US standing in the world is about to get better

Novolo said:
So your saying its ok for Obama to have his own version of the Gestapo... not saying they will do such things as the Gestapo, but giving one man his own little "private" police force is stupid man.... thats too much power
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone can take "He's lightening the domestic load of the Military and putting it on other agencies" as "He's making his own police force heil Obama
emot-tinfoil.gif
"

Fuck, you'd figure with the way our government likes to police the world in the first place, people wouldn't even care if the President had his own police force anyway. Hell, I'll gladly welcome this Team America World Police if they use the theme song from the very same movie the idea spawns from as their own little anthem.
 
Last edited:
I hate it when people misuse the term "fascist." Fascism is anti-Communist, anti-democracy, anti-individualist, and anti-capitalist. Fascism is also seen to be pro-expansionist, nationalistic, ultra-conservative, overtly racialistic, and pro-single party state. Nazi states (and to a lesser extent, traditional fascist states like fascist Italy) also believe in the economy being subjugated to the needs of the state in a true "war-machine" status.

While Bush's regime could be argued to be anti-individualist, nationalistic, and pro-expansionist, I think overt racialism, anti-capitalism, suppression of democracy, etc. are a bit harder to argue. People see any sort of movement to the right in politics and cry fascism without having any idea what the term really means.

For the record, I voted for Bush twice, then Obama this past time.
 
I never once said it would be like the Nazi regime.... Seriously you guys need to open your ears, look at history, how many countries with privatized police forces have actually used them for good....

On another subject if you want me to bring in 'Heil Obama'

Look up Fema Death Camp/ FEMA coffins... (its random/crazy) i don't know if its real or not. I'm not here to say if it is or isn't but it is strange


And in no way am i saying Obama has anything to do with this shit popping up out of no where, but any one have a clue to what that shit is? Hmm i Don't know but those Train Stations "re-vamped" look awfully familiar...

im not saying "OH shit, Nazi-America incoming".. I simply keep my mind open to certain shit, and i think about all the causes and effects... People get power hungry my friend. PEOPLE get VERY power hungry... Only Time will tell whats going to happen, I don't know what that shits for, i don't understand why we need to nationalize our police, and I deffintley don't understand how some one who comes from nothing can convince people that hes going to change the world and make us better.... oh wait that sounds awfully familiar too..

Like I said I have multiple thoughts on the situation, i don't think anything "hitler" like is going to spawn from him, i never said he was going to Create a police force to attack the country/silence people/or commit crimes against its own nation.

Speculate what you want on the subject. I frankly don't give a shit any more :|
 
Last edited:
Novolo said:
So your saying its ok for Obama to have his own version of the Gestapo... not saying they will do such things as the Gestapo, but giving one man his own little "private" police force is stupid man.... thats too much power
Click to expand...

Other people of lesser importance, in regards to political standing, have their own private policing personnel. The only difference between the two sides is one gets a name that is politically correct, while the other gets the lesser title, mercs. Don't kid yourself into thinkin' there aren't modern day mercs simply because you're a piece of the military pie, there are people, more fortunate than yourself imo, who make a livin' the same way as you do, probably a bit more extreme though, but not for the government.

Also, it's worth mentioning our country doesn't run off of one man. If anyone gains to much power they'd be deemed a liability. No one wants to be a liability especially in the instance we're talkin' about. The President, while he does have his power, does not ultimately run the show. He is also not above the law. If you think for a second public enforcers would allow the very thing they serve for to be destroyed by their own hands, you'd better be on meds for your conditions. He'd also have to battle the public. It's loose loose for the liability in this instance.

Furthermore, our military and aid organizations could use a bit of cleaning and re-structuring. We rely to heavily upon our military when we have the personnel to make sure everyone gets their fair share of rest and work. Overworking military personnel is not in the nations best interest but a big business men would do so to save money. It's time they got a better hold on weighing out workload a bit better for the nations defense/aid workers.

If you want to tug at Obama's incompetence for his position it's better spent in other areas, not this one.
 
I love it when conservatives -- here, the pundits, and the blogosphere -- run around like chickens with their heads cut off, screaming about how Obama is going to do this and do that to destroy our country and turn it into a police state, and seemingly ignore all the sick shit Bush was doing to the place. Making people disappear into secret prisons and holding them without trial is fine when it's part of the War on Terror™, but suddenly a liberal is in charge so we'd better restore checks and balances because that's too much power for one man to have. Ha!

Obama is cleaning up the mess and not making it worse. Just the past few days of a great deal of the Bush administration's bullshit has made me happy as a clam.

I'm also enjoying the faux-panic about the idea of these "terrorist supermen" being incarcerated in the United States, as though we weren't already holding plenty of them in our borders without any problems. Rush Limbaugh is creaming his shorts at the idea of them magically breaking out of Ft. Leavenworth, as if that's the sort of thing that happens every day.
 
Last edited:
Arianelle said:
I also like his stance on "Don't ask, don't tell" because it's archaic and I don't see how your admission of sexual orientation would affect your ability to serve your country or anyone else's.
Click to expand...


Have you ever served in the military? I dont know if its ready, it could cause alot of problems.

First is housing issue, how can you justify males not being able to live with females because of obvious reasons but say its ok for a gay to live with a straight guy? So lets say we do seperate them for obvious reasons, wouldnt that alienate them even further? So lets say that we let the female Soldiers live with the Gay soldiers, what would that problem cause? or maybe spend millions of dollars on new housing further putting our nation in debt just so some people can say "Oh hi I am gay" better that everyone just to be quiet imo
 
Sapper said:
First is housing issue, how can you justify males not being able to live with females because of obvious reasons but say its ok for a gay to live with a straight guy?
Click to expand...

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are already gay guys serving with straight guys in the military. They're already rooming together, showering together, and fighting together. The only thing that would be different is that a few more people would know about it. There are plenty of gay people serving who are open about their sexuality and nobody around them gives a shit.

If you wait for the military to be "ready," you may as well give up on the idea now. They'll squall and scream and complain about readiness, but then they'll get over it and learn to get along just like they did when they integrated. I have faith in their professionalism.
 
Sapper said:
how can you justify males not being able to live with females because of obvious reasons but say its ok for a gay to live with a straight guy?
Click to expand...

Maybe you unintentionally chose the wrong words, but if the obvious reasons for seperating males and females is because OMG THEYD BE HAVING SEX, why wouldn't it be okay for a gay soldier to bunk with a straight one? It's not like they'd be having sex, since they're both of different sexualities. It'd be no different than having a lesbian soldier bunk with a straight male soldier. Sure, theres the possibility of rape in any given scenario where two people are in the same room(regardless of gender/sexuality,) but thats a vastly more heinous act than two gay or two lesbian soldiers in the same barracks getting intimate at worst.

If soldiers are really terrified of being hit on by them, a gay guy coming on to you is just as easily dismissable as a woman you have no interest in, "Not interested." There are better things to prevent people from entering the military for, whether you like dongs or bajingos shouldn't be one of them.
 
Last edited:
Alberic said:
I hate it when people misuse the term "fascist."
Click to expand...

A lot of people do, but i am not one of them.

Fascism is anti-Communist, anti-democracy, anti-individualist, and anti-capitalist. Fascism is also seen to be pro-expansionist, nationalistic, ultra-conservative, overtly racialistic, and pro-single party state. Nazi states (and to a lesser extent, traditional fascist states like fascist Italy) also believe in the economy being subjugated to the needs of the state in a true "war-machine" status.

While Bush's regime could be argued to be anti-individualist, nationalistic, and pro-expansionist, I think overt racialism, anti-capitalism, suppression of democracy, etc. are a bit harder to argue. People see any sort of movement to the right in politics and cry fascism without having any idea what the term really means.
Click to expand...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

So you can tie parts of your definition (which is just as valid as mine) to his administration and I can tie most of the Merriam Webster definition to the administration as well. I would say that pretty much makes him more like a fascist than anything. Just like I said earlier.



For the record, I voted for Bush twice, then Obama this past time.
Click to expand...

Your vote doesn't really have much to do with the politics practiced by the previous administration. That really just raises more questions.
 
You guys don't understand "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so let me hook you up.

You can be gay and in the military. The stipulation that you agree to when you sign up is that you won't tell anyone and as a common courtesy no one will ask you or pressure you to tell them. Either party violating this act is subject for dismissal. The rule itself makes sense to an extent, but I've read the full article and lots of it is ridiculous and archaic but so are many laws in the US and articles in the UCMJ. If you are gay and in the military you cannot participate in gay sex, but that's not exclusive to gay people. There is an article that forbids anyone in the military from having anal or oral sex, gay or straight, across the board. That's not really fair to gays since that's pretty much their only two options, but then again - it can't be enforced. If you get caught with a dick in your mouth on the job, that's pretty much a good reason to fire you from any job, amirite? But no one is gonna be sitting in your bedroom watching you and hopefully any videos you make of your bedroom don't find their way to your chain of command.

It's not a very fair rule, but I do think it is a reasonable one. The reason? MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY Americans are homophobic. This comes in all kinds of varieties and flavors. Some people don't mind that people are gay, but they don't want to be touched by a gay man. Some people make cruel and insensitive jokes but will say "it's ok, I have gay friends. I'm not a homophobe."

Anyway, logistics comes into play. You can say, "We can allow gays in the military, but everyone uncomfortable with it, you're free to discharge." Goodbye ... large % of the military. The biggest problem isn't housing, though. It's influences of decisions on the battlefield. You are under fire. You're squad has several casualties. Do you pull out the gay man who may survive or the straight man who will probably die of blood loss? If you touch the gay man, does that make you gay? Will he try to kiss you? BOOM! YOUR DEAD. Took too long to consider it. These are the kinds of issues that go into the decision, and I'm making (slight) light of it, but it's a real issue whether you want to pretend it isn't or say it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be, but it is. Too bad.

I don't know what Obama's proposal or thoughts on the subject are, but I'm sure he's aware of these kinds of things and I have faith that it will be handled appropriately, but straight up making it so you can be openly gay is going to cause a lot of internal problems for many years and I don't think fighting a blanket war on "terror" and finishing what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good time to send these ripples through our troops.

It's true that there are a lot of openly gay people in the military and it's true that there are many straight people who have no issue with it. The problem arises when you encounter one (just one) person who does have a problem with it. If you are openly gay and it can be proven, you're gone. (I've seen it happen). If you aren't openly gay and it's hard to tell the question can be asked, "Well how did you know he was gay without asking?" If you ask, boom- you're gone. (I've seen that happen, too, but only once).

End brief on "Don't Ask; "Don't Tell"

Maybe Trippy can dig up the regs (which are often ridiculous, like "no hand holding") like he did that epic lobbyist gift thing. I'm too lazy to go find it, but I have a hard copy somewhere in the garage, cause I took a class on it.
 
You all are assuming that the military members will act like "adults" about this and everything will be hunky dorey. Now as most would act like "professionals" there are many that would not.

The point I am really trying to make is that if you think a wave of Obama's magic wand and openly let gays in is simple and there will be no issues with it at all, you are dead wrong. The growing pains on this will destroy quite a few lives and has a great potential for violence. Why roll the dice on a policy that is working just fine and still allows gays to serve.
 
Sapper said:
The point I am really trying to make is that if you think a wave of Obama's magic wand and openly let gays in is simple and there will be no issues with it at all, you are dead wrong. The growing pains on this will destroy quite a few lives and has a great potential for violence. Why roll the dice on a policy that is working just fine and still allows gays to serve.
Click to expand...

There was once a time when the Black man was a slave. He wasn't able to drink from our water fountains, use our restrooms, nor sit in the same bus section, among other things. One man said, "no more." Was there violence and protest? Of course, but do you really think we're no better for it to this day? Was it, ultimately, not worth it?

Don't try to say that the Gay people do not currently live in a situation akin to the Blacks of old. While it may not be as harsh, some may agree or disagree, that is not the point, they most certainly do.
 
Nobody is saying there won't be growing pains, but it'll never happen until someone finally says it's time to start learning how to get along. Attitudes have been steadily changing for years, and there are quite a few people serving now who think it's time. Other nations have handled it just fine. We can't keep acting like frightened children forever and let homophobia be its own excuse.

Besides that, it's unfair to keep asking gay people to lie. That goes against military codes of conduct as well. We don't ask straight soldiers to lie about who they are, and they'd balk if you asked them to.

There's no reason to keep gay people from serving openly in the military except that it makes homophobes uncomfortable. They'll learn to adapt or they'll leave. You may see an initial "brain drain" from the old guard who just refuse to get with the times, but they'll eventually be replaced.

On another note, I was also happy to see Obama lifted the "global gag rule," so family planning groups can obtain government funding and won't have to pretend abortion doesn't exist when someone comes in and asks about it.
 
Last edited:
I really don't get the problem with letting gays in the military.

Don't ask don't tell doesn't really do much as far as I can see anyway, it doesn't mean you have to disguise your sexual orientation, you just don't go out and yell to the skies that you're one of them dirty, filthy homosexuals

It's not exactly hard to figure out who's gay and who isn't, anyway.

Besides, the people who would go into the military and try to make their fellow soldier's lives a living hell by exploiting it (being gay) are assholes and don't deserve to be in the military at all.

At least, that's my opinion.
 
The video on this page pretty much sums up extremists opinions of either candidate winning:
http://www.webtvhub.com/obama-wins-...icans-mccain-wins-according-to-the-democrats/

I'm harshly critical of Obama. I don't like where he stands on most issues. His voting record is terrible. However, when listening to his weekly addresses, he occasionally says something that makes me smile. That's more than I can say for Bush. I'll wait and see for myself how this new president works out. One thing is for certain, though. He will try to expand the size and scope of government and that means less liberty.
 
Gays will never be equal until they can openly die for their country. That's how you get rights. If you can die like a heterosexual, you'll be able to marry like them, and all the other stuff. There should be no age restrictions higher than the age one can join the military. If you can die for your country you should be able to run for president. You should be able to drink alcohol. Everything. Death is permanent. I support making the military truly nondiscriminatory - that includes homosexuals and women. Equal risks for equal rights. And reciprocally, the day that homosexuals can openly serve in the military better be the same day they get full rights. Noone should be able to go to war who can't enjoy all the fruits of the nation.
 
Pompidou said:
And reciprocally, the day that homosexuals can openly serve in the military better be the same day they get full rights. Noone should be able to go to war who can't enjoy all the fruits of the nation.
Click to expand...

That'd be lovely, but I won't hold my breath about it all happening at once.
 
Halifirien said:
That'd be lovely, but I won't hold my breath about it all happening at once.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to have a little chat with all of my fellow libertarians. I'm trying to talk them into either gathering up all of the money they have and pumping it into purchasing a small country of our own or all of us moving to a small state and succeeding from the union. Either way, you're welcome to be gay there. You could even start your own gay military all ancient Greek style if you wanted to.

Or you could just vote for me when I run for congress, sir.
 
Really, so lets release all the Terrorists *sarcasm.

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/world/2009/01/23/robertson.saudi.freed.for.terror.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top