June 8th 09, 12:35 PM
On Jun 8, 1:09*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:47*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:25*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 7:29*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 8:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > Sacky stupidized:
>
> > > > > > > If Obama addresses "don't ask, don't tell" I'll bet you $5 that either
> > > > > > > 2pid or Clyde will trot out "unit cohesion" as a 'reason' to keep gays
> > > > > > > from openly serving in the military.
>
> > > > > > I answered this months ago.
> > > > > > Its up to the military authorities to asses the situation.
>
> > > > > This kind of moronic posturing is one reason for my earlier assertion:
> > > > > "Unlike you, he doesn't make dogmatic assertions, he doesn't exhibit
> > > > > mindless prejudices and irrational biases".
>
> > > > there is no dogma, mindless prejudice and irrational bias.
>
> > > > and you clipped the part of my response that further proved that.
>
> > > LOL!
>
> > > "but I want an optimized fighting force.
> > > If the two goals are not in conflict, that's great."
>
> > > You have some irrational bias that there's a possibility the two goals
> > > *might* be in conflict.
>
> > It is a rational conclusion that it possibility might exist.
>
> > > As one who has served with NATO forces that *do* allow gays to openly
> > > serve I can say with certainty that your mindless prejudice and
> > > irrational biases are just that.
>
> > that's your opinion.
>
> Mine is based on experience. Let's see some rational explanation for
> yours. LOL!
>
> > to you, another other view that does not squarely
> > fit your beliefs you define as a mindless prejudice
> > and an irrational buias.
>
> No, what strikes me as "mindless prejudice" and "irrational biases"
> are, in fact, "mindless prejudice" and "irrational biases". LOL!
>
> > Your persistence in doing so in itseld is
> > a mindless prejudice and an irrational bias on your part.
>
> BZZZZZT! What I am doing is combatting "mindless prejudice" and
> "irrational biases".
>
> Your belief that the military allowing gays to openly serve might be
> detrimental is based on... Hm. Nothing? LOL!
>
> If you can explain how this is different from gays openly serving I'll
> even agree with you:
>
> On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981,
> establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and
> Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive
> Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial
> discrimination in federal employment.
>
> Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the
> Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-
> black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put
> the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing
> movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s
> African-American citizens.
>
> http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/welcome.html
>
> If the integration of the armed services now seems to have been
> inevitable in a democratic society, it nevertheless faced opposition
> that had to be overcome and problems that had to be solved through the
> combined efforts of political and civil rights leaders and civil and
> military officials.
>
> http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-fm.htm
>
> Dart revealed that the Black Airmen felt as much pressure from
> themselves as they did from the enemy. They had been regarded as “too
> dumb” to be fighter pilots, despite previous achievements made by
> Black Aviators.
>
> http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/articles/blacksMilitary/BlacksMi...
>
> This is no different, Clyde. I'll bet if you had been around back then
> you'd have said "I have no problem with the military integrating as
> long as it doesn't detract from readiness".
>
> LMAO!
And if I were around back then, I would be
taking pictures with my digital camera
> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:47*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:25*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 7:29*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 8:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > Sacky stupidized:
>
> > > > > > > If Obama addresses "don't ask, don't tell" I'll bet you $5 that either
> > > > > > > 2pid or Clyde will trot out "unit cohesion" as a 'reason' to keep gays
> > > > > > > from openly serving in the military.
>
> > > > > > I answered this months ago.
> > > > > > Its up to the military authorities to asses the situation.
>
> > > > > This kind of moronic posturing is one reason for my earlier assertion:
> > > > > "Unlike you, he doesn't make dogmatic assertions, he doesn't exhibit
> > > > > mindless prejudices and irrational biases".
>
> > > > there is no dogma, mindless prejudice and irrational bias.
>
> > > > and you clipped the part of my response that further proved that.
>
> > > LOL!
>
> > > "but I want an optimized fighting force.
> > > If the two goals are not in conflict, that's great."
>
> > > You have some irrational bias that there's a possibility the two goals
> > > *might* be in conflict.
>
> > It is a rational conclusion that it possibility might exist.
>
> > > As one who has served with NATO forces that *do* allow gays to openly
> > > serve I can say with certainty that your mindless prejudice and
> > > irrational biases are just that.
>
> > that's your opinion.
>
> Mine is based on experience. Let's see some rational explanation for
> yours. LOL!
>
> > to you, another other view that does not squarely
> > fit your beliefs you define as a mindless prejudice
> > and an irrational buias.
>
> No, what strikes me as "mindless prejudice" and "irrational biases"
> are, in fact, "mindless prejudice" and "irrational biases". LOL!
>
> > Your persistence in doing so in itseld is
> > a mindless prejudice and an irrational bias on your part.
>
> BZZZZZT! What I am doing is combatting "mindless prejudice" and
> "irrational biases".
>
> Your belief that the military allowing gays to openly serve might be
> detrimental is based on... Hm. Nothing? LOL!
>
> If you can explain how this is different from gays openly serving I'll
> even agree with you:
>
> On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981,
> establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and
> Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive
> Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial
> discrimination in federal employment.
>
> Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the
> Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-
> black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put
> the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing
> movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s
> African-American citizens.
>
> http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/welcome.html
>
> If the integration of the armed services now seems to have been
> inevitable in a democratic society, it nevertheless faced opposition
> that had to be overcome and problems that had to be solved through the
> combined efforts of political and civil rights leaders and civil and
> military officials.
>
> http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-fm.htm
>
> Dart revealed that the Black Airmen felt as much pressure from
> themselves as they did from the enemy. They had been regarded as “too
> dumb” to be fighter pilots, despite previous achievements made by
> Black Aviators.
>
> http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/articles/blacksMilitary/BlacksMi...
>
> This is no different, Clyde. I'll bet if you had been around back then
> you'd have said "I have no problem with the military integrating as
> long as it doesn't detract from readiness".
>
> LMAO!
And if I were around back then, I would be
taking pictures with my digital camera