http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090329/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gays_military
QuoteDon't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."
The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.
The Pentagon policy was put in place after President Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban on gay service members in 1993.
The policy refers to the military practice of not asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members are banned from saying they are gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual activity or trying to marry a member of the same sex.
Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.
It's pretty shameful that gay people who want to work for their country are being turned back because of their personal lives and who they love.
And Tim, you should check the statistics of a number of high level army specialists (including Middle East experts, as well as Arabic language translators and interpreters etc.) who were discharged under the policy. If anything, the military needs these people now because it has so much on its plate.
If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.
Quote from: Siege on March 29, 2009, 12:10:10 PM
If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.
This is the best thing you've ever said. Even though you're a barbarian, you sometimes are able to show a crude sort of wisdom.
Quote from: Neil on March 29, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 29, 2009, 12:10:10 PM
If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.
This is the best thing you've ever said. Even though you're a barbarian, you sometimes are able to show a crude sort of wisdom.
Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.
Quote from: Siege on March 29, 2009, 12:15:31 PM
Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.
That was totally gay.
Quote from: PDH on March 29, 2009, 12:17:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 29, 2009, 12:15:31 PM
Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.
That was totally gay.
Did it turn you on?
Quote from: Siege on March 29, 2009, 12:15:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 29, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 29, 2009, 12:10:10 PM
If they really want to serve their country, they can begin by stopping being gay.
This is the best thing you've ever said. Even though you're a barbarian, you sometimes are able to show a crude sort of wisdom.
Thank you, Master.
Good things from you are getting rubbed into me.
Dude, if you want to say these BDSM gay porn lines, start a new thread and mark it NSFW.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2009, 11:58:26 AM
Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.
They don't need to change any laws. The POTUS just needs to issue an executive order that states that no one will be discharged for being discovered as a homosexual for the duration of the War on Terror, citing national security grounds.
I have always found it endlessly amusing that current US and DoD policy forces people to unwillingly continue to serve in the military under "stop loss" because national security requires this de facto draft, while it simultaneously forces people willing to serve out of the military because there seems to be no national security need for them.
Furthermore, people like Gates seem to lack the intelligence to realize the absurdity of the current mix of policies, or else they are pretending to see the Emperor's New Clothes for political reasons. In either case, they simply lose the respect of people intelligent enough to see that the emperor ihas no clothes.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2009, 11:58:26 AM
Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.
They don't need to change any laws. The POTUS just needs to issue an executive order that states that no one will be discharged for being discovered as a homosexual for the duration of the War on Terror, citing national security grounds.
I have always found it endlessly amusing that current US and DoD policy forces people to unwillingly continue to serve in the military under "stop loss" because national security requires this de facto draft, while it simultaneously forces people willing to serve out of the military because there seems to be no national security need for them.
Furthermore, people like Gates seem to lack the intelligence to realize the absurdity of the current mix of policies, or else they are pretending to see the Emperor's New Clothes for political reasons. In either case, they simply lose the respect of people intelligent enough to see that the emperor ihas no clothes.
Yeah. It's not like the government is facing a mutiny if they allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military, and it's not like this will materially affect the heterosexual military men and women's willingness to serve, considering that according to the opinion polls, the majority of them is for repelling the policy, and it's the old brass's resistance that is really the only issue.
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2009, 12:52:10 PM
Yeah. It's not like the government is facing a mutiny if they allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military, and it's not like this will materially affect the heterosexual military men and women's willingness to serve, considering that according to the opinion polls, the majority of them is for repelling the policy, and it's the old brass's resistance that is really the only issue.
Really? I have never heard of any such polls.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2009, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2009, 12:52:10 PM
Yeah. It's not like the government is facing a mutiny if they allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military, and it's not like this will materially affect the heterosexual military men and women's willingness to serve, considering that according to the opinion polls, the majority of them is for repelling the policy, and it's the old brass's resistance that is really the only issue.
Really? I have never heard of any such polls.
Well, I have been interested in this topic so that's what I have been reading. Have you actually been following this and just saw different polls, or simply you have never heard about such polls one way or another, irrespective of the results?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2009, 12:54:28 PM
Really? I have never heard of any such polls.
They exist, though I have not seen any that come out with the unambiguous results that Marti claims.
This 2006 http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf (http://www.zogby.com/CSSMM_Report-Final.pdf) Zogby poll, for instance, found that 37% opposed allowing gays/lesbians to serve openly, 25% supported, and 37% were neutral or unsure. Interestingly, when asked if having gays and lesbians serving openly would affect their own morale, and would affect unit morale, 38% said it would harm their own morale, while 58% said it would hamr the morale of the rest of the unit. This discrepancy can be explained by the result that 58% of the service members thought they were more tolerant of gays and lesbians than their fellow servicemen, while only 11% thought they were less tolerant.
Also interestingly, while about a quarter of the respondents said that they knew that members of their unit were gay or lesbian, and about half of those stated that the prsence of the gays or lesbians was well-known, only a bit more than a quarter of those who knew about the presence of gays or lesbians also thought that such presence harmed unit morale.
The hypothetical presence of gays and lesbians is thus seen as more potentially harmful than the actual presence was seen as actually hamrful!
It's like in the South: people don't mind their presence when they are slaves, but when they are freed they become a problem.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2009, 01:28:07 PM
The hypothetical presence of gays and lesbians is thus seen as more potentially harmful than the actual presence was seen as actually hamrful!
That does not surprise me at all.
Quote from: The Brain on March 29, 2009, 01:30:20 PM
It's like in the South: people don't mind their presence when they are slaves, but when they are freed they become a problem.
Indeed. I would love to see Zogby's researchers go back in time and conduct the same poll, replacing "gays and lesbians" with "negroes." I'd bet the predctions would be just as bad, if not worse.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2009, 11:58:26 AM
Not surprising, with Gates ramping up the war in Afghanistan and winding down the war in Iraq he doesn't have time for controversy. Nor does Obama who has the economy and health care reform to take care of.
They don't need to change any laws. The POTUS just needs to issue an executive order that states that no one will be discharged for being discovered as a homosexual for the duration of the War on Terror, citing national security grounds.
He didn't say anything about changing any laws; he merely stated that the administration has other priorities and doesn't want the controversy that would come from changing the policy.
A pity that it is seen as controversial at all :(
Of course, once it is permitted, then the rights lobby will stick it's oar in. So if some gay sergeant gets called the "dear old Queen" during standard military badinage with his peers then a huge fuss will be made.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2009, 02:12:16 PM
A pity that it is seen as controversial at all :(
Of course, once it is permitted, then the rights lobby will stick it's oar in. So if some gay sergeant gets called the "dear old Queen" during standard military badinage with his peers then a huge fuss will be made.
:D
I love how the British military actually sends their own floats to gay pride parades. And the Empire hasn't collapsed yet. :P
:bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2009, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 29, 2009, 02:12:16 PM
A pity that it is seen as controversial at all :(
Of course, once it is permitted, then the rights lobby will stick it's oar in. So if some gay sergeant gets called the "dear old Queen" during standard military badinage with his peers then a huge fuss will be made.
:D
I love how the British military actually sends their own floats to gay pride parades. And the Empire hasn't collapsed yet. :P
Yes it has.
Moreover, the RN surrendered to the Iranians. More proof of the evil of gays.
Quote from: dps on March 29, 2009, 02:03:28 PM
He didn't say anything about changing any laws; he merely stated that the administration has other priorities and doesn't want the controversy that would come from changing the policy.
I was the one who noted that no laws need be changed (DADT is a law, after all). That the administration has ther priorities other than implementing what Obama has acknowledged as righting an injustice says a lot - though it says nothing surprising. I understand that DADT is a political nightmare, and that obama realizes he probably has more chances of getting policies that are actual vote-getters (like health care reform) than of ending DADT without a ruckus.
My point isn't that Obama has this high on his list of priorities - just that it
should be high on his list of priorities if he really means it when he talks about issues like national security and justice for service members (both those who are gay or lesbian, and those who are forced to unwillingly continue to serve so that the gays and lesbians who want to serve in their stead can be kicked out for no valid reason whatever).
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2009, 12:00:35 PM
And Tim, you should check the statistics of a number of high level army specialists (including Middle East experts, as well as Arabic language translators and interpreters etc.) who were discharged under the policy. If anything, the military needs these people now because it has so much on its plate.
It's been in place for twenty years now. Do you think those people will come back if it goes away?
I agree they should scrap it, but doing so would certainly cause a big distraction when it happens. If that isn't outweighed by the benefit to be gained, then fine. I don't think I'm in a position to know whether that's the case right now with the current missions, though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 29, 2009, 03:38:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2009, 12:00:35 PM
And Tim, you should check the statistics of a number of high level army specialists (including Middle East experts, as well as Arabic language translators and interpreters etc.) who were discharged under the policy. If anything, the military needs these people now because it has so much on its plate.
It's been in place for twenty years now. Do you think those people will come back if it goes away?
I agree they should scrap it, but doing so would certainly cause a big distraction when it happens. If that isn't outweighed by the benefit to be gained, then fine. I don't think I'm in a position to know whether that's the case right now with the current missions, though.
These people were discharged over the last couple of years. I'm pretty sure they would come back if they could.
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2009, 02:28:16 PM
I love how the British military actually sends their own floats to gay pride parades. And the Empire hasn't collapsed yet. :P
I recommend Brass Eye's take on the gay navy from sometime in the 90s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icDB3kRKPg
Why are you being gay with your men?
If the rule changed, would gays have seperate living accomodations? Would straight men have seperate showers? Or would everything just operate as it does currently?
Quote from: Kleves on March 29, 2009, 05:18:31 PM
If the rule changed, would gays have seperate living accomodations? Would straight men have seperate showers? Or would everything just operate as it does currently?
Why wouldn't it? It's not like there aren't gays in the military right now - and obviously, in other Western countries, they also serve openly and you don't have like gay barracks or the Sacred Theban Band for them.
Obviously, the rules against having sex while on duty and whatnot would apply to gay servicemen and servicewomen just as they apply to straight ones.
This is really a ridiculous question.
I've heard that gay people are always having sex. How do you reckon the army would accommodate that?
Quote from: garbon on March 29, 2009, 05:33:15 PM
I've heard that gay people are always having sex. How do you reckon the army would accommodate that?
:lol:
Repeal it if you are willing to pay for it. There are financial repercussions other than "separate showers". Recognizing gays in the military will lead to obligations to same-sex spouses such as housing, ID cards, lucrative government health benefits, life insurance, education subsidizing, preferential hiring, etc. If people want no more don't ask-don't tell, they better want an even larger defense budget.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 29, 2009, 09:34:55 PM
Repeal it if you are willing to pay for it. There are financial repercussions other than "separate showers". Recognizing gays in the military will lead to obligations to same-sex spouses such as housing, ID cards, lucrative government health benefits, life insurance, education subsidizing, preferential hiring, etc. If people want no more don't ask-don't tell, they better want an even larger defense budget.
What a morally bankrupt argument.
It's not clear how it would entail more money, unless the government gives benefits to nonmarried couples, and since the government giving benefits to nonmarried couples who are gay seems even more likely, this is a crock.
I hope Obama will do the right thing, and not delay this forever.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 29, 2009, 09:55:36 PM
I hope Obama will do the right thing
Unfortunately, the odds are near zero that he will nuke Iran.
Quote from: Phillip V on March 29, 2009, 09:34:55 PM
Repeal it if you are willing to pay for it. There are financial repercussions other than "separate showers". Recognizing gays in the military will lead to obligations to same-sex spouses such as housing, ID cards, lucrative government health benefits, life insurance, education subsidizing, preferential hiring, etc. If people want no more don't ask-don't tell, they better want an even larger defense budget.
This argument is both bullshit and morally bankrupt as well.
From a purely financial perspective (which I am sure you had only in mind here, no homophobia to rationalize away with this crock of shit), the costs increase would be negligible. The percentage of gays in the military is probably low enough, that even if all of them suddenly found "same-sex spouses", this would not affect it in any perceptible way.
Not to mention that arguing against giving someone equal rights because it will "cost money" is morally bankrupt and repugnant. It's like arguing that slaves should not be freed and given voting rights, because then we would need to print more voting cards.
Btw, I wish I'd known in college how traumatic it was for straight males to share a shower room with a gay male. I could have had my own bathroom! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 02:14:32 AM
Btw, I wish I'd known in college how traumatic it was for straight males to share a shower room with a gay male. I could have had my own bathroom! :angry:
I think we should actually demand that we get the third bathroom, just for gays.
Think about it - it would be clean like your typical chick bathroom, and have no queues, like your typical guy bathroom. Plus we could make the stalls bigger and install slings.
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 02:14:32 AM
Btw, I wish I'd known in college how traumatic it was for straight males to share a shower room with a gay male. I could have had my own bathroom! :angry:
In my dorms, men shared bathrooms with women. It wasn't as cool as I had hoped. And actually kinda gross :(
Although spraying shampoo on the shower walls was amusing, as they always thought it was semen.
I always showered at 3:00 pm when I lived in a dorm. I was always alone :contract:
Quote from: Phillip V on March 29, 2009, 09:34:55 PM
Repeal it if you are willing to pay for it. There are financial repercussions other than "separate showers". Recognizing gays in the military will lead to obligations to same-sex spouses such as housing, ID cards, lucrative government health benefits, life insurance, education subsidizing, preferential hiring, etc. If people want no more don't ask-don't tell, they better want an even larger defense budget.
The cost savings in not losing highly trained personnel (whose replacements you have to recruit, train, and then carry until they have the requisite experience) would vastly putweigh any costs of providing for spouses, as the experience of other militaries that have taken this step has shown.
Even if there were no justice arguments involved, the finncial arguments would still favor repeal.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 30, 2009, 03:49:29 AMIn my dorms, men shared bathrooms with women. It wasn't as cool as I had hoped. And actually kinda gross :(
:blink: :blink: :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2009, 05:19:29 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 30, 2009, 03:49:29 AMIn my dorms, men shared bathrooms with women. It wasn't as cool as I had hoped. And actually kinda gross :(
:blink: :blink: :blink:
What is so confusing?
Quote from: Caliga on March 30, 2009, 05:19:29 AM
:blink: :blink: :blink:
It's pretty gross when in the stall next to you is some cute chick...and she's taking a dump.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 30, 2009, 03:52:41 AM
I always showered at 3:00 pm when I lived in a dorm. I was always alone :contract:
:D You are a crazy freak. Was it the only time during day that you showered? It's like sleeping between 4 a.m. and 2 p.m., and eating breakfast at 4 p.m. to "avoid crowds".
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 03:39:46 AM
I think we should actually demand that we get the third bathroom, just for gays.
Think about it - it would be clean like your typical chick bathroom, and have no queues, like your typical guy bathroom. Plus we could make the stalls bigger and install slings.
Chick bathrooms can get hairy. Also I'm not convinced that gays would be much cleaner. Visits to gay venues don't seem to bear that out.
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
Chick bathrooms can get hairy. Also I'm not convinced that gays would be much cleaner. Visits to gay venues don't seem to bear that out.
You dare to question the superiority of the gay race?
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
Visits to gay venues don't seem to bear that out.
Always with the gay puns.
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 03:39:46 AM
I think we should actually demand that we get the third bathroom, just for gays.
Think about it - it would be clean like your typical chick bathroom, and have no queues, like your typical guy bathroom. Plus we could make the stalls bigger and install slings.
Chick bathrooms can get hairy. Also I'm not convinced that gays would be much cleaner. Visits to gay venues don't seem to bear that out.
Well it doesn't have to mean anything - after all, night club toilets are notoriously dirty, full of puke and bodies of ODed addicts. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
Well it doesn't have to mean anything - after all, night club toilets are notoriously dirty, full of puke and bodies of ODed addicts. :P
Night clubs/bars aren't the only gay venues. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
Well it doesn't have to mean anything - after all, night club toilets are notoriously dirty, full of puke and bodies of ODed addicts. :P
Night clubs/bars aren't the only gay venues. :contract:
Well, I'd never imagined you frequenting other gay venues. What were they? GLBT Youth Centres? :P
I agree that this issue should be addressed during BO's term, but I'd hardly make it a top priority :)
Kevin
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 03:39:46 AM
I think we should actually demand that we get the third bathroom, just for gays.
Think about it - it would be clean like your typical chick bathroom, and have no queues, like your typical guy bathroom. Plus we could make the stalls bigger and install slings.
Chick bathrooms can get hairy. Also I'm not convinced that gays would be much cleaner. Visits to gay venues don't seem to bear that out.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 10:28:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
Well it doesn't have to mean anything - after all, night club toilets are notoriously dirty, full of puke and bodies of ODed addicts. :P
Night clubs/bars aren't the only gay venues. :contract:
Well, I'd never imagined you frequenting other gay venues. What were they? GLBT Youth Centres? :P
garbo lives in SF, I'm sure he can go to a "gay" (insert any kind of place anybody uses for anything here) any time he wishes to do so. No?
edit : I hate the new quoting thing. It defaults the cursor to the middle of people's quotes instead of after.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 30, 2009, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2009, 03:39:46 AM
I think we should actually demand that we get the third bathroom, just for gays.
Think about it - it would be clean like your typical chick bathroom, and have no queues, like your typical guy bathroom. Plus we could make the stalls bigger and install slings.
Chick bathrooms can get hairy. Also I'm not convinced that gays would be much cleaner. Visits to gay venues don't seem to bear that out.
:yes:
My God you've no idea. The number of times I've had to buy Mr. Muscle shower plug declogger because the girls won't clear their hair out of the way :bleeding:
QuoteFrom a purely financial perspective (which I am sure you had only in mind here, no homophobia to rationalize away with this crock of shit), the costs increase would be negligible. The percentage of gays in the military is probably low enough, that even if all of them suddenly found "same-sex spouses", this would not affect it in any perceptible way.
And if the "percentage of gays in the military is probably low enough", is it worth it to create the inevitable brouhaha right now that everybody would seize to focus on instead of these financial and foreign troubles? Political capital would be lost for perhaps expanded healthcare in return for an attempt at a repeal of don't ask don't tell.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2009, 05:10:15 AMThe cost savings in not losing highly trained personnel (whose replacements you have to recruit, train, and then carry until they have the requisite experience) would vastly putweigh any costs of providing for spouses, as the experience of other militaries that have taken this step has shown.
Even if there were no justice arguments involved, the finncial arguments would still favor repeal.
Link about cost of gay families?
I am just wary about an institution that fails to properly process and take care of its vets and injured can at this time also rush into integrating gays and eventually their spouses into the whole system.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 30, 2009, 12:18:10 PM
garbo lives in SF, I'm sure he can go to a "gay" (insert any kind of place anybody uses for anything here) any time he wishes to do so. No?
:yes:
I admit that the only Asians I have ever spoken to on a non-professional basis are Philip V, Admiral Yi and Mono. Both Philip V and Admiral Yi have made an argument that we should not give equal rights to gays not because it is immoral or whatever but because "it would cost money" - an argument most Western people would find deeply unethical. Mono is, well, Mono.
Are there any Asians out there who are not disgusting pennypinchers?
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 01:37:59 AM
I admit that the only Asians I have ever spoken to on a non-professional basis are Philip V, Admiral Yi and Mono. Both Philip V and Admiral Yi have made an argument that we should not give equal rights to gays not because it is immoral or whatever but because "it would cost money" - an argument most Western people would find deeply unethical. Mono is, well, Mono.
Are there any Asians out there who are not disgusting pennypinchers?
I just commonly see that the people who oppose giving more money to the military are the same ones that may be wanting to implement something that will increase costs. Confusing.
A lot of Americans are against universal healthcare because of the cost, though many believe that access should be had for all.
If everything was done along ideological lines, hell would break loose. We must be pragmatic. If repealing the ban is feasible and does not jeopardize higher priorities, then do it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 01:37:59 AM
I admit that the only Asians I have ever spoken to on a non-professional basis are Philip V, Admiral Yi and Mono. Both Philip V and Admiral Yi have made an argument that we should not give equal rights to gays not because it is immoral or whatever but because "it would cost money" - an argument most Western people would find deeply unethical. Mono is, well, Mono.
Are there any Asians out there who are not disgusting pennypinchers?
Hey, I'm on your side in this argument <_<
Quote from: Monoriu on March 31, 2009, 01:52:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 01:37:59 AM
I admit that the only Asians I have ever spoken to on a non-professional basis are Philip V, Admiral Yi and Mono. Both Philip V and Admiral Yi have made an argument that we should not give equal rights to gays not because it is immoral or whatever but because "it would cost money" - an argument most Western people would find deeply unethical. Mono is, well, Mono.
Are there any Asians out there who are not disgusting pennypinchers?
Hey, I'm on your side in this argument <_<
Well ok sorry. You are good people. But you are also obsessed about cash. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 01:37:59 AM
- an argument most Western people would find deeply unethical.
I'm a little offended at you trying to define what 'most Western people' might think. Remember, you are not Western.
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 07:10:09 AMI'm a little offended at you trying to define what 'most Western people' might think. Remember, you are not Western.
Actually, he is.
Even Huntington says so :D
Kevin
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 01:37:59 AM
Are there any Asians out there who are not disgusting pennypinchers?
The female ones who like western guys don't seem to be...at least with the guy's money. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2009, 12:28:47 PM
My God you've no idea. The number of times I've had to buy Mr. Muscle shower plug declogger because the girls won't clear their hair out of the way :bleeding:
It can really build up in there. I have shared a bathroom with a girl almost my entire life. I never found it particularly less gross than the rare times I was sharing it with a guy.
I'm white and I want Marti's rights taken away. Just Marti's.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 08:34:01 AM
I'm white and I want Marti's rights taken away. Just Marti's.
I can support this.
Here's a Huntington's map of civilizations. Poland and Hungary are in the Western one. :bowler:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fd5%2FClash_of_Civilizations_map2.png&hash=58bb1af67426f3c9850e876dba5834c349ffd92a)
Next, that fucking soda map is going to show up.
What a stupid map. How are Chile and Argentina less Western than Romania?
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 08:37:27 AM
Here's a Huntington's map of civilizations. Poland and Hungary are in the Western one. :bowler:
Neil is more concerned with race than religion.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 01:37:59 AM
Are there any Asians out there who are not disgusting pennypinchers?
Uhh...most of them.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 31, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
What a stupid map. How are Chile and Argentina less Western than Romania?
Pssst, on that map Romania isn't Western...
It's a culture and race thing though, too. Poland has always been looking to the West and, despite the perception of the Polish-German conflicts throughout history (obviously resulting from WW2 but also from the communist anti-Western propaganda), our Western border has been historically the calmest - we have fought many wars with Russians, Tartars and Turks, and occasionally with Swedes but almost never with Germans. And from the medieval German colonization (which brought to us countless German burghers and peasants to settle), we are probably not less racially German than, say, people inhabiting the modern day Brandenburg.
When we elected foreign Kings, we had Vasas from Sweden, Wettins from Saxony, Valois from France - but we never elected any of the Russian tsars (even though they were running in all the elections).
Historically, we used to have a lot of Orthodox people due to the union with Lithuania and owning parts of Ukraine, but in its current borders at least it's Latin/Western/Catholic culture through and through.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 31, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
What a stupid map. How are Chile and Argentina less Western than Romania?
I suggest you read Huntington's Clash of Civilisations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations). Or you can just read the Wiki article.
I'm not a big fan of Huntington's later work, but this book has been VERY influential in the past 15 years.
Kevin
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 08:37:27 AM
Here's a Huntington's map of civilizations. Poland and Hungary are in the Western one. :bowler:
Ok how is Latin America not Western?
Quote from: katmai on March 31, 2009, 08:35:00 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 08:34:01 AM
I'm white and I want Marti's rights taken away. Just Marti's.
I can support this.
Let us jam the vote through and celebrate with a pancake dinner.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 08:37:27 AM
Here's a Huntington's map of civilizations. Poland and Hungary are in the Western one. :bowler:
So is Papua New Guinea.
Quote from: PDH on March 31, 2009, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 31, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
What a stupid map. How are Chile and Argentina less Western than Romania?
Pssst, on that map Romania isn't Western...
Pff. I don't think I can be bothered to look overly closely at where the arbitrary eastern european line has been drawn.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 31, 2009, 09:15:05 AMPff. I don't think I can be bothered to look overly closely at where the arbitrary eastern european line has been drawn.
"I disagree with what that map shows and will therefore totally ignore it"
QuoteThe definition, nomenclature, and even the number of civilizations are somewhat ambiguous in Huntington's works. Civilizations may consist of states and social groups (such as ethnic and religious minorities). Predominant religion seems to be the main criterion of his classification, but in some cases geographical proximity and linguistic similarity are important as well. Using various studies of history, Huntington divided the world into the "major" civilizations in his thesis as such:
* Western civilization, centered on Australasia, Northern America, and Europe (excluding most of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Huntington also includes the rest of Oceania. Whether Latin America and the former member states of the Soviet Union are included, or are instead their own separate civilizations, will be an important future consideration for those regions, according to Huntington.
o Latin America. Includes Central America (excluding Belize), South America (excluding the Guianas), Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. May be considered a part of Western civilization, though it has slightly distinct social and political structures from Europe and Northern America. Many people of the Southern Cone, however, regard themselves as full members of the Western civilization.
Kevin
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 08:56:12 AM
Let us jam the vote through and celebrate with a pancake dinner.
Jam and pancakes for everyone!
Quote from: PDH on March 31, 2009, 09:29:00 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 08:56:12 AM
Let us jam the vote through and celebrate with a pancake dinner.
Jam and pancakes for everyone!
Except for Marti. Flamboyant homos not allowed.
Quote from: Eochaid on March 31, 2009, 08:17:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 07:10:09 AMI'm a little offended at you trying to define what 'most Western people' might think. Remember, you are not Western.
Actually, he is.
Even Huntington says so :D
Kevin
Poland was in the Warsaw Pact. It is thus not part of the West. It is, by right, Russian. Its people are Russians.
Quote from: Eochaid on March 31, 2009, 09:22:29 AM
"I disagree with what that map shows and will therefore totally ignore it"
To be fair, that's no worse a position than "I agree with what the map shows, and therefore it is authoritive".
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 09:56:22 AMTo be fair, that's no worse a position than "I agree with what the map shows, and therefore it is authoritive".
I don't actually agree with Huntington.
It's just that Huntington can hardly be called a euroweenie or a commie-lover, so I just took him as an example.
Kevin
We're now in the 21st century. Outmoded much?
Huntington seems to be a retard. Correct?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 31, 2009, 09:02:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 08:37:27 AM
Here's a Huntington's map of civilizations. Poland and Hungary are in the Western one. :bowler:
So is Papua New Guinea.
Papua New Guinea is more Western than Poland.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2009, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 08:37:27 AM
Here's a Huntington's map of civilizations. Poland and Hungary are in the Western one. :bowler:
Ok how is Latin America not Western?
One word: katmai.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 09:31:11 AM
Quote from: PDH on March 31, 2009, 09:29:00 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 08:56:12 AM
Let us jam the vote through and celebrate with a pancake dinner.
Jam and pancakes for everyone!
Except for Marti. Flamboyant homos not allowed.
I'm not flamboyant. I'm exuberant.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 09:31:11 AM
Except for Marti. Flamboyant homos not allowed.
I'm not flamboyant. I'm exuberant.
Okay. We know you own a pair of assless chaps.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 09:31:11 AM
Except for Marti. Flamboyant homos not allowed.
I'm not flamboyant. I'm exuberant.
Okay. We know you own a pair of assless chaps.
No I don't. :o
Anyway, I guess people who met me in person could answer it the best: am I flamboyant? :blush:
Okay. Change "Flamboyant" to "JESUS H. CHRIST, HE WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE GAY".
Better?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 06:08:48 PM
Okay. Change "Flamboyant" to "JESUS H. CHRIST, HE WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE GAY".
Better?
:P Touche.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 06:08:48 PM
Okay. Change "Flamboyant" to "JESUS H. CHRIST, HE WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE GAY".
Better?
Gay Mishka.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2009, 02:03:26 PM
We're now in the 21st century. Outmoded much?
The Bush administration was a BIG fan of Huntington. His theory was already widely discussed in Academic circles in the 90s', but 9/11 brought it to the attention of the wider public.
I don't agree with his theory, but it doesn't mean it is without merits.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2009, 06:05:23 PMAnyway, I guess people who met me in person could answer it the best: am I flamboyant? :blush:
I haven't seen you in four years, but back then you were very calm and subdued
Kevin
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2009, 06:56:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2009, 06:08:48 PM
Okay. Change "Flamboyant" to "JESUS H. CHRIST, HE WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE GAY".
Better?
Gay Mishka.
Lol. Very apt
Quote from: katmai on March 31, 2009, 07:44:20 PM
:huh:
Can't you see Russia and Costa Rica from your backyard?
Quote from: Eochaid on March 31, 2009, 07:18:29 PM
The Bush administration was a BIG fan of Huntington. His theory was already widely discussed in Academic circles in the 90s', but 9/11 brought it to the attention of the wider public.
I thought we were supposed to think the Bush administration was backwards?
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2009, 10:41:58 PMI thought we were supposed to think the Bush administration was backwards?
The theory in itself has some value, it's the way the Bush administration used it to justify stupid shit like invading Iraq that's stupid.
Kevin
I like how Bosnia is "Orthodox".
Quote from: Solmyr on April 01, 2009, 03:56:34 AM
I like how Bosnia is "Orthodox".
Culturally it is. Of course if Bosnia is "Orthodox" so should Albania. But for some reason the Albanians are more like the Egyptians than their neighbors.
Quote from: Eochaid on April 01, 2009, 03:49:10 AM
The theory in itself has some value, it's the way the Bush administration used it to justify stupid shit like invading Iraq that's stupid.
Kevin
Can you describe what is valuable?
http://www.rollcall.com/news/34244-1.html
Quote
Frank: Democrats Punting on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Until 2010
By Jennifer Bendery
Roll Call Staff
April 23, 2009, 6:25 p.m.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Thursday that Democratic leaders won't push to repeal the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy governing gay service in the military until 2010.
"I believe we should and will do 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' next year," said Frank, a co-chairman of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Equality Caucus. "We haven't done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation."
Frank, who is one of three openly gay House Members, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "always has been" in support of waiting to move the issue next year. He said Democratic leaders will likely push a free-standing bill in early 2010.
"We don't even know the votes in committee, let alone the votes on the floor. ... So I think the prediction it will not happen in calendar year 2009 is probably accurate," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is also openly gay and a co-chairwoman of the LGBT Caucus.
News of the delay comes as one advocacy group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is launching "a major offensive" next week to urge President Barack Obama to immediately repeal the 1993 policy, according to an e-mail sent Thursday by the group.
"The logical place and time for presidential leadership on this issue is next month, when President Obama sends his defense budget to Congress. President Obama should cut 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' from his budget. It costs money to fire and replace discharged service members," the e-mail states.
SLDN advocates warn that if Obama doesn't use the defense budget to repeal the policy, "he will be effectively approving — on his watch — the firing of gays and lesbians from the military. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will then become his law, his albatross."
But Frank said repealing the policy — which prevents gays from openly serving in the military — by attaching an amendment to the defense budget "doesn't make sense," even though it is procedurally possible to take that approach.
That approach is being put forward by people "who don't understand the best way to get it done," Frank said. "People have to understand the political pressures."
While it may have made sense in the past to try to repeal the policy in the defense budget since former President George W. Bush would have vetoed a free-standing bill, Frank said that tack doesn't make sense now since Obama supports a repeal.
"People think because they know the rules, that somehow you gain some advantage from it. ... But we all know the rules; the question is when to do it. The key issues are not procedural, it's political," said the Massachusetts Democrat.
Frank's advice to proponents of the repeal is to lobby House Members and Senators to get behind it, "so that when we bring it up next year, we'll have the votes."
It needs "more lobbying". Either that means he doesn't think they have the votes in committee (as he's suggesting from the way this is worded), or he wants more time to milk it for donations and junkets. His banking supporters are all dried up now, after all. I'm not sure which I believe.
Hrmm. Who should I give my protest vote to in 2012?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 24, 2009, 05:47:30 PM
Hrmm. Who should I give my protest vote to in 2012?
RON PAUL
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 24, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
RON PAUL
Is there a libertarian who doesn't support Racoon economics?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 24, 2009, 06:27:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 24, 2009, 06:23:03 PM
RON PAUL
Is there a libertarian who doesn't support Racoon economics?
I doubt it. No libertarian is sane.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 24, 2009, 01:09:21 PM
It needs "more lobbying". Either that means he doesn't think they have the votes in committee (as he's suggesting from the way this is worded), or he wants more time to milk it for donations and junkets. His banking supporters are all dried up now, after all. I'm not sure which I believe.
I'm inclined to believe the former.