. It's not that much different then my wife and I voting and dictating how you run your family.

Whooop, no more blow jobs for you.

I can strongly agree with FF on this one, and I tend to think he's quite extreme on a lot of issues and does not allow room for any other opinions or perspective. Meaning, I usually disagree with him.

Just like it is rarely the people on the ground who jack up the wars/conflicts we've been involved in - it's been politics. Politicians have no business running the military from anything other then a business point of view. Meaning, oversight to make sure that the military does not take up too much of the budget.

[GSRGuy94]

So you strongly agree that the only people who should be allowed to vote, are those who have served in the military? Because they "put their ass on the line?" What about the people in the military who never see combat? There's no ass on the line there.

[Forever_frost]

Yes, I'm usually pretty extreme on my views. Call it brain injury, call it years of research but I don't usually go off half cocked.

GSR, doesn't matter. They have skin in the game. You are serving your country in a real and quantifiable way. Don't want to be in combat? Fine, serve in supply or payroll. Yes, their ass is on the line as well. Combat troops aren't the only ones who are deployable. And in a combat zone, everyone's a target.

You should have to pass a test on the Constitution before you can vote at the very least. The Constitution and have proof that you contribute to society, through taxes and/or military service. However, I'd be okay with a test on the Constitution alone for federal elections.

[GSRGuy94]

So you're talking about significantly changing the Constitution, and the rights of citizens. Just checking. By the way, how did you feel about the Dream Act? Said if a child that was brought here illegally served in the military for at least 2 years (or paid their own way for college), they would be eligible to stay in the country and legitimately earn their citizenship.

[Vertnut]

So you're talking about significantly changing the Constitution, and the rights of citizens. Just checking. By the way, how did you feel about the Dream Act? Said if a child that was brought here illegally served in the military for at least 2 years (or paid their own way for college), they would be eligible to stay in the country and legitimately earn their citizenship.

LOL! It "said" a helluva lot more than that. Piss on the DREAM Act...congress did.

[GSRGuy94]

Of course it "said" more than that. It was more a question of his feelings toward that aspect of the bill.