No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:14 AM on j-body.org
James Cahill wrote:

sndsgood wrote:

id think two guys going at it in there bunks would be handled by the roomates personally lol.


I hope so too.

The problem with your plan to add gays to the rules is great, the only issue is that there are no such rules, as I said. The cohabitation rule covers it all by simply not allowing mixed gender barracks. No males can live in the female barracks, and vice versa. How can that possibly apply to homosexuals? So, like I said, NEW rules would have to be created in order to place the same restrictions on homosexuals, ALL of which would be discriminatory in the public eye.

The DADT policy is fine with people who are actually in the military. i don't know of one person who has put up a big fight to have it rescinded. It's the public that wants it removed. Why should they have any say? I don't see a reason for them to. If they don't like it, don't join. If I didn't like the way WalMart employees were being treated, I sure as hell am not going to go to bat for them. That's THEIR choice to work there, I didn't force them to do it, so why is the public getting all upset about something that doesn't even affect them?
.




how about women overseas. that wasnt happening 50 years so im sure the rules had to be changed when women came into fields where they never were before. changing these rules for gays is no diffrent then changing the rules for when the women started moving in on the mens turf.

as for who wants it, im sure there are allot of people in the millitary who don't care. but then again there are ex millitary men who were thrown out because of being open or coming out or whatever the reason who just want to be able to serve their country. me personally if someone wants to put there life on the line to protect this country i say let them.



bye the way its nice to be able to discuss this without it getting out of hand.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:49 PM on j-body.org
Of course the rules/regulations changed when women began serving. But it wasn't overnight. Which is exactly what I'm trying to say here. It can't just be "lifted". There needs to be planning and implementation before it happens.

And yes, I know there are plenty of service members who don't care. But, there is no outcry from any to have it rsscinded either. Which tells me it's the public, like I said.

.



Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Sunday, December 26, 2010 11:35 AM on j-body.org
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:31 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

FAQ – TRAINING [17]

What training will be required for service members and their families when repeal occurs?

Service members will be informed of the change in policy and expectations for behavior. Members involved in certain functions (e.g., administrative, legal, investigative) may receive additional training focused on specific changes to their specialty. Family members will be informed of the changed policy and advised where to go to seek any specific information they need.

Further guidance is available from the chain of command, the appropriate Service policy staff, lawyers, chaplains, and medical personnel.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q17)

FAQ – POLICY [1]

What is the new policy on sexual orientation in the military?

Service members will not be involuntarily separated for lawful homosexual conduct.

Sexual orientation remains a personal and private matter. Sexual orientation and lawful homosexual conduct (statements, acts, same-sex marriage) are not a basis for separation, reassignment, or special consideration. Service members may inform others of their sexual orientation at their own discretion.

The Department of Defense will not ask service members to identify their sexual orientation. The Department of Defense will not collect or maintain data on an individual’s sexual orientation.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q1)

FAQ – POLICY APPLICATION [10]

Does the new policy apply equally to all Active, Reserve, and Guard components?

Yes. DoD policy on sexual orientation applies equally to all members of the Active, Reserve, and National Guard Components.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q10)

FAQ – STANDARDS OF CONDUCT [14]

Does repeal affect standards of conduct?

No. Standards for personal and professional conduct apply uniformly without regard to sexual orientation.

Service members will continue to conduct themselves consistent with the law and with Service customs and traditions. Service members are expected to conduct themselves professionally at all times.

Unprofessional behavior by any Service member that fails to meet standards of conduct should be corrected by explanation, counseling, administrative action, or legal action depending on the nature, severity, or repetition of the offense.

Sexual misconduct of any kind is inconsistent with our values and will be dealt with swiftly and severely. Harassment or violence of any kind between service members will not be tolerated.
____________________________________________________________________
FAQ – UCMJ [15]

Is consensual sodomy still a punishable offense under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice?

Only in limited circumstances. Unrelated to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that private, consensual sexual activity, to include consensual sodomy, regardless of sexual orientation, is a protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consensual sodomy can only be punished if it is prejudicial to good order and discipline, service discrediting (e.g., in public, between a superior and a subordinate), or there are other factors involved in the commission of the act such as force, coercion, or involvement of a minor. This was true before repeal and it remains true now.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q15)

FAQ – RELIGIOUS RIGHTS [7]

Does repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the speech, morals, or religious rights of Service members?

No. There will not be any modifications or revisions to policy regarding service member protections and obligations with respect to free speech and free exercise of religion.

The Department of Defense recognizes the right of all service members of the Military Services to hold individual beliefs consistent with their moral foundations and conscience and does not seek to change them.

Service members can continue to freely practice their religion and express their personal views within the limitations of the UCMJ and Service standards of conduct.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q7)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
FAQ – CHAPLAINS [6]

Does repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the religious rights of chaplains?

No. Chaplains will continue to have freedom to practice their religion according to the tenets of their faith. In the context of their religious ministry, chaplains are not required to take actions that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs (e.g., altering the content of sermons or religious counseling, sharing a pulpit with other chaplains, or modifying forms of prayer or worship).

Chaplains of all faiths care for all service members and facilitate the free exercise of religion for all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the individual.

Chaplains minister to members and provide advice to commanders on matters of religion, morals, ethics, and morale in accordance with and without compromising, the tenets or requirements of their faith. If, in a chaplain’s discharge of his/her broader duties within the unit, he/she is faced with an issue contrary to his/her individual faith, he/she may refer the service member to other appropriate counsel.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q6)


FAQ – EARLY DISCHARGE [8]

Will the Department of Defense establish a new category of early release from service commitments for service members based on moral, religious, or other objections to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

No. The Department of Defense does not permit the early discharge of service members based upon their opposition to the repeal of any new policy. This includes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or objection to serving with or living in the company of any Service member.

Existing regulations allow service members with a service commitment to request early, voluntary discharge. Granting these types of requests is at the discretion of the Service Secretary and is granted only when the early separation would be in the best interest of the Service. Commanders retain their current authority under existing Service personnel management policies to assist personnel within their units who desire to separate from the Service when in the best interest of the Service, the unit, and/or the individual in question. Service members are advised to talk to their chain of command and/or seek legal assistance to ensure they understand the available options within their Service for pursuing separation for any reason.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q8)

FAQ – FACILITIES [12]

Will the Department of Defense build separate living or bathroom facilities for gay and straight Service members?

No. Building separate facilities would create divisions within units and inappropriately isolate a portion of the force.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q12)

FAQ – ACCOMMODATIONS [13]

Does a service member have the legal right to refuse to share accommodations and/or facilities with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual service member?

No. Service members do not have a legal right to reject (or select) assignment with any other service member within shared military accommodations and facilities. In addition, service members do not have the legal right to refuse work or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another individual’s sexual orientation.

If a service member has a concern with a billeting or work arrangement for any reason, he or she should address those concerns appropriately within their chain of command. Commanders may use discretion in personnel assignments to berthing, housing, and other facilities to maintain morale, good order, and discipline based on Service policies and space available.

Accommodation requests for any reason are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mission readiness, unit effectiveness, and good order and discipline remain the priority. Refusal to comply with lawful orders may result in disciplinary action.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q13)

FAQ – MEDICAL [9]

Will repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have health implications for the military?

No. DoD research found that there would be no increase in service member health risk. Existing policies and procedures for HIV screening and testing, management of HIV-positive personnel, and management of the military blood supply will continue to be effective following repeal of the law. The Service Surgeons General have examined this issue and determined there would be no increased risk.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q9)

FAQ – EQUAL TREATMENT [16]

How will the military handle discrimination towards gay, lesbian and bisexual service members?

Unlawful discrimination against any individual or group is unacceptable.

General MEO policy requires the promotion of “an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible” and prohibits the evaluation of service members on bases other than “individual merit, fitness, and capability.”

Complaints regarding harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation are dealt with through the chain of command, the Inspector General, and other means established by the Services. Criminal harassment should be referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q16)

FAQ – ASSIGNMENT [11]

Are there any new restrictions on duty assignments or employment?

No. There will be no special treatment or special arrangement for the assignment or employment of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members. In these matters, all service members will be considered equally regardless of sexual orientation.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q11)

FAQ – RECRUITMENT [2]

How will repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect recruitment and retention policies?

If otherwise qualified, individuals may join and serve in the Military Services without regard to sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not a factor in recruitment or retention in the Military Services, and the Department of Defense does not have sexual orientation targets or quotas for recruiting.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q2)

FAQ – TRANSGENDER [4]

Can transgender or transsexual individuals join the Military Services?

No. Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the Military Services. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has no effect on these policies.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q4)

FAQ – REENTRY [3]

Will service members honorably discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be allowed to reenter the Military Services?

All honorably discharged service members have an equal opportunity to apply for reentry. Services will determine re-accession based on need and a number of other factors, but sexual orientation will not be a factor.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q3)


______________________________________________________________________
FAQ – IMPACT ON FAMILY PROGRAMS

What is the impact of repeal on Family Programs?

Impact on family programs is dependent on the definition of “family member.” Military family working definition (from draft DoDI 1342.22, Military Family Readiness Systems) states “A group composed of one service member and such service member’s dependents; two married service members; or two married service members and such service members’ dependents. To the extent authorized by law and in accordance with Service implementing guidance, the term may also include other nondependent family members.

FAQ – INFORMATION TO FAMILIES

How will DADT policy information be disseminated to military families?

DADT Repeal Education Information Materials will be posted on the following websites that
provide timely, accurate information to military families:
• Military OneSource (MOS)
• MilitaryHOMEFRONT (MHF)
• Military Service specific Family Support websites
• Family Matters Blog
• Appropriate Facebook and Twitter pages

DASD(MC&FP) will provide links to DoD DADT Policy Change information to the
National Military Family Association (NMFA) and other Non-government Offices
supporting military families.
____________________________________________________________________
FAQ – FAMILY ADVOCACY [19]

What Family Advocacy services are unmarried partners eligible for?

Family Advocacy Program (FAP) services, including New Parent Support, are open to
anyone who is eligible for treatment in military medical treatment facilities.

FAQ – PHYSICAL ABUSE [20]

What if a same sex civilian partner reports physical abuse to FAP?

Family Advocacy staff will conduct a basic assessment and safety plan and then refer
the civilian partner to resources out-side the gate. If the individual is eligible for
treatment in an MTF, all services can be provided.
_____________________________________________________________________
FAQ – CHILD CARE [21]

Who is eligible for Child Development Services?

No change. Eligibility of the children of an employee’s same-sex domestic partner for DoD Child Development Programs (CDPs) are determined by Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)
• Child Development Programs (DoDI 6060.2 §§ 4.3, E2.1.28)
• School Age Care Program (DoDI 6060.3 §§ 4.2.4, E2.1.14)
Employee must meet the definition of a parent as the “biological father or mother of a child; a person who, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, has been declared the father or mother of a child by adoption; the legal guardian of a child; or a person in whose household a child resides, provided that such person stands in loco parentis to that child and contributes at least one-half of the child's support. Public Law 101-189 and authorizes DoD civilians as eligible patrons of DoD Childe Development Programs.

_____________________________________________________________________
FAQ – YOUTH PROGRAMS

What is the impact of repeal on Youth Programs?

No change. Eligibility for participation in DoD youth programs is based on Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) patron eligibility, which includes DoD civilians and military retirees. Eligible individuals must meet the definition of a parent as the “biological father or mother of a child; a person who, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, has been declared the father or mother of a child by adoption; the legal guardian of a child; or a person in whose household a child resides, provided that such person stands in loco parentis to that child and contributes at least one-half of the child's support.”

To the extent of availability of space and services, participation is also authorized for
children and youth under the age of 19 who are not “dependents”.

FAQ – BENEFITS [5]

Does repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect benefits for partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members?

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members are eligible for the same benefits as any single service member. For example, any single service member may extend to someone of their choosing benefits such as notification instructions on their Form 93, Record of Emergency Data (RED), and listing the designated individual as an SGLI beneficiary. The Department of Defense is examining other benefits that may be included in this set.

Context: Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Federal Government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Under DOMA, married/spouse benefits cannot be extended to an unmarried partner, to include same-sex partners.
(Support Plan for Implementation, Appendix D, Q5)







Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 2:01 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Now ScottAWhite aka Kevin Trudeau and Quick can work freely in the military

just now reading this and i must say....wow, what a hateful and ignorant post coming from someone who constantly trumpets the liberal (as in political leaning, just so we're clear on which definition im using this time) horn all the time. i wouldnt expect that sort of biased slur to come from someone who is a self aggrandizing champion of all causes liberal (as in political leaning, just so we're clear on which definition im using this time)

but then i guess you have just as liberal (as in size, expanse, or composition, just so we're clear on which definition im using this time) of a narrow minded view as those people to whom you are so diametrically opposed.

seriously....accusing multiple people of being homosexuals just because they dont agree with your point of view is so....so....hypocritical of everything you say you stand for. they should take away your D card for that one, big boy




Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:19 PM on j-body.org
(tabs) wrote:


just now reading this and i must say....wow, what a hateful and ignorant post coming from someone who constantly trumpets the liberal (as in political leaning, just so we're clear on which definition im using this time) horn all the time. i wouldnt expect that sort of biased slur to come from someone who is a self aggrandizing champion of all causes liberal (as in political leaning, just so we're clear on which definition im using this time)
Right, I know, those are words that come from your camp. BUT there is a difference between me and them. I was joking around. You and your clan would actually verbally and physically bash them and try to instill political laws so they would not have equal opportunity in this "land of the free."
But your ignorant mind (about politics in this case) determines only.... If he doesn't champion the Republican agenda, therefore he's one of them [D]. lol What an inbred.

(tabs) wrote:

but then i guess you have just as liberal (as in size, expanse, or composition, just so we're clear on which definition im using this time) of a narrow minded view as those people to whom you are so diametrically opposed.
seriously....accusing multiple people of being homosexuals just because they dont agree with your point of view is so....so....hypocritical of everything you say you stand for. they should take away your D card for that one, big boy

Speaking of hypocrisy. Seems you don't want to consider this hate crime with a harsher sentence just because you don't agree with trans-genders.
Word of advice, if you're going preach higher than art thou and point fingers from the wooden horse on wheels you ride on, make sure you don't say things that will bite you in the ass, so it won't reinstate the label: "dumbass hypocrite" over your forehead, like you just did, genius.
What's more pathetic is you're now using what I said to you with the "R" on your voter card. Simple minds calls for copying others. Well imitation is a form of flattery.
By the way my voter card has been changed to [ I ] since 2001. But I can't expect you to know what that means or know how to determine in finding one that is one.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:08 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Right, I know, those are words that come from your camp. BUT there is a difference between me and them. I was joking around. You and your clan would actually verbally and physically bash them and try to instill political laws so they would not have equal opportunity in this "land of the free."
But your ignorant mind (about politics in this case) determines only.... If he doesn't champion the Republican agenda, therefore he's one of them [D]. lol What an inbred.

MY camp? and what camp would that be? independents? libertarians? because those are the things i am. keep making all the assumptions you want about me...youre batting 1000% so far.

(tabs) wrote:


Speaking of hypocrisy. Seems you don't want to consider this hate crime with a harsher sentence just because you don't agree with trans-genders.

lol are you serious? did you even READ my comment? no, you were probably too busy trying to think of a way to twist them to suit your narrow view of me and the rest of the world. let me explain it to you instead:
(tabs) wrote:

am i the only one that hopes this doesnt get brought up as a hate crime? i hate the idea of having more severe laws like that (hate crime laws)for no reason...
meaning any violent crime like that is a hate crime and by saying that a crime against a black person, homosexual, transgender, etc is worse than the same exact crime against someone else, it only sets those groups of people apart instead of helping america see them as equals, so theyre detrimental to the well being of any said minority that is supposedly getting better protection with them

but sure, go ahead and ignore my post completely and gloss over the fact that you were caught blatantly using slurs against people's sexuality, trying to equate someone that doesnt agree with you on the internet as a homosexual, as if doing so validates your argument somehow. come on now....defend your viciously ignorant and hateful post. im calling you out on it specifically.




Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Friday, May 06, 2011 6:25 AM on j-body.org
i agree with tabs as far as hate crimes go. if your mom was shot dead and your neighbors mom was shot dead but the man that killed your mom got 5 years but the man who shot your neighbors mom got 10 years because it was a "hate " crime would you think that is fair? how is your mom being killed deemed not as important as your neighbors mom being killed? dead is dead. beat up is beat up. shouldnt matter that the other person was a difffrent color or of a diffrent religion the crime is still the same. if i walked up and punched you in the face and i did it for the hell of it or if i walked up and punched you in the face because i didnt like your religion would that be any diffrent to you? you still got punched. i dont think you should place diffrent values on a crime in that way.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Friday, May 06, 2011 10:05 AM on j-body.org
(tabs) wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Right, I know, those are words that come from your camp. BUT there is a difference between me and them. I was joking around. You and your clan would actually verbally and physically bash them and try to instill political laws so they would not have equal opportunity in this "land of the free."
But your ignorant mind (about politics in this case) determines only.... If he doesn't champion the Republican agenda, therefore he's one of them [D]. lol What an inbred.

MY camp? and what camp would that be? independents? libertarians? because those are the things i am. keep making all the assumptions you want about me...youre batting 1000% so far.

You Independent? Dude, the only thing independent is your left brain, right brain and your hands in order to type something intelligent.
Your Republican ass I mean "Independent" or "Libertarian" ass has been voting Bush twice and McCain in order to last your legacy of that fabulous {R} on your card. Hey, it is ok... snob all you want, your record and stupidity proves other wise.

(tabs) wrote:

(tabs). wrote:


lol are you serious? did you even READ my comment? no, you were probably too busy trying to think of a way to twist them to suit your narrow view of me and the rest of the world. let me explain it to you instead:

(tabs) wrote:

am i the only one that hopes this doesnt get brought up as a hate crime? i hate the idea of having more severe laws like that (hate crime laws)for no reason...
meaning any violent crime like that is a hate crime and by saying that a crime against a black person, homosexual, trans-gender, etc is worse than the same exact crime against someone else, it only sets those groups of people apart instead of helping america see them as equals, so theyre detrimental to the well being of any said minority that is supposedly getting better protection with them
but sure, go ahead and ignore my post completely and gloss over the fact that you were caught blatantly using slurs against people's sexuality, trying to equate someone that doesnt agree with you on the internet as a homosexual, as if doing so validates your argument somehow. come on now....defend your viciously ignorant and hateful post. im calling you out on it specifically.

And now the excuses... Call FEMA.... We need damage control!
What is even more hilarious is you didn't include White folks in your criteria of a hate crime. And because you think white folks are not subject to a hate crime... To you: "am i the only one that hopes this doesnt get brought up as a hate crime? i hate the idea of having more severe laws like that (hate crime laws)for no reason..." That in bold highlights your hatred towards people of different sexual orientation or appearance. For you, since they look or act different, it is a: "for no reason" for a harsher penalty. If you were a homosexual, black-man you'd be crying foul.
Second, if you think my quote was offensive, then that makes you a bigot yourself. For all we know those two could be homosexuals and they are labeled as such. You on the other hand, think that was a form of a insult. It is like two homosexuals, being called heterosexual to anyone it is no biggie, but with your train of thought, it is an insult. Again, not much I can expect from an inbred.
Unless you feel left out in the mix. If so:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Now ScottAWhite aka Kevin Trudeau, (tabs), and Quick can work freely in the military

Feel better?
You could have caught me on some other things... maybe... well, not really. lol. But nope, your pitiful attempt at blindly throwing darts on your imaginary wall of "how can I 'call out' Mr.Goodwrench" was a failure. Bad try Taby, ride high on your wooden horse, with you being a bigot, while naming others as such, wear your "hypocrite" label over your head proud.

Oh-oh and since you don't know what ignorant means. Refer here.
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=offtopic&i=629226&t=629226#629226
Unfortunate for you, I do know what homosexual is and know how the military is now accepting them. Labeling those two, now three, really doesn't fit ignorant. Now a person throwing the label ignorant and not equating to the definition, like yourself, is an example of ignorant--- as you don't know about the subject/word. Irony is a bitch huh.


sndsgood wrote:

i agree with tabs as far as hate crimes go. if your mom was shot dead and your neighbors mom was shot dead but the man that killed your mom got 5 years but the man who shot your neighbors mom got 10 years because it was a "hate " crime would you think that is fair? how is your mom being killed deemed not as important as your neighbors mom being killed? dead is dead. beat up is beat up. shouldnt matter that the other person was a difffrent color or of a diffrent religion the crime is still the same. if i walked up and punched you in the face and i did it for the hell of it or if i walked up and punched you in the face because i didnt like your religion would that be any diffrent to you? you still got punched. i dont think you should place diffrent values on a crime in that way.

Well, if it is a (random) shooting or punch like in your scenario, it would not be considered a hate crime now would it.
If I was a Rabbi complete with my yamaka walking down the street and skin heads pulls up to me and shoot me dead. There would be your hate crime. And if you're physically damaging someone just for the sheer fact of being different or have personal vendetta to a certain group, you should serve a harsher punishment. That's the only way to teach the uneducated.
And in the case with the trans-gender, I'm willing to bet the 2 girls were raised in such a manner to which trans-gender, sexuals homosexuality are no good for this world, like many religious fanatics preach. I'd endeavor that those two girls looked for a way to instigate the trans-gender, the rest is history. Tabs doesn't believe in the trans-gender either, therefore to place a harsher punishment on this hate crime is "for no reason."



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Friday, May 06, 2011 2:03 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


You Independent? Dude, the only thing independent is your left brain, right brain and your hands in order to type something intelligent.
Your Republican ass I mean "Independent" or "Libertarian" ass has been voting Bush twice and McCain in order to last your legacy of that fabulous {R} on your card. Hey, it is ok... snob all you want, your record and stupidity proves other wise.

listen to you....you obviously know nothing about me nor have you read any of my posts on here. when did i vote for bush? and mccain? are you for real? nope to both. but go ahead and ignore that because it wouldnt fit into your narrow view of who and what i am. you only see the world in black and white. red and blue. D and R. nothing can exist in between any of those, can they? oh no, admitting that someone, in this case me, could be something beyond your blind view of people would just blow your mind, so you choose to name call and accuse me of the worst thing you can imagine--being a (gasp!) republican?

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


And now the excuses... Call FEMA.... We need damage control!
What is even more hilarious is you didn't include White folks in your criteria of a hate crime. And because you think white folks are not subject to a hate crime... To you: "am i the only one that hopes this doesnt get brought up as a hate crime? i hate the idea of having more severe laws like that (hate crime laws)for no reason..." That in bold highlights your hatred towards people of different sexual orientation or appearance. For you, since they look or act different, it is a: "for no reason" for a harsher penalty. If you were a homosexual, black-man you'd be crying foul.

where are the excuses? just because you are unable to comprehend even the most simple of posts is hardly a fault on me. and imagine that...you once again try to tell me im something that im not, just for the sake of your narrow mind and name calling purposes. it again proves that you know nothing about me nor have read anything ive posted on this forum and are only interested in trying to slander me instead of addressing the points brought up in my posts. go ahead, tell me how much i hate gay people. ignore that one of my best friends growing up is gay. ignore that i lived with a lesbian for the past two years...a lesbian who happened to also be my best friend. nope, just ignore all of those posts on here and keep saying im some sort of a homophobe, even though youre the only one slinging around the term gay like its derogatory in some way.

and keep telling yourself the same holds true for black people, or asians, or any other ethnic group that you want to pretend i hate. again, all of my posts speak for themselves. go ahead and dive into the tens of thousands that are on this site alone and find a single, hateful, racist rant from me. just one. even check out AG where we can really speak our minds. i dare you to find something. you cant because it doesnt exist beyond your imagination when you try to take quotes of mine out of context.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


Second, if you think my quote was offensive, then that makes you a bigot yourself. For all we know those two could be homosexuals and they are labeled as such. You on the other hand, think that was a form of a insult. It is like two homosexuals, being called heterosexual to anyone it is no biggie, but with your train of thought, it is an insult. Again, not much I can expect from an inbred.

"for all we know those two could be homosexuals..." rofl. so what youre saying is that you believe that those listed above are gay, even though you have nothing to go on except their posts on this forum (none of which profess any such admittance to their sexuality) and you were just trying to welcome them to a new career choice, for the sole benefit of said parties? is that really what youre trying to say is your excuse for calling them gay? seriously? thats your defense? lolololol keep it coming, guy. this is funny.

i mean for all we know you could be a pedophile. its just as arbitrary isnt it?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


blah blah blah
Unfortunate for you, I do know what homosexual is and know how the military is now accepting them. Labeling those two, now three, really doesn't fit ignorant. Now a person throwing the label ignorant and not equating to the definition, like yourself, is an example of ignorant--- as you don't know about the subject/word. Irony is a bitch huh.

really? saying that someone is of one sexual orientation when you have absolutely NO evidence to even form the beginning of such an accusation isnt the textbook definition of ignorance? gosh...good thing someone linked me to its meaning.
Quote:

The Random House college dictionary as:
"Lacking knowledge about a particular subject or fact. Uninformed unaware." check

Franklin dictionary as:
"Lacking knowledge: uneducated. Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence. Unaware, uninformed." check

World Book dictionary as:
"Knowing little or nothing; without knowledge. Caused by lack of knowledge; showing lack of knowledge. Uninformed unaware." check


I would think with 3 dictionaries, you would get the picture.

if you havent noticed youre the only one throwing out grade school barbs here. i mean twice now youve called me inbred. the only possible thing you could be even remotely basing that on is the stereotypes associated with the location in my profile, which you even tried to do twice before in another thread. whereas the things i am calling you is in reference to your words and actions on this forum, you feel the need to try and take this to some sort of childish level, bleating about unfounded accusations without having any basis for them, trying to devolve this into some sort of petty name calling.

for your own sake i certainly hope you are able to grow up one day and stop with your closeted hatred of people that are different than you, accusing people of being something that theyre not in hopes that it would insult them and infuriate them into some sort of a childish squabble. there is simply no way you calling the three most loudly opposing voices against yours on this forum gay was meant as a compliment from you, or as a benign olive branch towards possible career openings. you called them gay and you meant it as an insult. there is no way for you to backpedal out of that so go ahead and admit it. admit that youre a hateful, bigoted person. after all...thats exactly what everyone reading your own words knows to be true.


*waiting on a reply that says how im a (insert keyword here) hypocrite/bigot/ignorant/etc.*
*waiting on a reply that again makes blind accusations as to what i think or feel or believe, regardless of how many times i have said the opposite in the past on this same exact forum*
*waiting on more petty insults regarding my personal background that have absolutely no bearing on our conversation*
*waiting on more inane blather from someone who likes to think hes smarter than everyone else but is really an idiot masquerading as one of the "enlightened left" because he thinks it makes him holier than thou*
*waiting on another supposed insult saying im a republican or bush lover or other unfounded and uninformed political statement*
*waiting on you to say that i meant libel when i used slander, not realizing that postings on an internet forum qualifies as both because it is a written conversation, a dialogue of two or more people, and slander is a perfectly acceptable term to use in this case.*







Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Friday, May 06, 2011 4:12 PM


Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:30 PM on j-body.org
LOL. Looks like nothing changes around here. Goodwrench is still being an arrogant fuckhead, trying to tell other people what they think, and how much more intelligent, informed, and enlightened he is than they are.

Just remember, if you have to tell people how smart you are, there's a good reason.







Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:15 PM on j-body.org
(tabs) wrote:


listen to you....you obviously know nothing about me nor have you read any of my posts on here. when did i vote for bush? and mccain? are you for real? nope to both. but go ahead and ignore that because it wouldnt fit into your narrow view of who and what i am. you only see the world in black and white. red and blue. D and R. nothing can exist in between any of those, can they? oh no, admitting that someone, in this case me, could be something beyond your blind view of people would just blow your mind, so you choose to name call and accuse me of the worst thing you can imagine--being a (gasp!) republican?

Whats-a-matter Taby, are you ashamed of your party?
Your Republican ass will fight tooth and nail just to have a say to a person who is not extreme right, yet I've not seen anything you remotely attacking the Republican sector, but that's ok, in that head of yours, the Reps never did anything wrong, so why leave them. Oh and BTW, after voting for Republican Ron Paul, and missed the primaries, who was next in November? What are you going to say... "uhhh, I didn't vote in November!"
Right... "I'm not Republican".... and I don't own a J-body too.

(tabs) wrote:

where are the excuses? just because you are unable to comprehend even the most simple of posts is hardly a fault on me. and imagine that...you once again try to tell me im something that im not, just for the sake of your narrow mind and name calling purposes. it again proves that you know nothing about me nor have read anything ive posted on this forum and are only interested in trying to slander me instead of addressing the points brought up in my posts. go ahead, tell me how much i hate gay people. ignore that one of my best friends growing up is gay. ignore that i lived with a lesbian for the past two years...a lesbian who happened to also be my best friend. nope, just ignore all of those posts on here and keep saying im some sort of a homophobe, even though youre the only one slinging around the term gay like its derogatory in some way.

and keep telling yourself the same holds true for black people, or asians, or any other ethnic group that you want to pretend i hate. again, all of my posts speak for themselves. go ahead and dive into the tens of thousands that are on this site alone and find a single, hateful, racist rant from me. just one. even check out AG where we can really speak our minds. i dare you to find something. you cant because it doesnt exist beyond your imagination when you try to take quotes of mine out of context.

Your damage control is up there,^ genius.
I was waiting on you to write: "I have a gay friend"--- therefore I don't hate gay people. That's usually what bigots say to justify that they're not of what they're accused of. When you was there typing that bigotry on that thread, you thought you was in your realm of your type of people, therefore people will not retaliate. Then I come in and show you to light of how much of a hypocrite you are; like you don't like harsher punishment because of exactly what I wrote to you up there.^ You know the one that you avoided to defend, instead you decided to talk $hit...well that one.
To late on refuting that, as you avoiding it basically cemented your bigotry. But hey that is your prerogative. Lately, that’s been the prerequisite to get the {R} on that card.

(tabs) wrote:

"for all we know those two could be homosexuals..." rofl. so what youre saying is that you believe that those listed above are gay, even though you have nothing to go on except their posts on this forum (none of which profess any such admittance to their sexuality) and you were just trying to welcome them to a new career choice, for the sole benefit of said parties? is that really what youre trying to say is your excuse for calling them gay? seriously? thats your defense? lolololol keep it coming, guy. this is funny.

i mean for all we know you could be a pedophile. its just as arbitrary isnt it?

What is it to you if they are or not? That's their choice, you think that's a form of insult, from what you're saying. Both follow me here (now noticing you too) like a male cat in heat. Search at how many thread starters those two have done with my name in it? Hey even you did one too. lol Either you see me as your threat, that have the need to point a finger and label me in your threads for lol---"calling me out" or you all got some sort of man crush going on. Either way I stand what originally said about those two, and not because they admitted (in the closet), but by the actions of always trying to lure me into their topic starters. Creepy bunch.
Now you or anyone can call me anything you want. Really? Why? I know what I am, and quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass. But if you call me something that in turn you do the same of what you're accusing me, oh you may read me to show you have no room to talk err type..

(tabs) wrote:

really? saying that someone is of one sexual orientation when you have absolutely NO evidence to even form the beginning of such an accusation isnt the textbook definition of ignorance? gosh...good thing someone linked me to its meaning.
Still not knowing what ignorant means AND since when being homosexual is an insult? Oh that's right, in Church it is frowned upon, therefore labeling someone as such is an insult, just like saying; you are the devil!

(tabs) wrote:

I would think with 3 dictionaries, you would get the picture.

Let me ask you, do you pronounce it; 'yer ignant?
Now I see your 3 half-ass dictionary, and raise you 5 complete ones.
Quote:

1.lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

Quote:


1 a: destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2: unaware, uninformed
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant

Quote:

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge)[1]. The word "ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult. "Ignoramus" is commonly used in the UK and Ireland as a name of someone who is overwhelmingly ignorant.
Ignorance should be distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts. Also, if important information is available, one may fail to acquire it due to lack of intelligence (not realizing its importance, or not understanding it). The informal use of ignorant is the same as rude and discourteous.
Writer Thomas Pynchon articulated about the scope and structure of one's ignorance: "Ignorance is not just a blank space on a person's mental map. It has contours and coherence, and for all I know rules of operation as well. So as a corollary to [the advice of] writing about what we know, maybe we should add getting familiar with our ignorance, and the possibilities therein for writing a good story."
[2]Ignorance rooting from ignoring is a selective state of unawareness.
The legal principle that ignorantia juris non excusat, literally "ignorance of the law is no excuse", stands for the proposition that the law applies also to those who are unaware of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Quote:

Definition: unaware, unknowing
Notes: stupid refers to lack of ability while ignorant refers to lack of knowledge
http://thesaurus.com/browse/ignorant

Quote:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed
1. lacking in knowledge or education; unenlightened
2. (postpositive; often foll by of) lacking in awareness or knowledge (of) ignorant of the law
3. resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorant


Now how do YOU---Taby uses the word “ignorant.”
Quote:

A term used by certain minorities to describe anyone who is pissing them off. Ironically, ask them what it means, and they won't have a clue. All you'll get as an answer is a clenched fist to the head (for being ignorant of course).
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorant

Sorry Taby, but lack of knowledge in an area is what it is. It is ok to be ignorant, nobody was born knowing everything. I for instance do not know how to maintain a boat for example, or like you don't know certain words, like; ignorant... is another example. Maybe now you do, I still need to know about maintaining boats. Grr! lolz

Now to get you even further pissed off...
I knew the words and link that I wrote (you know the one that got your PMS going), therefore me knowing those words and link, makes me not ignorant. Maybe when I was born I didn't know the words, but rest assured I knew when I typed it. You could have said ass hole, prankster, but ignorant--- ahh no.

(tab) wrote:

if you havent noticed youre the only one throwing out grade school barbs here. i mean twice now youve called me inbred. the only possible thing you could be even remotely basing that on is the stereotypes associated with the location in my profile, which you even tried to do twice before in another thread. whereas the things i am calling you is in reference to your words and actions on this forum, you feel the need to try and take this to some sort of childish level, bleating about unfounded accusations without having any basis for them, trying to devolve this into some sort of petty name calling.
Oh really? So you bringing up a 5 month old thread only to throw labels on to me makes you not what you're accusing of me now? That makes you better? Interesting train of though again, jackass. I tell you inbreeds are indeed funny.

(tabs) wrote:

for your own sake i certainly hope you are able to grow up one day and stop with your closeted hatred of people that are different than you, accusing people of being something that theyre not in hopes that it would insult them and infuriate them into some sort of a childish squabble. there is simply no way you calling the three most loudly opposing voices against yours on this forum gay was meant as a compliment from you, or as a benign olive branch towards possible career openings. you called them gay and you meant it as an insult. there is no way for you to backpedal out of that so go ahead and admit it. admit that youre a hateful, bigoted person. after all...thats exactly what everyone reading your own words knows to be true.

Oh no... he-he- called "the three most loudly opposing voices against yours" a homosexual. Quick throw holy water at him.... he's ‘ignant!
Dude, you're a homophobe... I don't care if you start telling stories that Elton John is your father, it is clear as day that you have an issue on people who do not look or act like you. Next time think before you try to "call me out," because just like it is happening now, you might come out looking like a hypocrite.

(tabs) wrote:

*waiting on a reply that says how im a (insert keyword here) hypocrite/bigot/ignorant/etc.*
*waiting on a reply that again makes blind accusations as to what i think or feel or believe, regardless of how many times i have said the opposite in the past on this same exact forum*
*waiting on more petty insults regarding my personal background that have absolutely no bearing on our conversation*
*waiting on more inane blather from someone who likes to think hes smarter than everyone else but is really an idiot masquerading as one of the "enlightened left" because he thinks it makes him holier than thou*
*waiting on another supposed insult saying im a republican or bush lover or other unfounded and uninformed political statement*
That's exactly how Scotty would say and the hidden is what I would do too. So now you use other's playbook? Aww, he can't think on his own.
I swear it is this like seeing a comedy skit on SNL; Joker, Riddler, and Catwoman... (lol) "how are we gonna Mr.Goodwrench next?"
Since it has come to a point you didn't prove $hit, and I'm not caring anymore on your stupidity, I will be the bigger man and step out of your ridiculous PMS futile. Feel free to continue talking, but now to a wall.
By the way happy mother's day Tabs. Oops… there I go again, mother is an insult too. lulz

Edited 3,003 time(s). Last edited Yesterday 4:20 PM


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:52 PM on j-body.org
*yawn* wake me when you have something worthwhile to say. and check the date stamps on the posts buddy....i didnt bring up a 5 month old post by any means. it was at the top so i clicked on it and i found you calling people who dont agree with you on the internet gay. regardless of what you want to say, doing something so petty is the complete opposite of everything youve said that you stand for in your posts on here, making you the text book definitions of not only ignorant and hypocritical, but also childish and bigoted. pretend youre not those things, i dont care, people have the ability to read for themselves and see you for what you are. have fun!




Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Sunday, May 08, 2011 7:03 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Feel free to continue talking, but now to a wall.
Instead of the thoughtful, open-minded, intelligent person tabs has been talking to?


10,254 characters
2,219 words
14 quotes
zero usefulness

typical Goodwrench post.

It brings a certain sense of stability to see that you don't change. You'll always be an ignorant, arrogant, self-important douchebag.






Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Sunday, May 08, 2011 10:21 AM on j-body.org
^^^Is mad because he's now getting reoccurring (Freddy Krueger style) nightmares of that skinny, black, Muslim man from Kenya is still in the White House & passing laws of taxing the wealthy in 2013.
Mr. Quick--Limbaughs Right Nut wrote:

I'm an ignorant, arrogant, self-important douchebag.
No more resumes please, you're to late on the closing date. Donald Trump got the job.
Like I told you before, I get it... if it is not a transcript from Rush Limbaugh's show, it is not legit.

Speaking on "not changing," good to see you are still as useful as cancer.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Sunday, May 08, 2011 6:50 PM on j-body.org
How predictable, and how unoriginal. You are unable to make me mad. You're a joke, and I'm having fun with you.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

^^^Is mad because he's now getting reoccurring (Freddy Krueger style) nightmares of that skinny, black, Muslim man from Kenya is still in the White House & passing laws of taxing the wealthy in 2013.
Mr. Quick--Limbaughs Right Nut wrote:

I'm an ignorant, arrogant, self-important douchebag.
No more resumes please, you're to late on the closing date. Donald Trump got the job.
Like I told you before, I get it... if it is not a transcript from Rush Limbaugh's show, it is not legit.

Speaking on "not changing," good to see you are still as useful as cancer.
Translation: "I know you are, but what am I? Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh."



I wonder how many other habits you share with him, such as an addiction to jerking off.






Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:58 AM on j-body.org
"Well, if it is a (random) shooting or punch like in your scenario, it would not be considered a hate crime now would it.
If I was a Rabbi complete with my yamaka walking down the street and skin heads pulls up to me and shoot me dead. There would be your hate crime. And if you're physically damaging someone just for the sheer fact of being different or have personal vendetta to a certain group, you should serve a harsher punishment. That's the only way to teach the uneducated.




lets see how is a skinheadhead shooting a rabbi because of his religion or background any diffrent then a man shooting a women because he grew up hating women. or a guy shooting a guy on the road because he cut him off. either way your DEAD. thats complete bull@!#$ that you feel that because your dad was a rabbi and my mom wsant that she isn't worth as much as your dad is. that is the stupidest thing to me. DEAD IS DEAD is shouldnt matter wether he hates a race. or just hated the fact that you cut him off in traffic, he hated you enough to kill you. race and religion shouldnt matter when someone hates you enough to kill you. the only thing hate crimes teach us is that someones mom or dad isn't worth as much as someone elses.


in your example if you were wearing your yamaka walking down the street and skin head pulls up and shoots you dead. how is that worth more jail time then if i was walking down the street in my jeans and a tshirt and a skinhead pulls up and shoots me? why does the guy that shot you deserve more jail time? just because he hated you more? he killed us both. that seems like he hated us both eually.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 8:40 AM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:


lets see how is a skinheadhead shooting a rabbi because of his religion or background any diffrent then a man shooting a women because he grew up hating women. or a guy shooting a guy on the road because he cut him off. either way your DEAD. thats complete bull@!#$ that you feel that because your dad was a rabbi and my mom wsant that she isn't worth as much as your dad is. that is the stupidest thing to me. DEAD IS DEAD is shouldnt matter wether he hates a race. or just hated the fact that you cut him off in traffic, he hated you enough to kill you. race and religion shouldnt matter when someone hates you enough to kill you. the only thing hate crimes teach us is that someones mom or dad isn't worth as much as someone elses.

In your scenario, the man shooting the woman would also be a hate crime sndsgood. The guy on the road getting cut off, not a hate crime. You can change the rabbi from me to my dad and name your mother the victim of the crime, and won't change the fact it is a hate crime. Just so you can feel better, there is hate crime against christians, whites and males. You're probably unaware as it is not popular, but it does exist.

sndsgood wrote:

in your example if you were wearing your yamaka walking down the street and skin head pulls up and shoots you dead. how is that worth more jail time then if i was walking down the street in my jeans and a tshirt and a skinhead pulls up and shoots me? why does the guy that shot you deserve more jail time? just because he hated you more? he killed us both. that seems like he hated us both eually.....
The skin heads will not attack you because of you're wearing a shirt and jeans. I on the other hand was shot dead because I would be a jew. The idea of a hate crime to serve a harsher punishment to prevent crimes just because of gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, in other words--- being different.
Like I told you before; "That's the only way to teach the uneducated."
Also read up on it.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11:18 AM on j-body.org
what sndsgood, and everyone else, is saying is that if you kill someone you obviously hate them enough to kill them. the reasons shouldnt matter. its the deed that needs to be punished. if we are all equal then killing someone of a certain race, religion, sex, whatever else shouldnt be of more value (longer prison sentence) than killing any one else. hate crime laws only put up divisions and distinctions between different classes of people instead of treating them all equally like they should be.

in the original context for this thread, the black girls shouldnt be punished more severely for beating up a white girl (or transgender or whatever she was) than had they beat up a black girl. they beat someone up mercilessly and that is the crux of the matter. trying to pretend like you know why they did it and pin on extra time because of supposed hatred for one quality the person has makes a mockery of justice and only works to set a bright, neon sign above whatever quality that person possessed that made them "different" to begin with, telling everyone else that that quality is more important than other people's and should be treated differently and more severely.

hate crime laws only separate us more by color, religion, sex, etc by resigning us to basal distinctions that shouldnt come into play in legal proceedings. justice is supposed to be blind to all of those distinctions, not playing favorites.




Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 7:33 PM on j-body.org
Wow, all this and the only person who posts WHAT THE ACTUAL POLICY IS, is Chris(LowFire).


Let me explain 2 words for you: Unit Cohesion.

Now, you know that for some the military is a last resort or only option. The people like the redneck hilljack's who think they can't do anything else. It's a fact of life, deal with it. There will be biased, racist, or discriminatory people in the military. IT WILL HAPPEN. Now let's say you're gay and in that guys platoon, squadron, whatever. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the right for everyone to just shut the @!#$ up about their sexual preferences and keep it to themselves and focus on the tasks at hand. Now you want to take away that policy and encourage people to "come out"?? Where is the god damn unit cohesion if you tell Billy-Bob Rebel Flag that you suck dick in the weekends?!?!? Seriously, it's not there to say "being gay is wrong". It's there to make sure everyone on your goddamn team can get along, do their job, and not worry about hating one another. Whether Billy-Bob's anti-gay views may be wrong, he has them. But you don't want him(someone on your side) hating YOU in the heat of battle. He all of the sudden doesn't treat you the same, protect you the same, look out for you the same. UNIT COHESION IS THE SOUL REASON FOR THIS POLICY. Putting all the liberal, cry baby, equal rights crap on hold and having every service man and woman focusing on the tasks at hand and looking out for each other. Even if it means keeping your boyfriend a goddamn secret.


On the other hand....you have other fingers.

"You really need to staple your face shut"-THE Joey Baggs.
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 8:58 PM on j-body.org
this policy isnt encouraging people to come out...it merely makes it ok for them to come out and not get kicked out of the service. if someone is going to treat you differently for being gay, theres a good chance theyll treat you differently for being black, or asian, or a jew, or a catholic, or a woman, or whatever else. why not disallow all of them from being open about their race, religion, gender, etc too?

you shouldnt protect the hateful and ignorant people by making everyone else tread lightly around them. if you want unit cohesion, then drill it into them like the army does everything else. tell billy bob hill jack that he either gets along or he gets punished/kicked out. dont give him a choice. whats so hard about that? if he can blindly accept everything else the service tells him, why not this?






Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:02 PM on j-body.org
I will accept your counter to my argument, as it makes a valid point. I'm just saying, that's the main reason I understood that policy to be there. Just keep it to yourself and get along with everyone.

Hey GMDicklips, you see that? That was a mature min-debate/conversation between two people with opposing views. Take notes.


On the other hand....you have other fingers.

"You really need to staple your face shut"-THE Joey Baggs.
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:27 PM on j-body.org
kick the queers out of the country to say somewhere else. For the ones who wanta say that homophobic who cares. I am a man you little limpwristed leftys might learn how to be one someday. Homo are nasty simple as that. The only thing that get close to my poo shooter is t.p.
Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:45 PM on j-body.org
JL: that was probably the official excuse as to why the policy was in place, yeah, but we both know thats exactly what it was...an excuse. i just say get along with everybody, regardless if youre open about being gay or not. i seriously doubt a gay guy is going to hit on some redneck hill jack with a gun anyway. just sayin...

and yes, isnt it nice when people can have a civil, open discourse with rational thoughts being exchanged and no blind left or right nutswinging going on? certain people definitely should take notes

david christy wrote:

kick the queers out of the country to say somewhere else. For the ones who wanta say that homophobic who cares. I am a man you little limpwristed leftys might learn how to be one someday. Homo are nasty simple as that. The only thing that get close to my poo shooter is t.p.

you're supposedly 44 and talk like a 12 year old? troll much?





Re: No more Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 4:57 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

sndsgood wrote:


lets see how is a skinheadhead shooting a rabbi because of his religion or background any diffrent then a man shooting a women because he grew up hating women. or a guy shooting a guy on the road because he cut him off. either way your DEAD. thats complete bull@!#$ that you feel that because your dad was a rabbi and my mom wsant that she isn't worth as much as your dad is. that is the stupidest thing to me. DEAD IS DEAD is shouldnt matter wether he hates a race. or just hated the fact that you cut him off in traffic, he hated you enough to kill you. race and religion shouldnt matter when someone hates you enough to kill you. the only thing hate crimes teach us is that someones mom or dad isn't worth as much as someone elses.

In your scenario, the man shooting the woman would also be a hate crime sndsgood. The guy on the road getting cut off, not a hate crime. You can change the rabbi from me to my dad and name your mother the victim of the crime, and won't change the fact it is a hate crime. Just so you can feel better, there is hate crime against christians, whites and males. You're probably unaware as it is not popular, but it does exist.

sndsgood wrote:

in your example if you were wearing your yamaka walking down the street and skin head pulls up and shoots you dead. how is that worth more jail time then if i was walking down the street in my jeans and a tshirt and a skinhead pulls up and shoots me? why does the guy that shot you deserve more jail time? just because he hated you more? he killed us both. that seems like he hated us both eually.....
The skin heads will not attack you because of you're wearing a shirt and jeans. I on the other hand was shot dead because I would be a jew. The idea of a hate crime to serve a harsher punishment to prevent crimes just because of gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, in other words--- being different.
Like I told you before; "That's the only way to teach the uneducated."
Also read up on it.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime



i know hate crimes are more then just jews, i just used that because you brought that particular one up.

i like in my post i gave you an example and in your responce you completly change the example and reply based on your change. people get shot because they wear the wrong colored t-shirt in the wrong neighborhood. people get murdered over 5 dollars. to say skinheads would shoot a jew but now shoot a white non jew guy is ludacris.


again answer my question, if a skinhead shot you and you were a jew and a skinhead shot me and i wasnt. why should the one who murdered you get more time in jailtime? because he hated you? like tabs said. if someone kills you. they sure as hell don't do it because they love you. do you think someone goes. well i wanna kill this guy. but i hate him so i'd get 20 years. but if i pretend to like him and kill him i'd get 15 years? no when someone kills someone they don't even think about wether they will get 10 or 20 years so changing it to a hate crime does nothing but tell those that were killed that they werent as important as the other person.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search