Don't Ask, Don't TELL

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I hate queers because I am one.

good for you for coming out legion troll

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I disagree. The prejudice still exists.

Case in point, can homosexuals in the service now name their significant others on medical insurance policies? How about death benefits? Housing benefits? PX benefits?

Immie

There is still work to be done. If I am not mistaken, you can name whoever you want on your death benefits, unless that has changed since I was in.

Yes, there is still work to be done. But prior to this, they were not allowed to be gay and be in the military. They could hide that they were gay and serve, but if they were outted they were out.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

In opening, you must be blind, because I am not an idiot. Nor will I throw away my arguments by stooping to your petty name calling. Oh and one more thing, if you are going to call someone an idiot online it would make sense to check your spelling.

Obviously you've never been in the service; because otherwise you would now some of the "pressures" that service members place on each other.

I was in the Coast Guard Reserves. Have you served? I felt no such pressure from the people I served with.

So if they were seen in public holding the hand, of someone of the same sex, they weren't in any danger of any reprecussions?

And that would not be "flaunting it"? Why is it that you believe it is appropriate to flaunt it?

Also, if two unmarried military personnel of different sex are seen in sexual contact they too can be in danger of repercussions (which is as it should be), especially if they are of differing ranks.

Why aren't you campaigning for hetrosexual service members, to not "flaunt" their sexuality?

Show me one case where a heterosexual was flaunting it. I am certain it happens that husband and wife probably hold hands in public. They should not be feeling each other up nor even french kissing in public. That simply is not appropriate in any situation regardless of sexual orientation. You show me an instance where this is happening and I will be right there beside you.

Nor would I have an issue if a homosexual couple was holding hands in public. Is that even necessary? I mean really, grown ups holding hands... ain't that cute? Really, holding hands is what teenagers do, please get serious. We are not talking about holding hands here.

Immie

1. If you want the job as the Spelling Police, then submit your application to Damo, Grind, or Beefy; but until then fuck off.

2. OOOOOOOOOOOOO, the Coast Guard Reserves.
So tell me; how many overseas bars did you frequent, where the guys pressure each other to pick up girls?
You're answer is more proof that you're an idiot.

3. You're the one that kept throwing out the "flaunting" tag, so don't get all butt hurt when you have previously not made yourself clear.
By the way, before the repeal; if two service guys were seen holding hands, they would have been discharged.
So maybe you need to clarify your usage of the word "flaunt".

4. Before the repeal, "two unmarried military personnel of different sex are seen in sexual contact..." they wouldn't be subject to the same consequence that two same sex personnel would have been.
Since you don't seem to know this, then this is even more proof that you're an idiot.

5. More then "married couples" hold hands in public and/or kiss. Boyfriends and girlfriends do so alo, so why should two boyfriends and/or two girlfriends be able to do the same; without having to fear being chastized?

6. Now, according to you, teenagers are the only ones that should be holding hands in public. Well you better get yourself down to some of the retirement communities and let your biases be known.
AND
I bet you there are plenty of married couples, on this forum, that hold the hands of their spouses when walking.
I'm sorry that you're life is soul-less; but you don't speak for everyone.

7. If you don't want to be thought of as an idiot, then stop posting idiotic comments like you have.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You obviously made it through the service...How did you handle all those "pressures" from your peers?
Did you have a problem with "not flaunting it" in public...?
Did you have a problem with "keeping it to yourself"...?

Did the military keep you from getting married?

You can marry anytime you want as long as its to someone of the opposite sex....otherwise, just call them a roomie....pinhead.

I know that same sex marriages scare you; but we've told you before, NO ONE is going to force you to marry someone you don't want to.
I'm really beginning to worry about why you feel that just because two other guys are eventually going to be allowed to marry, why you feel that now you're going to have to.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'll be glad to answer your questions, as soon as they make sense. USF is on ignore, I can't see his posts, and I don't care to answer his questions. As for others answering me, I don't really give a shit if they do or don't, sometimes my point is better made when I leave you pinheads speechless. Most of the time I am hoping you idiots DON'T answer me, just spin off into some stupid mindless rant about Iraq or Bush, and avoid me altogether! It's better that way, I think! Or, they can do like you, and run give me negative reps... just shut the fuck up and go away! Your stupid responses bore me!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

It's now obvious that my questions scared you and you put me on ignore; because you have no answers and your only defense is "BECAUSE".

You're a coward and a pinhead.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Still making excuses for ducking my straight forward question.

Alright...above are YOUR words...over and over...and here they are isolated for your perusal:

"All that can possibly happen, is bad."

" I predict there will be all kinds of problems arise, as a result of this."

"I see plenty of negatives."

Now...WHAT bad will happen...WHAT problems do you see arising...WHAT negatives do you see?

You made these statements but not a once have you backed them up with EXAMPLES of what you think will happen.

How about just this once you just shut it and explain yourself instead of whining about who you have on ignore?

You better look out Zap; otherwise Dixie the Coward will put you on ignore also and then what will you do!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Zappa he hasn't said a damned thing that wasn't said when they integrated the military. I can tell you what will happen. If you train, suffer, sacrifice and go through the trauma of combat with a fellow comrade who has your back and protects your life like it was his, then afterwards that man or woman will be your brother for the rest of your lives and it won't matter two farts in the wind if he's green, black, Muslim or gay. A brother is a brother.

AMEN!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I disagree. The prejudice still exists.

Case in point, can homosexuals in the service now name their significant others on medical insurance policies? How about death benefits? Housing benefits? PX benefits?

Immie

No one can name their "significant other" on their medical policies, UNLESS THEY ARE MARRIED; YOU IDIOT.

The same with your other examples; except for the death benefit.
You are a bigot.

 

[Immanuel]

1. If you want the job as the Spelling Police, then submit your application to Damo, Grind, or Beefy; but until then fuck off.

2. OOOOOOOOOOOOO, the Coast Guard Reserves.
So tell me; how many overseas bars did you frequent, where the guys pressure each other to pick up girls?
You're answer is more proof that you're an idiot.

3. You're the one that kept throwing out the "flaunting" tag, so don't get all butt hurt when you have previously not made yourself clear.
By the way, before the repeal; if two service guys were seen holding hands, they would have been discharged.
So maybe you need to clarify your usage of the word "flaunt".

4. Before the repeal, "two unmarried military personnel of different sex are seen in sexual contact..." they wouldn't be subject to the same consequence that two same sex personnel would have been.
Since you don't seem to know this, then this is even more proof that you're an idiot.

5. More then "married couples" hold hands in public and/or kiss. Boyfriends and girlfriends do so alo, so why should two boyfriends and/or two girlfriends be able to do the same; without having to fear being chastized?

6. Now, according to you, teenagers are the only ones that should be holding hands in public. Well you better get yourself down to some of the retirement communities and let your biases be known.
AND
I bet you there are plenty of married couples, on this forum, that hold the hands of their spouses when walking.
I'm sorry that you're life is soul-less; but you don't speak for everyone.

7. If you don't want to be thought of as an idiot, then stop posting idiotic comments like you have.

Funny, I have seen nothing at all that I would call intelligent in your posts. At least I can spell and write clear sentences. I never asked to be part of the spelling police, but I would think that someone who seems to be so utterly incapable of writing coherently would think twice before calling someone else an idiot. Especially since it is only because they disagree on a particular subject. I would think that they would at least have the intelligence to spell check their posts and proofreading as well before making such utterly ridiculous looking statements.

Butt hurt? What gives you the impression that I am butt hurt? I made myself perfectly clear and even further explained myself when it was apparent that you were not able to comprehend.

I am perfectly fine with the idea that you disagree with me. Apparently, unlike you, I do not have to feel that everyone I discuss something with, agrees with me. You evidently are not grown up enough to understand that two perfectly intelligent people can come to different opinions on a certain subject. In fact, I would not come to these sites if everyone agreed with me. What would be the fun in that?

Have you served? By your answers I highly doubt you have left the seventh grade.

As for two unmarried service personnel caught in sexual misconduct they would have been discharged. It is called fraternization regardless of rank and it is highly frowned upon.

So tell me; how many overseas bars did you frequent, where the guys pressure each other to pick up girls?

I highly doubt you have been in such a position. I suspect you have seen too many movies.

Pressure need not come in an overseas bar. It comes in all kinds of different ways and at all ages. I never felt the need to prove my manhood in front of other guys.

If that is your definition of pressure, I pity you.

so why should two boyfriends and/or two girlfriends be able to do the same;

I don't know, you tell me why they should be able to do the same thing. I never said they should. For that matter, I never said they should not be able to either. In fact, I never even gave my opinion on whether or not I felt DADT should be repealed. I simply asked why you on the left were pissing your pants in joy over this. I mean really why the euphoric joy over this? It appears to me that the only reason for your euphoria is that you intend to flaunt it. Since you do not seem to understand let me again be perfectly clear, that doesn't mean every homosexual is out to flaunt his/her sexual preferences. However, it appears that those who are so euphoric over this have only one goal here and that is to flaunt their sexuality. If that were not the case, then one would think that they would be demanding full rights and not just the right to tell everyone that they prefer sex with their own gender as compared to sex with the opposite gender.

Immie

 

[apple0154]

I appreciate your belief that this is the reason, however, I don't see it as that. Is that really something they would be doing back flips over? They have been serving freely for decades even before DADT was passed. Now, when you say, "they are truly free to serve and die for their country being who they are and not who they have to pretend not to be!" that says to me, that they will be flaunting it openly in the military. What else can that possibly mean?

Let me say this, I really don't care. I don't see a problem with homosexuals in the military as long as they are not involved in sexual activity while on duty. What bugs me is the attitude that I see taken here. What bugs me is the knowledge that what happened with DADT is exactly what the left expects to happen with HCR. I do not want Nancy Pelosi or her cohorts deciding what form of health care I can have now or in the future!

One more question? What on earth was wrong with simply keeping their sexual preferences to themselves?

Immie

In a just and perfect world DADT would probably work fine but we all know the trickery and deceit and outright nastiness of people. DADT is a law, a rule, something that can be broken, a "crime" one can be charged with....the point being it can be used against someone if nothing else will stick.

Whether or not the Armed Services and society, in general, look the other way, that rule/law/crime is still there. It can always be used against someone.

As for HCR there is no logical argument against it. The citizens in every country, without exception, have held on to their government plans. Not one country has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Furthermore, life expectancy in western countries with government health care is superior to the US. Finally, the cost in those countries is approximately 1/2 the cost the US spends on health care.

What is there to discuss?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Funny, I have seen nothing at all that I would call intelligent in your posts. At least I can spell and write clear sentences. I never asked to be part of the spelling police, but I would think that someone who seems to be so utterly incapable of writing coherently would think twice before calling someone else an idiot. Especially since it is only because they disagree on a particular subject. I would think that they would at least have the intelligence to spell check their posts and proofreading as well before making such utterly ridiculous looking statements.

Butt hurt? What gives you the impression that I am butt hurt? I made myself perfectly clear and even further explained myself when it was apparent that you were not able to comprehend.

I am perfectly fine with the idea that you disagree with me. Apparently, unlike you, I do not have to feel that everyone I discuss something with, agrees with me. You evidently are not grown up enough to understand that two perfectly intelligent people can come to different opinions on a certain subject. In fact, I would not come to these sites if everyone agreed with me. What would be the fun in that?

Have you served? By your answers I highly doubt you have left the seventh grade.

As for two unmarried service personnel caught in sexual misconduct they would have been discharged. It is called fraternization regardless of rank and it is highly frowned upon.



I highly doubt you have been in such a position. I suspect you have seen too many movies.

Pressure need not come in an overseas bar. It comes in all kinds of different ways and at all ages. I never felt the need to prove my manhood in front of other guys.

If that is your definition of pressure, I pity you.



I don't know, you tell me why they should be able to do the same thing. I never said they should. For that matter, I never said they should not be able to either. In fact, I never even gave my opinion on whether or not I felt DADT should be repealed. I simply asked why you on the left were pissing your pants in joy over this. I mean really why the euphoric joy over this? It appears to me that the only reason for your euphoria is that you intend to flaunt it. Since you do not seem to understand let me again be perfectly clear, that doesn't mean every homosexual is out to flaunt his/her sexual preferences. However, it appears that those who are so euphoric over this have only one goal here and that is to flaunt their sexuality. If that were not the case, then one would think that they would be demanding full rights and not just the right to tell everyone that they prefer sex with their own gender as compared to sex with the opposite gender.

Immie

Translation:

​

If you think I'm on the left, you're a bigger pinhead then anyone here can imagine.

Let me guess, you're against same sex marriages also!!

 

[Immanuel]

In a just and perfect world DADT would probably work fine but we all know the trickery and deceit and outright nastiness of people. DADT is a law, a rule, something that can be broken, a "crime" one can be charged with....the point being it can be used against someone if nothing else will stick.

Whether or not the Armed Services and society, in general, look the other way, that rule/law/crime is still there. It can always be used against someone.

As for HCR there is no logical argument against it. The citizens in every country, without exception, have held on to their government plans. Not one country has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system. Furthermore, life expectancy in western countries with government health care is superior to the US. Finally, the cost in those countries is approximately 1/2 the cost the US spends on health care.

What is there to discuss?

What is there to discuss?

Corruption in Washington for one thing.

How about the size of our economy for another? How about the ability of our government to maintain itself with the current deficit that will only grow much much bigger under HCR? This program will become a drain on our government just as Welfare, Social Security and other social programs. I understand much needs to be done, but I do not believe we can sustain ourselves in the manner we are going.

How about the freedom of Health Professionals to do business as they see fit rather than becoming in the near future employees of the U.S. Government. I realize that under the current law that passed this has not changed, but Candidate Obama indicated that he was going to take this one step at a time. Eventually, health care professionals will be working for the state. I for one, do not believe that medical bureaucrats are the way to better health.

And as to your "other countries do it", so what? I live in the U.S.A. because we are not "other countries".

Something had to be done. No question about that. But, this law really did very little to actually address the real issues.

Personally, I would prefer providing Medicare to all the poor who do not currently have insurance and want it. I have absolutely no problem with providing necessities to the needy and paying for it with higher taxes. What I fear in this case is the corruption involved in American Politics.

Maybe other countries have been successful providing universal health care. Maybe in days gone by when politicians really cared about America and not themselves, America could have accomplished this task. Now, with the control that lobbyists have on Washington politicians I do not have any faith in what is going on.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Translation:

​

If you think I'm on the left, you're a bigger pinhead then anyone here can imagine.

Let me guess, you're against same sex marriages also!!

You appear to be lefty in the posts I have read of yours. I have seen no evidence supporting anything against that conclusion.

You know nothing about my point of view on gay marriage. I happen to believe that my point of view on that issue is very moderate.

Maybe someday when you have finished whining, we can discuss it.

Immie

 

[apple0154]

In reference to the top part of this, if what you say is true, then why is the left singing the "Hallelujah Chorus" over this?

Your answers make no sense to me. Homosexuals had the right to be who they wanted to be before. Now they seem to have the right to go further than that. Winterborn provided a decent example, but as bravo indicated, it seems that the persecution of David Hall was beyond the scope of DADT and was wrong.

You may be right, I may be buying into an old stereotype, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out why if the left simply believe that homosexuals now have the same rights they had on November 30th why the left is acting like conservatism has just been dealt a death blow.

DADT forced no one to be dishonest. It forced no one to claim they were straight if they were gay. It simply said, "keep it to yourself".

Why do you think that keeping it to yourself a bad idea?

You know, I am actually surprised that the left is not stating that they are thrilled to death about this because it means that soon homosexuals in the service will be able to provide benefits to their significant others... something that should be granted anyway. (Boy is that going to get me in trouble with conservatives!) But, that does not seem to be what is important to them at all. The important thing they seem to be focusing on is how great it is that now homosexuals can let everyone else know that they are homosexuals... isn't that "flaunting it"?

Immie

"Why do you think that keeping it to yourself a bad idea?"

Consider this. Are you married? Suppose the rule was you had to keep your marriage to yourself (assuming you're married). Let's say your wife wrote you a letter and for whatever reason you didn't hide the letter and a fellow service person found it. Would that be considered "flaunting" the fact you're married?

If your wife met you after you returned from a tour of duty and gave you a hug when seeing you would that be considered "flaunting"?

 

[Immanuel]

"Why do you think that keeping it to yourself a bad idea?"

Consider this. Are you married? Suppose the rule was you had to keep your marriage to yourself (assuming you're married). Let's say your wife wrote you a letter and for whatever reason you didn't hide the letter and a fellow service person found it. Would that be considered "flaunting" the fact you're married?

If your wife met you after you returned from a tour of duty and gave you a hug when seeing you would that be considered "flaunting"?

No on either of those, nor would I consider either of those flaunting a homosexual relationship.

Yes, I am married and yes, I hug and kiss my wife in public. There is a difference between hugging and kissing and feeling each other up.

I will also reiterate, that I have not yet given my opinion on whether or not DADT should have been repealed except possibly when I earlier made the statement that I did not believe the government should discriminate against any of its citizens.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe all homosexuals will flaunt their sexual preferences. I have asked why it is that the left is so euphoric over this. I have been given some decent replies, but I believe those people are wrong in their answers. I think the extreme left (meaning gay activists) are so thrilled about this because it pushes their agenda further along. If it is not yet evident, I am not fond of extremists of either side of the political spectrum. That includes gay activists.

Immie

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You appear to be lefty in the posts I have read of yours. I have seen no evidence supporting anything against that conclusion.

You know nothing about my point of view on gay marriage. I happen to believe that my point of view on that issue is very moderate.

Maybe someday when you have finished whining, we can discuss it.

Immie

Since my only posts to you have been about the repeal of the DADT, it would appear that you have come to the conclusion that only the Left is for this.
Which of course makes you a bigger pinhead, then your job as the spelling police does.

Let me guess:
Some of your best friends are gay; HUH!!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Since my only posts to you have been about the repeal of the DADT, it would appear that you have come to the conclusion that only the Left is for this.
Which of course makes you a bigger pinhead, then your job as the spelling police does.

Let me guess:
Some of your best friends are gay; HUH!!

you know USF, you're an asshole

immie is one of the nicest posters on political boards and it didn't take long for you to get into your usual pissing matches with everyone

amazing

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No on either of those, nor would I consider either of those flaunting a homosexual relationship.

Yes, I am married and yes, I hug and kiss my wife in public. There is a difference between hugging and kissing and feeling each other up.

I will also reiterate, that I have not yet given my opinion on whether or not DADT should have been repealed except possibly when I earlier made the statement that I did not believe the government should discriminate against any of its citizens.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe all homosexuals will flaunt their sexual preferences. I have asked why it is that the left is so euphoric over this. I have been given some decent replies, but I believe those people are wrong in their answers. I think the extreme left (meaning gay activists) are so thrilled about this because it pushes their agenda further along. If it is not yet evident, I am not fond of extremists of either side of the political spectrum. That includes gay activists.

Immie

And yet you continue to present the idea of "flaunting" as your only reason for bitching about this.
From my observations; hetrosexual behave much more like you present, then homosexuals do.

And why are you flaunting your hetrosexual behavior in public, when according to only teenagers do that?

You're a pinhead.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

you know USF, you're an asshole

immie is one of the nicest posters on political boards and it didn't take long for you to get into your usual pissing matches with everyone

amazing

Fuck off and go have your emo meltdown, where no one has to be a witness to it.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Immanuel]

Since my only posts to you have been about the repeal of the DADT, it would appear that you have come to the conclusion that only the Left is for this.
Which of course makes you a bigger pinhead, then your job as the spelling police does.

Let me guess:
Some of your best friends are gay; HUH!!

I don't know, are you gay? If so, I have one gay friend.

Immie