Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

chfaunce wrote: Tweaker, I may make for an inefficient listener, but you make a crap argument. And, really man, let go of the "OMG, everyone thinks I hate gays" thing. We've already discounted that misconception. Heck, I even put it in black and white. Drivel? Looks like you've mastered that, my friend.

Everyone? No mam, just you and cowgirl. You even went so far as to speculate I would have no problem with gay bashing violence.

You clearly want to play virtual gamesmanship, which is a compleat waste of my time. Buh bye

CowboyT wrote:

Tweaker wrote: We are not going to make it as easy as you and Cowboy may wish, and say we have hatred for sodomites, nor will we allow you to try to portray us as believing same. Simply because it is not so.

You already are, bro. I don't have to do anything. Your own words are making you look like that.

Well, go ahead and share with the group what hatefulness I have professed, o arbiter of all that is moral. It should be easy with the quote function.

Tweaker wrote: Well, go ahead and share with the group what hatefulness I have professed, o arbiter of all that is moral. It should be easy with the quote function.

Oooh...lessee here..."mam"..."cowgirl"..."sodomites"...dude, you're a riot! And by the way, I'm far, far from being cute enough to be a "cowgirl"...snookums. Gimme a kiss anyway though, willya?

Me thinks your sensitivity calibration is quite off.

Sodomite is a legitimate term. That you don't prefer it doesn't make it illegitimate. How do you feel about the terms "black hole" or "niggling?" I imagine you would get your crotchless panties in a bunch over those as well. Other liberals already have, so you are on safe ground there.

The gender teasing is just that, and about a country mile from hate speech.

I have seen the techniques both you and Chauncey have employed many a time.
-Fail to address or even acknowledge the opposition's positions on merit.
-Attempt to delegitimize the speaker so they run and hide and serve as an example to the others.
-Put on an "Enlightenment-Off" in which you attempt to demonstrate your superiority which stems from your "tolerance," "openness," and "diversity." This fails when you are challenged with ideas that do not jibe with your own.

All standards of the liberal playbook, and quite unimpressive. You and Chauncey, the Couched Crusaders of VGOF may play out your knights in shining armor schtick as you so enjoy. I'll continue to express myself, content in the knowledge that anyone can see how you wonder twins operate. Until then, I fart in your general direction.

Hey guys, I understand you are enjoying calling each other names and insulting each other, but haven't you lost sight of what this discussion is/ was about. Now that the Don't ask Don't tell policy, a legacy from a President Bill Clinton executive order, was declared unconstitutional, does it revert to the policy in place before that? For those that don't know/ remember, during the physical portion of inprocessing at the Military Entrance Processing Station, they asked you a series of questions about substance abuse, suicidal/ homicidal thoughts and sexual thoughts...

As far as whether someone staring at your privates/ sharing public showers will bother you. Haven't we all done that already in the showers after P.E. in High School? A lot of people weren't comfortable then. I am more worried about the fraternization aspect of the whole issue, and how it would place people at risk during wartime. Some people say that we already have that controlled. That is B.S. in the not to distant past there were Generals who were retired for improper conduct and it cost some promotions and shortened one man's tour as the Sergeant Major of the Army (the Army's senior enlisted soldier).

Tweaker wrote:Me thinks your sensitivity calibration is quite off.

Sodomite is a legitimate term.

So is bigot.

Tweaker wrote: You and Chauncey, the Couched Crusaders of VGOF may play out your knights in shining armor schtick as you so enjoy. I'll continue to express myself, content in the knowledge that anyone can see how you wonder twins operate.

Wow...Couched Crusaders...Hey, "Chauncey", we're the Couched Crusaders!

Tweaker wrote: Until then, I fart in your general direction.

Awww...Shnookums...that's just so unlike you, at least that's what you told me last night. Now, now, don't deny it, I know you still love me.

OK, back on a serious note, that's an excellent question. What happens now--do we revert to the previous policy? My guess is that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, will order that gays can serve openly without fear of reprisal. Let's see what happens.

@Cowboy / Tweaker - ok guys...we love ya both...at ease. And please, whichever direction you fart in - please do so in private...

Heh heh, it's all in good fun.

CowboyT wrote:Heh heh, it's all in good fun.

Indeed...but please dont fire off one of those magnum loads when Tweaker passes gas in your direction...with all that home brew and bacon he imbibes the results could prove disastrous...

It comes down to a leadership issue. There are still people that don't think black and female Americans should be in the work place. A strong leader will ensure people focus on the task and goals.

I have managed IT folks for a long time. A lot of them, frankly, are misogynist or socially inept around women. Bring a woman on to a team and without strong leadership the team devolves into acting like a bunch of apes. You've got the old Silverback who refuses to work with a "girl". You've got the others beating their chests and trying to show off.

It is up to the leadership to make this work if they get rid of the policy. It reminds me that the US military units were racially integrated (as little as they were) at the beginning and then segregated. Senior staff during WWII fought vociferously to exclude Asians and Blacks from fighting, and we know they performed just as well as white troops. When Truman ordered desegregation, everyone was sure it was the end of the military.

I am not commenting on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly – I have my beliefs on that and would be happy to discuss them in person. That said, I do believe if the order comes down, it is up to the leadership to make it work.

Well, Rick and I have something in common. We are both bigots according to Cowgirl. So much for tolerance of my diversity and the open sharing of my opinions. That doesn't seem like much fun for you.

I am ok with that. In the words of a recovered liberal:

"It is important to have enemies, because everything depends on the kind of enemies you have." - Norman Podhoretz

Mindflayer wrote:I have managed IT folks for a long time. A lot of them, frankly, are misogynist or socially inept around women. Bring a woman on to a team and without strong leadership the team devolves into acting like a bunch of apes. You've got the old Silverback who refuses to work with a "girl". You've got the others beating their chests and trying to show off.

That is funny. And very true.

Tweaker -

Perhaps if you'd prefer not to be called a bigot, try not acting like one. Just sayin'. And, for someone who's so adamant about 'victimhood', you sure do a fine job playing one. Derp.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that we're going to have to agree to disagree about DADT. That's cool. Interesting how you seem to think people with differing opinions are 'enemies'. That's a very unfortunate mindset.

I will say, though, that the irony in each of your posts is flippin' epic, bro.

Ok I am sorry about this but I just had to do it:



You know there always has to be one in the crowd

And oh by the way, this will put a whole new meaning to the Coed barracks. Will they now have to have a gay and lesbian barracks as well?

There is a lot of logistics to work out before this can get implemented!

Can you Just imagine Basic Training!

Nope, I am fine with your lashing out when you don't agree with others. I am simply pointing it out. I can't be your victim, because you cannot hurt me. Not with werds or otherwise.

Enemies
It is not unfortunate, but it is accurate. You both have continuously cast aspersions at people other than me, to include that we approve of violence. To you it is not possible to disagree without feeling that someone is something they are not, usually including disparaging the speaker with lame liberal epitaphs. The list grows; homophobe, bigot, hate speaker, violent gay basher, etc.

I leave you with another quote, and I continue to challenge you and your "partner" respond to my position: How does ending DADT enhance the ability of the .mil to complete their mission?

"It is not that Liberals aren't smart, it is just that so much of what they know isn't so." - Ronaldus Magnus

P.S. I think I see CowboyT in that video! Red shirt? (how appropriate)

Ahh, I think I know what this issue is now - might want to rethink your handle, Tweaker. Drugs are bad, mmmkay? I mean, that sh*t'll rot your brain, man.

How does ending DADT enhance the military? Probably the same way ending segregation enhanced the military. Heck, who says it's got anything to do with enhancing the military at all? That's quite an assumption! There'll be some people that don't like it, but in the end, they'll get over it and the military won't be any less because of it. The "sodomites" are already out there in uniform, you know. It's not like the question is "should we allow gays in the military", now is it?

Anyway, you sound like you're a little insecure and probably a little ghey, deep down, but I'll leave that between you and your therapist. We won't ask, and we don't expect you to tell. Okay, sister?

@Taggure: Just watched that video. Wow, that's the Wayback Machine, there! Though, given the subject of this thread, it does give a whole new meaning, doesn't it? LOL


@Chfaunce: Holy Insecurities, my fellow Couched Crusader, looks like we're tweakin' the Tweaker somethin' awful here, doesn't it? Guys like him are so much fun.


@Mindflayer: You've got a point. Regardless of the eventual policy, it's up to the leadership to make it work. If they don't, then that will definitely cause problems.

Good job. Two more unfounded aspersions and one false argument.

Being black is not a behavior.

Being a sodomite most definitely is.

Behavior would quite logically affect others, while one's genetic or racial status quite clearly does not. Try again. I wonder if at some point you will run out of lame accusations and have to repeat them. I am sure I will find out, because you wonder twins really get off on these attempts to bother people you disagree with.

Three pages and counting... time to post this one