Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Today in Military News

There is no possibility that Democrats will ever do anything that is not sandpoundingly stupid. Most people know this already. Let's check in on a recruiting Q & A from this point forward, shall we?

Just so you are well aware, Mr. Potential Recruit, the Democrats have gotten rid of the Democrats' Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so now I am obligated to ask the following questions...

Have you ever had intercourse with a person of your own sex?

How many times have you had intercourse with a person of your own sex?

Under what conditions did you have intercourse with a member of your own sex?

Yes, I am well aware that those answers are none of my business, however, the Democrats have forced me to ASK now. You TELL now.

If, in the future, you are tempted to vote for a Democrat for any office, remember, the reason Democrats run for office in the first place is because they are too stupid to perform any beneficial tasks or actions required in everyday life.

Please take the time to comment.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

You do realize Spartans were "gay" too right?

Why do you assume "homosexuality" and military don't mix.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

I assume that there is ZERO PLACE for sex talk at work. Of course, twenty years ago, the Democrats thought the same thing. Now, fuck that, we gotta know who you are screwing.

Merry Christmas, Hater.

Anonymous said...

The whole point of the repeal is that it doesn't ever have to be talked about, because there is no point to talking about it.

Welcome to the 4th century...err..21st century. Why bring up things that don't matter?

No body forced this guy to ask, his ignorance of history and human relations had him bring it up. The questions are so unsophisticated, dealing in double digit IQ territory here.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Bill Clinton pushed through DADT because the Democrats wanted to make sexual preference an issue in the military, now that it is, they have to ramp up efforts to make it even more important.

Roderick, this whole issue is Democrats getting involved where they do not belong, but then again, if they did not do that, there would be no need for Democrats at all.

Anonymous said...

But isn't that the point of gov't. How else to you know it is there unless it sticks it nose where it doesn't belong? Not enough low income housing in the community, not enough ramps for the disabled, disparate impact of specific communities (disparate impact is not the same as discrimination), etc...

Can't see how to avoid this, the gov't likes to make itself felt. Never heard or seen a gov't try and make itself unobtrusive.

Don't forget we got the Patriot act from the Republican President and Republican Senate and House of Reps. Barry Goldwater would not have put that into place.

I understand what your saying but I can't see how to avoid the underlying issue of gov't wanting to make itself felt.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

But, when the left continually moves the bar to try to undo the very things that it had to have just 20 years ago, can't we begin to push back against the "Progressive" stupidity?

Or, do we simply fold and let them turn our military, the only Constitutional element that they are REALLY supposed to provide, into some kind of social testing ground where everyone will have to introduce themselves thusly, "Hi, I am Paul and I have never had sex with a man."?

Boogie said...

The "military as a testing ground for social engineering" thing is what really bugs me. When I read stories that say they haven't even really determined what sort of effect this will have on combat readiness, I know that it's all a political game, and I DESPISE that when it come to the military. Look, I love me some politics, but not at the expense of the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

marc in calgary said...

There are some who think the demise of DADT leaves the back door open (sorry) to legalized marriage for all once the gay population signs on for military subsidized on base housing. As Boogie said, the military isn't the place to experiment with the Democrat's social engineering. With that in mind, it's Freedom their fucking with.

On the other hand, it'd be sweet to see the gay brigade bring it on with Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Boogie said...

On the bright side, think of the psychological warfare we can use with openly gay service members! Quick, somebody dream up a leaflet we can drop on Taliban infested areas explaining how captured insurgents will be mercilessly butt-buggered by the newly uninhibited American troops.

Wait...didn't I read a story recently about American troops being disgusted by the man-boy pedophilia culture in Islamic cultures, which is so deeply ingrained that Muslim men are beating their wives because they don't produce children, mostly due to the fact that they don't understand the, ahem, "mechanics of copulation" due to their "mentorship" by older Muslim men?

So maybe they're looking forward to this new era in the American military.

paul mitchell said...

When it comes down to what you do in private, I just don't care as long as you are not doing it without the consent of your adult partner. As I have often said, I wish every dude on Earth was homosexual except for me. I am fine with that.

BUT! When you start getting all sexual, even heterosexual, at work, especially when you start getting all sexual at work when your job is to kill people and break stuff, I kinda want you to stop it.

Exception: Your job is a sex worker or stripper. Get as sexual as you want, because that IS YOUR JOB.

Anonymous said...

Boogie,

That man-boy thing is an offshoot of the Afghanistan Pashtun culture, due to the fact the sexes are extremely segregated. Which brings up the point that homosexuality doesn't exist....ie...men make do when no women are available...think about what happens inside US prisons yet those guys aren't "gay" right?

Since the sexes are not segregated in the US, this will never happen outside of the US prison colonies.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Roderick, dude does a dude? Gay. Sorry, that is the definition.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

The point is if women were readily available to the prison population, then there wouldn't be dudes doing dudes...see the point.

How can you be "gay" if given the choice you would do the opposite sex??

The act maybe "gay" but the person doing it may not be. (that is not as confusing as it sounds)

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Nope, Roderick, you are wrong. If you solve pi to the millionth place, that makes you a mathematician. If you drive a truck for a living, that makes you a truck driver. If you play tennis, you are a tennis player. If you collect stamps, that makes you a philatelist. You get the point.

Anonymous said...

Now I see our disconnect.

Paul world is black/white (either you are or your not) and mine is shades of grey (you could be in this situation but not in a different situation)...atleast on this issue.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Absolutely, Roderick. I used to think like you do, but then I came to the conclusion that there are no shades of gray. That was just my inability to distinguish between right and wrong. That indecision went away with age and experience for me.

Boogie said...

What'd Gene Simmons say once? "There's straights and gays...huh, what about bisexual? Doesn't exist. Gay."

Roderick, your thing about homosexuality not existing...um, have you taken a look around lately, dude? I haven't seen any sort of segregation of the sexes in the US, nor really any shortage of women, but there are still gay guys. If homosexuality doesn't exist, explain those gay guys.

And, as far as I can tell, if you're a man that has sex with other men, that's pretty freakin' gay.

Anonymous said...

Boogie,

It is just humans having sex with other humans, why would the sex of your partner be more important than hair color, eye color, skin color...we only have labels for same sex sex. Why does it matter??

When I say not existing I am referring to why not hair color (what is the name of a person that only has sex with dark hair people??), or any other human characteristic to make an identity for someone in regards to their sexual preferences.

I am speaking purely scientifically of course, think of yourself as an alien to this planet. Would "gay" be a scientific category when observing human behavior? I would think things like bestiality would be a legitimate category of human sexual behavior.....ie...who cares about categorizing human sex, it is superfluous...unnecessary...and most importantly irrelevant. Humans having sex with other humans, ok now what...I know let's categorize every aspect of it (is this a wise use of time and effort? Really??).

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Roderick, what the Hell? You MUST categorize sex between humans, otherwise screwing a baby or a severely retarded person would be acceptable. See this is the problem with gray areas.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Your mixing up the rule of law/contemporary socially acceptable behavior and relations between humans (with those that can't legally consent to such behavior).

In law yes everything is categorized/specified (to protect the defenseless like babies and the handicapped)...remember some states still have anti-sodomy laws, how come those laws aren't in force???

Law is not a grey area (not supposed to be anyway), a rule is set and it is enforced by sanctioned officials acting on behalf of the state.

By the way I am talking about identity, why does "gay" sex give someone an identity but other sex between consenting "adults" (that definition could change in the future) does not??? That is what I am talking about, which is why "gay" people don't exist, no more than the non-existant names for other kind of sexual preferred behavior between two consenting "adults." "Gay" people don't exist because "gay" is a superfluous and pointless marker, since being "gay" is not illegal to have such a marker/identity for sexual preference is irrelevant. Even if being "gay" was illegal, how do you enforce that...in a socially acceptable way??

Seriously, who the hell identifies themselves based on which kind of consenting adult they want to have sex with: Hello my name is X, and I like to have oral sex with red-haired women...what is your name?

Categorizing human sex outside the rule of law is pure idiocy.

Roderick

Anonymous said...

By rule of law I am taking bout protecting the defenseless. Not the current uniform code of military justice, which is not there to protect the defenseless but to enforce standards of conduct that don't disrupt or interfere with the command structure in the military.

Some kinds of adultery are illegal in the military, could damage the command structure if an officer had sex with a subordinate's wife. "Gay" sex by itself doesn't disrupt the military command structure.

Do you want to make adultery illegal in the civilian population?

Roderick

Anonymous said...

Sorry my previous comment didn't post.

I talked about your confusing the rule of law (there to protect the defenseless) and relations between humans (those able to consent.)

Yes for the rule of law categorization is important, but I am talking about identity based on sexual preference.

Identifying yourself as "gay" is pointless and irrelevant. It i not a legitimate categorization because it serves not purpose. How come "gay" is a marker but other kinds of preferred sex with a consenting adult is not??

Outside the rule of law, categorizing sex is pointless/irelevant as a marker/identity.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Here's a really good example of why I do not trust government or elected officials to take care of anything, Roderick. Currently, in the Republican Party, they are having elections to choose their leadership. Back in the 1910s, they put in place a rule that co-leaders will be a male and a female. Republicans did this even before women had the right to vote. The reason they did this is to give women the voice in politics that the Republicans believed they should have.

Today, there are no men running for those positions other than Michael Steele, so Steele will win unless another man runs. See?

What it boils down to is that our country was set up to acknowledge the natural law that God put in place. Man has no say over natural law, ALLEGEDLY.

When our government FORCES people to state their sexual preferences, which now they are FORCED to do, it goes against the liberty that our Constitution reaffirms.

Simply put, Democrats got into the debate that did not exist by passing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, the Democrats are again forced to change THEIR laws because Democrat-made law (or policy) is by definition, STUPID.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Your mixing up the rule of law/contemporary socially acceptable behavior and relations between humans (with those that can't legally consent to such behavior).

In law yes everything is categorized/specified (to protect the defenseless like babies and the handicapped)...remember some states still have anti-sodomy laws, how come those laws aren't in force???

Law is not a grey area (not supposed to be anyway), a rule is set and it is enforced by sanctioned officials acting on behalf of the state.

By the way I am talking about identity, why does "gay" sex give someone an identity but other sex between consenting "adults" (that definition could change in the future) does not??? That is what I am talking about, which is why "gay" people don't exist, no more than the non-existant names for other kind of sexual preferred behavior between two consenting "adults." "Gay" people don't exist because "gay" is a superfluous and pointless marker, since being "gay" is not illegal to have such a marker/identity for sexual preference is irrelevant. Even if being "gay" was illegal, how do you enforce that...in a socially acceptable way??

Seriously, who the hell identifies themselves based on which kind of consenting adult they want to have sex with: Hello my name is X, and I like to have oral sex with red-haired women...what is your name?

Categorizing human sex outside the rule of law is pure idiocy.

Roderick

paul mitchell said...

Roderick, what the Hell? You MUST categorize sex between humans, otherwise screwing a baby or a severely retarded person would be acceptable. See this is the problem with gray areas.

Post a Comment