Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 175

Thread: First gay soldier to be fired, for being gay, under Obama's watch

  1. #151
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    Your rage is blinding you. Again. You seem to forget, different issue, different field.
    Same shit, different pile. Rights are rights. I know you don't buy it, but I'll believe Coretta Scott King over you any day.



    It doesn't matter WHAT YOU WANT. Your arrogance means zilch. Push it now and watch it get shot down. It is this type of mentality which is holding you back. The arrogant push forward, angry and disorganized, completely refusing to anticipate their opponents next move.
    Who said that? All i said is there is momentum now. If i had my way, i would run the various movements under one big fat military umbrella of precision. It would be lockstep, on message and organized so completely as to be unstoppable.

    However, since I'm not the emperor of the gays, i can only stand on the side and poke the slower, timid members with a stick.

    If Obama pushes this less than 6 months into his term, many of the moderates, and conservatives, who backed him, will turn tail and push the conservatives back into office in 2012.
    He doesn't have to. SOME FORWARD MOVEMENT WOULD BE NICE. There has been zilch. The tired "he has too much on his plate" argument has already been trotted out, and then totallty destroyed when he takes on other issues right after.. just not THESE ones. So that's a cop out.

    Let's see if they work to overturn DADT and DOMA. I would be willing to bet they would take steps to cement anti-gay law firmly into place.
    They've already tried and continue to try. That will NEVER Stop. That's not even an argument.

    This is the other side of the pond, not a World War, and no country is attacking the other. This is internal. Forget apples and oranges, this is apples and SUVs.
    It's amazing, like the country has never had internal social issues before.. suddenly THIS one is just too big and skurry to tackle.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #152
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    Right. It ain't settled yet, in fact it is still rising.. And these are economic things you cite, not 'social' things. The economy was booming during the fifties and sixties..but look what happened socially. Economic distress does not always equal social upheaval in a positive way-often times it is accompanied by a return to conservative values. I might argue that it would be the 'post-economic upheaval time' when social change may be the greatest, or the potential may be the greatest. I still just do not see it that way right now.

    I get where you are going with this though, and I really hope I am wrong and you are right.
    It shouldn't matter whether the upheaval is economic or social. The fact is the country is going through upheavals, and any group looking for civil rights would make a mistake to not seize the opportunity.

    I mean, look at the GOP. They keep trying to use the economic crisis to focus on social issues, for their own fucked up reasons, but they're still seizing the chance.

  3. #153
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    You think you do.

    Can it, Grim. When you resort to insults, it just proves you fight with emotions and your misguided arrogance is a heavy cloud affecting your vision.
    *sigh*

    look up: arguing on the internet, then laugh at the joke.


    The Axis powers had a similar, we are always right, arrogant mentality in WW2. Obviously effective.
    No, the axis had a superb war machine, superior technology, superior tactics and the element of surprise and an unprepared enemy, and won a number of easy victories. They conquered europe and asia quite easily.. what they DID not plan for was a protracted conflict. Had they struck even harder and faster we'd all be speaking german.

    If the gay rights movement follows your lead, they will slide backwards and not see any rights for the rest of the century.
    Wow, now you're psychic. Thanks, but that's an opinion not factual prediction.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #154
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Same shit, different pile. Rights are rights. I know you don't buy it, but I'll believe Coretta Scott King over you any day.
    She is entitled to her beliefs. I respect that. I personally wouldn't have stayed married to a philanderer, but she did. Obviously, our views conflict.


    Who said that? All i said is there is momentum now. If i had my way, i would run the various movements under one big fat military umbrella of precision. It would be lockstep, on message and organized so completely as to be unstoppable.

    However, since I'm not the emperor of the gays, i can only stand on the side and poke the slower, timid members with a stick.
    I am sure you would run the movement with a military precision. It would be a good fight, but do remember, you would have an opposition doing the same, but they are, dare I say it!, smarter and more experienced that even the Great Grim.

    He doesn't have to. SOME FORWARD MOVEMENT WOULD BE NICE. There has been zilch. The tired "he has too much on his plate" argument has already been trotted out, and then totallty destroyed when he takes on other issues right after.. just not THESE ones. So that's a cop out.
    Of course it is a cop out. It amazes me gays actually thought he would do something about this. What is amazing, and bordering on humorous, is that gays are in an uproar because the President, who proclaimed he did not support gay marriage, is not pushing through the legislation which would give them the rights they want, and deserve. How is this a shock? Do you expect him to work on this any time in the near future? Why?[/quote]


    They've already tried and continue to try. That will NEVER Stop. That's not even an argument.
    Neither side will stop. The winner will be the one who has the best tactics, not the one fighting for what's right and when you, and other like minded, can comprehend, accept, and counter that, you will see some progression.

    It's amazing, like the country has never had internal social issues before.. suddenly THIS one is just too big and skurry to tackle.
    Sure it has! Remember that little fist fight called the CIVIL WAR? Oh, that guy was shot in the theater, there were tensions and violence for over 100 years, then there was a Civil Rights Act.

    You did see the one hundred years, right?

    Don't stop fighting, just don't expect your demands to be met the next day.

    *rubs temples*

    It's like a child saying,"Are we there yet," as soon as we pull out the driveway, except the child will quiet down once the situation is explained.



  5. #155
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    It shouldn't matter whether the upheaval is economic or social. The fact is the country is going through upheavals, and any group looking for civil rights would make a mistake to not seize the opportunity.

    I mean, look at the GOP. They keep trying to use the economic crisis to focus on social issues, for their own fucked up reasons, but they're still seizing the chance.
    I disagree. And the Republicans ARE using it, because they realize that economic crises often accompany a return to conservative values. Even though they are largely responsible for the fucked up economy. Hopefully it is not working.

    I will grant you though, sometimes it is the right time. The thirties were accompanied by Prohibition, and the 'liberalness' of the twenties was replaced by a semblance of a return to conservative values..but look at the social change that occurred as well-and look at what the Federal governent was able to do. But again, how much of the change was really 'social' ..and how much was due to correcting the economy? I think Roosevelt pushed social change under the guise of economic change too, and got away with it.

    I am just not sure this is one of those times, and I still disagree that any time of economic upheaval is a ripe time for 'forward' social change-in fact it may be the opposite.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post

    ...However, since I'm not the emperor of the gays,...
    We all KNOW you long for this...

    At least you did not say, "Queen of the gays"
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  6. #156
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    1) Yes, I'm amazing.

    2) He's already stated aims of repealing a couple gay negative items, but so far has not even moved on them, or indicated he would and in both cases has retreated. So a case of say one thing, do another.

    3) I don't expect demands to be met the next day, but it isn't the next day, it's been how many decades? SOME forward movement would be nice on the part of Obama, something other than "yeah sure, we'll get to it maybe"
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #157
    Elite Member crumpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    If I was up your ass you'd know where I am!
    Posts
    7,751

    Default

    Ah no. There's a difference between an opinion and hate speech. Hate speech is generally baseless bigotry. It's purposeless, irrational and factless.

    The only difference is that you agree with one and not the other. Saying you think a group of people is stupid or ugly or whatever is fine in my book, even if it is hurtful. Speech need not be uplifting and appealing to all in order to be valid. It doesn't matter if I like what is being said or not. Who ,exactly, is going to be the gatekeeper of the thought police? I do not believe that people are above criticizing just because their beliefs are religious based. I don't have to give you carte blanche just because your sexism or whatever is based on what you think your bible says. I'll fight back with my own words. But, you still have the right to believe and say whatever you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    Also, Grimm is not trying to stop the rights of bigots to be bigots, he is just trying to stop them from imposing their will onto others, and restricting other's rights. He is not opposing their views, he is opposing more their imposing their views upon others, violating their rights. He does not give a shit what people think about gays really, as long as it is self-regarding and those people are not trying to deny gays civil rights.

    He is not against them, he could probably care less(er..or maybe he just hates them too..whatever). He is against their having the ability to use their beliefs to restrict, or impinge upon, the civil rights and freedoms of others.

    Grimm is not trying to 'take away' or 'restrict' the rights of Christians, or anything. It is about fairness and equality through actions they take that he is concerned with, and he has always said this.

    And I am the same way. I could care less what you think..what you DO with what you think, in ways that could take away my freedoms and rights, DOES concern me.
    Actually, he has said that he does oppose their right to say things that are offensive. From page 8 or 9 of this thread:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by crumpet
    That it does, but the conservative grasp of free speech is this: i can say what i want, but if you disagree then you're infringing on my free speech rights.

    Grimm, I honestly think both sides have that biased view of free speech. People on the left are the first to say people should be 'fired' for spouting 'hate speech' whenever someone merely expresses a negative or unpopular opinion about a group of people.


    He replied:
    Ah no. There's a difference between an opinion and hate speech. Hate speech is generally baseless bigotry. It's purposeless, irrational and factless.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    That (saying hateful things, expressing thoughts that hurt peoples' feelings) is not the same thing as violating someone's rights. You can not believe in abortion, think it is immoral and murder, yet still not try to legally take away a woman's right to have one. Saying mean things isn't the same as taking away peoples' civil rights, because you don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt because other people don't like or apporove of you for whatever reason.
    Last edited by Tati; May 16th, 2009 at 03:50 PM.
    Only the good die young.........................
    bitches like me live forever!!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. #158
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I disagree. And the Republicans ARE using it, because they realize that economic crises often accompany a return to conservative values. Even though they are largely responsible for the fucked up economy. Hopefully it is not working.

    I will grant you though, sometimes it is the right time. The thirties were accompanied by Prohibition, and the 'liberalness' of the twenties was replaced by a semblance of a return to conservative values..but look at the social change that occurred as well-and look at what the Federal governent was able to do. But again, how much of the change was really 'social' ..and how much was due to correcting the economy? I think Roosevelt pushed social change under the guise of economic change too, and got away with it.

    I am just not sure this is one of those times, and I still disagree that any time of economic upheaval is a ripe time for 'forward' social change-in fact it may be the opposite.
    There's never going to be a perfect time to push through social change. In the struggle for civil rights the ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulder of the group seeking those rights.

    With both the civil rights movement and the feminist movement it wasn't about waiting for the right time for society to be primed for change, it was just blacks and women tired of not having equal treatment and taking the steps to get those civil rights.

    So, if gays are waiting for the right time or the right president to come along to fight for civil rights then gays will only have themselves to blame when they don't get those rights.

  9. #159
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crumpet View Post
    Ah no. There's a difference between an opinion and hate speech. Hate speech is generally baseless bigotry. It's purposeless, irrational and factless.

    The only difference is that you agree with one and not the other. Saying you think a group of people is stupid or ugly or whatever is fine in my book, even if it is hurtful.
    That's not hate speech.

    Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade[citation needed] a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

    More specifically, as it is up here:

    In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[12] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #160
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crumpet View Post
    Actually, he has said that he does oppose their right to say things that are offensive. From page 8 or 9 of this thread:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by crumpet
    That it does, but the conservative grasp of free speech is this: i can say what i want, but if you disagree then you're infringing on my free speech rights.

    Grimm, I honestly think both sides have that biased view of free speech. People on the left are the first to say people should be 'fired' for spouting 'hate speech' whenever someone merely expresses a negative or unpopular opinion about a group of people.


    He replied:
    Ah no. There's a difference between an opinion and hate speech. Hate speech is generally baseless bigotry. It's purposeless, irrational and factless.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    That (saying hateful things, expressing thoughts that hurt peoples' feelings) is not the same thing as violating someone's rights. You can not believe in abortion, think it is immoral and murder, yet still not try to legally take away a woman's right to have one. Saying mean things isn't the same as taking away peoples' civil rights, because you don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt because other people don't like or apporove of you for whatever reason.
    Well there is a difference also in nations here..there are hate speech laws in Canada that do not apply here..but I think in essence I summed up what he really means, though he might cross over a bit from time to time. And I think his agreement sums up what he really means as well-although it is a good question. I am opposed to hate-speech laws in the US. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech-even for shitholes like Fred Phelps.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    There's never going to be a perfect time to push through social change. In the struggle for civil rights the ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulder of the group seeking those rights.

    With both the civil rights movement and the feminist movement it wasn't about waiting for the right time for society to be primed for change, it was just blacks and women tired of not having equal treatment and taking the steps to get those civil rights.

    So, if gays are waiting for the right time or the right president to come along to fight for civil rights then gays will only have themselves to blame when they don't get those rights.
    I never said there was a perfect time. There are times that are better than others though. I guess with your argument then that nobody should have helped in the Feminist movement but women, or in the Civil Rights movement but blacks? Really? Fighting for Civil Rights for any group is totally dependent on what that group is doing? So what are the 'unborn' doing for their right to life? I guess if nothing then nobody can be against abortion? C'mon. You really believe that? People only deserve the rights that they are willing to fight for? What about the mentally challenged, I work with them everyday. Did they initiate the fight for their rights? I am actually saddened by your comment. I also call bullshit on the bolded part. They took advantage of the climate of change. Including the end of colonialism across the World.

    Why wasn't Civil Rights legislation passed in the sixties, passed in the twenties then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    That's not hate speech.

    Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade[citation needed] a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability.

    More specifically, as it is up here:

    In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[12] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
    Yeah, we do not have that here, and I do not think it is a good idea for us either. But whatever.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  11. #161
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    A cultural difference. I view people as mostly stupid, peurile sheep who do dumb things to each other.

    Sometimes cracking the whip keeps them in line and reduces their views enough that they peter out.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #162
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    *time to leave the thread for awhile as I am getting pissed off.* Be back later!


    *Why can't Canada coax, trick, or otherwise let Phelps in so it can then dispose of him according to it's laws? Damn.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  13. #163
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I never said there was a perfect time. There are times that are better than others though. I guess with your argument then that nobody should have helped in the Feminist movement but women, or in the Civil Rights movement but blacks? Really? Fighting for Civil Rights for any group is totally dependent on what that group is doing? So what are the 'unborn' doing for their right to life? I guess if nothing then nobody can be against abortion? C'mon. You really believe that? People only deserve the rights that they are willing to fight for? What about the mentally challenged, I work with them everyday. Did they initiate the fight for their rights? I am actually saddened by your comment. I also call bullshit on the bolded part. They took advantage of the climate of change. Including the end of colonialism across the World.

    Why wasn't Civil Rights legislation passed in the sixties, passed in the twenties then?
    I get where you coming from, but the fact is timing can't be a major factor when battling for civil rights. And even though we're in the midst of a major economic recession there are states that moving forward with legalizing same-sex marriage or heading in that direction. So, that defeats the argument that now isn't the right time to push through social change.

    And my argument had NOTHING to do with the fact that no one should have helped with blacks or women. I don't know where you got that from. My point was that the ultimate responsibility for getting those civil rights fell on blacks and women, because they were the ones in need of those rights. If blacks and women didn't fight for those rights then they wouldn't have them. The same goes for gays. Because the people in power will never make change unless they are pushed to do so by the people that desire that change.

  14. #164
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I get where you coming from, but the fact is timing can't be a major factor when battling for civil rights. And even though we're in the midst of a major economic recession there are states that moving forward with legalizing same-sex marriage or heading in that direction. So, that defeats the argument that now isn't the right time to push through social change.

    And my argument had NOTHING to do with the fact that no one should have helped with blacks or women. I don't know where you got that from. My point was that the ultimate responsibility for getting those civil rights fell on blacks and women, because they were the ones in need of those rights. If blacks and women didn't fight for those rights then they wouldn't have them. The same goes for gays. Because the people in power will never make change unless they are pushed to do so by the people that desire that change.

    yeah..ok I get where you are coming from..kinda..

    I hate to admit this, but ..will catch hell for this...it does irritate me a bit (God help me for being honest) ..to debate gays rights with a straight black man..just cause I have this sense that straight black people(in part because of black churches) are some of the most anti-gay people in the nation, and especially how black male culture is very insensitive to gays. I know this is a vast generalization, and not specific to you, but I am just being honest, that I have this 'sense' and it is prejudicing me against you in these arguments. I apologize for it, but I have to acknowledge it once I realized it. Sucks to be human, huh? And I guess it goes along with the thread, since our President is a straight black man, who I want to support very much.

    I hate it when I see prejudice in myself. Am I the only one?

    *also as an aside, You can NEVER use the 'an internet argument is like the special olympics-even if you win you are still retarded."

    I have been to four of these events in the last month, and most of the winners at the Special Olympics(that I went to) are NOT RETARDED. Hell some on the teams I go with are only in the 'program' because they are athletes and may have a 'touch of' ADHD..or have had some 'behavioral problems' or such..they are recruited by the coaches to go to the 'special school' so they can participate, and the coaches team may win. Hell our volleyball team is going to the national Championships, and HALF the team is staff/coaches, and NONE of the main players is retarded!-they work, drive, and do not look/act/talk differently than anyone-Hell one drives a fancy sports car.

    You can( and often DO) win the special olympics, and are NOT retarded! trust me. It is all corrupted!

    It really sucks to see the 'really' retarded people compete, and get their asses kicked by athletes who are not retarded and should be in regular public schools(with maybe a little extra help) on regular high school teams!

    *goes off and prepares to be ostracized..
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  15. #165
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    um.. why are non retards competing against retards. Isn't that against the rules of retarded competition?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 06:30 PM
  2. US soldier in fight to take home war zone dog
    By Honey in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 14th, 2008, 07:52 PM
  3. Soldier survives knife to the head
    By Moongirl in forum News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 06:00 PM
  4. U.S. Soldier Goes AWOL Again
    By Laurent in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2006, 11:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •