Originally posted by Zampanó
Yess. This is wonderful! DADT was a black eye on the national image.
I thought fiscal and monetary mismanagement, as well as runaway consumer spending were all one giant black eye on the national image. Surely this social issue as it pertains to the military can't even be on the same level of importance. Treat it for what it is, a feel good story.
Beefy if you don't care then why are you still posting?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So you're basically admitting that this is nothing more than a feel good story and that i'm raining on your parade? Interesting.
Why yes, that exactly what I'm saying. How astute of you Beefy. You saw through my cunning wordplay to the very core of me.
😖lowclap:
dickhead
Originally posted by Nephthys
Why yes, that exactly what I'm saying. How astute of you Beefy. You saw through my cunning wordplay to the very core of me.😖lowclap:
dickhead
You're pretty transparent and I'm sorry I ruined your party. Now you can join the army and assuming you pass basic training (you won't), you and your life partner John can be 100% open about your lifestyle.
!The issue of efficacy is largely a farce, introduced to buttress policy with something other than stigma. Any concerns with a semblance of legitimacy have obviously been something that the military is perfectly capable of dealing with.
What is the more important component of the military? Social equality and fair treatment or its efficacy?
We'll see going forward what this has cost us in security, power and leverage, and my bet is that it won't be much of anything. Words from Iran and a mildly invigorated WBC are problems the country can handle.
!
I thought fiscal and monetary mismanagement, as well as runaway consumer spending were all one giant black eye on the national image.
Originally posted by Eminence
The issue of efficacy is largely a farce, introduced to buttress policy with something other than stigma. Any concerns with a semblance of legitimacy have obviously been something that the military is perfectly capable of dealing with.
We'll see going forward what this has cost us in security, power and leverage, and my bet is that it won't be much of anything. Words from Iran and a mildly invigorated WBC are problems the country can handle.I didn't say it would cost us anything, only the repercussions if it did.
I did not say that economic policies were the sole indicator but I do find them to be bigger and more important than a military policy that will not affect efficiency (hopefully) in the long run. And I never supported DADT precisely because joining the military earns my respect. However, I find the repeal nothing more than a small matter that shouldn't be blown out of proportion.
The American countenance is and always has been judged by more than the nation's economic policy. Some of its proudest moments are those in which civil issues were addressed, and this repeal, while admittedly not of stature with previous leaps, is a significant step in the right direction. I would think that if every enlistee legitimately had an equal share of your respect you'd have had something to say when thousands were discharged for being gay, even when no evidence suggested they were doing anything but fighting the fight. [/B]
What was it, 14,000 people discharged since '93? A lot of lost potential there over something as trivial as sexual preference. And if there are soldiers out there who are forced to conceal a huge part of who they are, then that's gonna do something to their capacity to fulfill the requirements of their job.
Like this guy.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I thought fiscal and monetary mismanagement, as well as runaway consumer spending were all one giant black eye on the national image. Surely this social issue as it pertains to the military can't even be on the same level of importance. Treat it for what it is, a feel good story.
In case you haven't been paying attention, America's image has taken some hits in the last 15 years. I'm not denying that monetary woes have contributed to that degradation in prestige, but surely you would agree that a country that prides itself on civil liberties and the equal rights of all citizens ought to be embarrassed by a law as draconian as DADT.
!
And you get this knowledge based off of what exactly?
I don't expect anyone to actually read the papers, but the summarized results are presented on pages three, eight, and twenty three, respectively.
!
I didn't say it would cost us anything, only the repercussions if it did.
!
I did not say that economic policies were the sole indicator but I do find them to be bigger and more important than a military policy that will not affect efficiency (hopefully) in the long run.
!
And I never supported DADT precisely because joining the military earns my respect.
Edit: also Neph, dadudemon said you're worse than quan. Holy shit son.
Originally posted by Zampanó
yeah. my disclaimer before sharing the story on fb:I'm not in favor of guns. Period. I don't think they are beneficial to society. I am in favor of civil liberties. Those are pretty rad.
Yeah, civil liberties prevent tons of home evasions, robberies, and rapes every year.
For the lulz:
I don't intend to call you out (that would be impolite brah) or make this into a derailment, but clearly the idea of a society living only on ideals has no defense inside or out. If you think regulated self defense is somehow worse than being able to spout your civil liberties before they rape/rob/kill you, I can only assume you argue from a position of ignorance about personal danger.
Btw, the Yoda dominating Sidious animation made my night. Bravo!
Originally posted by Stealth MooseThe weird thing when it comes to people spouting off on what would make for the "ideal" society, like a gunless one, is that they tend to be thinking about only their own country or cultural hemisphere. A gunless, armyless, secret service-less, spyless etc. society would be great--so long as it was species-wide. And no aliens knew about it. You'd need a unified world for it, though.
I don't intend to call you out (that would be impolite brah) or make this into a derailment, but clearly the idea of a society living only on ideals has no defense inside or out. If you think regulated self defense is somehow worse than being able to spout your civil liberties before they rape/rob/kill you, I can only assume you argue from a position of ignorance about personal danger.
So whoever said the NWO was all bad?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The weird thing when it comes to people spouting off on what would make for the "ideal" society, like a gunless one, is that they tend to be thinking about only their own country or cultural hemisphere. A gunless, armyless, secret service-less, spyless etc. society would be great--so long as it was species-wide. And no aliens knew about it. You'd need a unified world for it, though.So whoever said the NWO was all bad?
Your recruitment is in an email.
Don't ask how we got the email.
Also: The chair is against the door. Charlie has a small house.
I don't intend to call you out (that would be impolite brah) or make this into a derailment, but clearly the idea of a society living only on ideals has no defense inside or out. If you think regulated self defense is somehow worse than being able to spout your civil liberties before they rape/rob/kill you, I can only assume you argue from a position of ignorance about personal danger.
Edit: It took 5 read throughs to understand why DS was calling me "brah" and talking about calling me out.
Originally posted by Lucius
The bottom pic doesn't apply to me as I was a random spawn in a JRPG that escaped into the real world because I wanted to be a real boy. When confronted by burglars I draw them into my pocket universe where we take turns kicking each other in the shins.
You mean you became French?