WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Ouch, WTF, that is hitting below the belt

The ladies tell stories about how those army guys fire off their rounds quickly

[discreetgent]

Heh, but we are posting here while he is off getting laid lol

[I B Hankering]

Seriously guys, now that DADT has been repealed, which of the two below would you want to share quarters with on a ship or a fighting position with for days or weeks on end. At least with DADT, gay men did not overtly engage in this type of flamboyant behavior. Now what does the future hold? I'm not laughing, and you gotta know there are tens of thousands now serving who are also not laughing.

[pjorourke]

They repealed the DADT policy. They didn't declare that gay men get to dress like queens or perform blow jobs in the shower. These guys still have to conform to standards of military behavior.

BTW, I think it was a good call. It was a dumb policy.

[discreetgent]

Word!

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

My changing position never happens as a result of what someone, that I'm debating with, has said.

That surprises me not... Can't let a little thing like somebody else being right get in the way of your own brilliance....and I use that word VERY loosely...

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Again, I do know the community, and the audience.

No, you don't....certainly not this audience...

Originally Posted by herfacechair

The real reason you don't have any interest in anything I'm saying is that you disagree with my side of the argument.

Nope, I listen to arguments I disagree with all the time...it's the pathetically hopeless I tend to tune out...which I'll be getting back to doing in just a second...

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Sisyphus: So, at ease, Chief!

Wrong NCO Corps.

Now, now...I thought you were a history buff, Boss. You used to be "Chief" to the rest of the squad until somebody got a bug up their ass about that being a "Navy" thang...

I suppose...if something's gone horribly awry in today's "new" Army, Smoke. But, I kinda doubt it....anybody that would promote you beyond E-6 has an even bigger screw loose than you do...and that's saying something!

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Actually, you missed the mark.

No, I didn't. You can deny being pegged all you wish...doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I've ben doing this for years, so I shouldn't have a problem "keeping at it." And no, my life isn't lonely. Heck, I have a blast with these debates. I'd still get a chuckle at some of the things the opposition as said, or claimed, in the past.

Rrrrriiiiiiiggggggghhhhhtttttt t............ two years of blogging....two followers....no comments......

You're here causing you're STARVING for attention, Chief.

But, you'll have to get it from others cause I've said my piece. I'm done.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

They repealed the DADT policy. They didn't declare that gay men get to dress like queens or perform blow jobs in the shower. These guys still have to conform to standards of military behavior.

BTW, I think it was a good call. It was a dumb policy.

There are regulations prohibiting BJs, but cross dressing on one's off-duty time as a separate offense per se has not been an issue before. I imagine officers and NCOs will find themselves in uncharted territory not unlike the individuals being scapegoated in the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan - who was not kicked out before hand because he was Muslim. (Because the Army wanted to appear PC, there was political pressure to recruit and retain as many Muslim personnel as possible - even when it meant retaining men like Hasan.) There will soon be instances where officers and NCOs will have their careers ruined because they do try to enforce discipline, and there will be those whose careers will be ruined because they did not (like in the Hasan case) enforce in accordance with how 20/20 hindsight dictated.

Under DADT, gay men and women were not prohibited from serving, but they had to agree to serve UTR. So what was the problem; especially since all branches of the service have regulations against any form of extramarital sexual relationships? Under most circumstances, extramarital affairs (especially with providers) are career ending affairs: sexual promiscuity will get one discharged regardless of sexuality.

When deployed in Afghanistan (Iraq?), even married men and women couldn't have a conjugal relationship. I imagine gay men and women will be prosecuted under the UCMJ for infractions just as heterosexual men and women were prosecuted. How long will it be before the legitimate prosecutors are deemed persecutors, and how often will this happen until discipline breaks down and men (or women) like Hasan are deemed politically untouchable?

Meanwhile, I’ll agree to disagree with your designating DADT a “dumb policy.” I’ve been there, and personally I know I would have definitely have had problems serving with men, such as Rupaul and Kressley, who overtly advertise their homosexuality.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I’ve been there, and personally I know I would have definitely have had problems serving with men, such as Rupaul and Kressly, who overtly advertise their homosexuality.

I doubt there is a snoball's chance in hell of someone like Rupaul or Kressly signing up.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Under DADT, gay men and women were not prohibited from serving, but they had to agree to serve UTR. So what was the problem; especially since all branches of the service have regulations against any form of extramarital sexual relationships? Under most circumstances, extramarital affairs (especially with providers) are career ending affairs: sexual promiscuity will get one discharged regardless of sexuality.

Here is one example. A soldier serving under DADT breaks up with his/her partner. The partner wants to get even and informs the military that the soldier is gay, soldier is discharged. There have to be other scenarios similar to this one. Fundamentally having to hide something that will lead to a discharge isn't a workable or fair policy.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I doubt there is a snoball's chance in hell of someone like Rupaul or Kressly signing up.

I wouldn't take that bet. There is an old saying: “Nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.” (There are straight men and women who enlist who don’t know they shouldn’t.)

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are not going back far enough in history DFW.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/...ssay2text.html

The notion of segregating people considered unfit to reproduce dates back to antiquity. For example, the Old Testament describes the Amalekites – a supposedly depraved group that God condemned to death...

I'll rephrase, the eugenics movement, within the U.S., was propogated by the Progressives. Lest we forget, Margaret Sangor, Progressive, the defacto mother of Planned Parenthood, wrote:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On large families:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)


...and some people wonder why more black babies are aborted than any other race in the world. Our history and the history of the progressives is littered with death.

[discreetgent]

How about we all agree that there is enough sordid history both on the part of the Left and the Right to fill volumes with?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Here is one example. A soldier serving under DADT breaks up with his/her partner. The partner wants to get even and informs the military that the soldier is gay, soldier is discharged. There have to be other scenarios similar to this one. Fundamentally having to hide something that will lead to a discharge isn't a workable or fair policy.

According to the UCMJ, which covers all branches, any soldier, sailor or Marine is subject to being discharged for having any extramarital relationship - regardless of the sex of their partner. In cases where an enlisted individual is not immediately discharged, he/she is, in most cases, blocked from re-enlisting. Officers are drummed out without hesitation: "Conduct Unbecoming."

[discreetgent]

IBH you misunderstood me. A soldier is gay and in a relationship. That relationship then breaks up for whatever reason but not because the soldier cheated on the partner. The former partner then outs the soldier to the military. Unless you are claiming that extramarital means any sex not blessed by marriage in which case gay sex by definition is extramarital. My point is it can lead to all kinds of blackmail.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by SR Only

Let me rephrase my statement: "Money talks."

That's beside the point, here's what you also said, right after that phrase:

"In her review, she'll prolly say: 'I would not repeat.'" - SR Only

If it's just about money, she wouldn't say, "I would not repeat." But, if she were to say, "she would not repeat," then it wouldn't be about the money. Bottom line, I proved your "I won't repeat" remark with the fact that I've seen this provider 4 times already. Have the integrity to stick with what you intended with your communication... you farted the idea that they wouldn't repeat the experience again.

Since you didn't see it the first time, here it is again:

I've gotten numerous freebies on the East Coast because of that. - herfacechair

Read that 100 times, then go back and read it out loud 50 times. Then, break out a pad and pen and write that statement 25 times. BURN that statement into your head. You might want to repeat the same exercise with your signature statement, as you need to do as you preach.