Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

HelioPrime · Oct 7, 2007, 09:47 pm

The hetero is worth less than the homo. The armed forces goal is to protect the homosexual because he is a superior citizen. Because the military says so

gay's in the military

This sounds like the kind of plan a few republican contenders could adopt for their "superior" christian race.

donfie · Oct 7, 2007, 10:05 pm

So that's why Sparta died out so quickly.

I see...

Praxius · Oct 7, 2007, 10:18 pm

All I gotta say is..... what the hell was that? was that some kind of parody of real news or just a straight out joke?

Thanatos · Oct 8, 2007, 12:03 am

Quote:

Quote by: Praxius

All I gotta say is..... what the hell was that? was that some kind of parody of real news or just a straight out joke?

The Onion is somewhat famous for this sort of satirical parody. It used to be to newspapers as the Daily Show is to cable news, but I see they're branching out.

Kamehameha34 · Oct 8, 2007, 12:55 am

If you focus on what the general says in the last half of the interview, he's clearly playing on the fact that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is fuelled by standard gay stereotypes.

"We would not want to subject their fragile psyches [to the war].."

It's littered with quotes like that.

Night · Oct 8, 2007, 12:58 am

It confirms my views that

G = 7H

1 Gay man = 7 Heterosexual men.

Technosoul · Oct 8, 2007, 01:10 am

Okay privates, get in line or I'll hit you with my purse.

Ha!

HelioPrime · Oct 8, 2007, 01:17 am

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Okay privates, get in line or I'll hit you with my purse.

Ha!

:rolleyes:

I'd hit you with my studded leather chain.

Praxius · Oct 8, 2007, 12:12 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Thanatos

The Onion is somewhat famous for this sort of satirical parody. It used to be to newspapers as the Daily Show is to cable news, but I see they're branching out.

I kinda figured... I notice the Onion logo, I was looking at their forced blank expressions, and just the way they were talking sounded too politically incorrect to be actually true.

xyzer · Oct 10, 2007, 10:20 am

What some on this thread ignore, and military leaders avoid saying is that, amorous liasons are harmful in the authoritarian hierarchy of the military! Dammit! In a combat situation there can be no favorites,no protected ones. Personal feelings have to be subordinated to the orders of those in charge. In combat units which are exclusively(at least until now) male. Thus homosexuals relationships are potentially dangerous to the functioning of those involved in the frenzy of combat!

The same thought applies to women in combat units where facilities are meager and quick decisions have to be made wihich cannot be ruled by favoritism.. Thats one reason why homosexuals were prohibited for so many years. It took an ithyphallic president to change that into the 'don't ask don't tell' decision. That very president exemplified the problem with amorous relationships interfering in the execution of his duties.What if he had been called on in case of dire national emergency and couldn't be reached because he was being serviced by an intern in the Oval Office and had left orders that he didn't want to be disturbed?

PatrickHenry · Oct 10, 2007, 04:52 pm

xyzer, I bet it didn't take that long for Monica to clean out Clinton's tubes each day...

On topic: who cares about the gays? Tell the hetero male troopers to quit raping thier female counterparts!

Rainbow · Oct 18, 2007, 04:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: HelioPrime

Why gay's shouldn't serve.

The hetero is worth less than the homo. The armed forces goal is to protect the homosexual because he is a superior citizen. Because the military says so

gay's in the military

This sounds like the kind of plan a few republican contenders could adopt for their "superior" christian race.

I believe that there are some gays units within U.S. Armed Forces.
(It is at an experimental phase, now.)

P.S.
What Christian race has in common with the labeled topic, that seems to be your finding, and only. Wrong determination.

gallo · Oct 20, 2007, 12:50 am

Even if one didn't happen to notice the Onion logo, just look at the uniform of this "general". There are two lobes on the uniform lapels. Some of the insignia is clearly recognisable. For example, on the lower lobe of his left lapel, the general wears the brass 'US' insignia. That is, indeed, officer 'brass'. But it is in the wrong place. That should be on the upper lobe of both lapels. Officers wear branch insignia on the lower lobe of both lapels. Our "general" seems to have sergeant stripes on the upper lobe of his left lapel, and a medical corps emblem on the lower lobe of the right lapel. Further, there seems to be no Combat Infantryman badge, no airborne qualified wings, and no shoulder patches on either shoulder. Besides that, his "rack", the ribbons above his left pocket are uneven, not to mention the extraneous medals over his right pocket. Even before I caught on the the Onion, and before I actually listened to what he said, I knew he was a fake.

Oct 7, 2007, 09:47 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
HelioPrime Hucking Fuskies Location: Conn Posts: 2,645	Why gay's shouldn't serve The hetero is worth less than the homo. The armed forces goal is to protect the homosexual because he is a superior citizen. Because the military says so gay's in the military This sounds like the kind of plan a few republican contenders could adopt for their "superior" christian race. What do you say to an atheist who sneezes? Yourdeadthatsit! - Dane Cook

Oct 7, 2007, 10:05 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
donfie Molten Ash Location: Bangkok (formerly UK) Posts: 139	So that's why Sparta died out so quickly. I see... *The best things in life aren't things.*

Oct 10, 2007, 10:20 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
xyzer Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,285	What some on this thread ignore, and military leaders avoid saying is that, amorous liasons are harmful in the authoritarian hierarchy of the military! Dammit! In a combat situation there can be no favorites,no protected ones. Personal feelings have to be subordinated to the orders of those in charge. In combat units which are exclusively(at least until now) male. Thus homosexuals relationships are potentially dangerous to the functioning of those involved in the frenzy of combat! The same thought applies to women in combat units where facilities are meager and quick decisions have to be made wihich cannot be ruled by favoritism.. Thats one reason why homosexuals were prohibited for so many years. It took an ithyphallic president to change that into the 'don't ask don't tell' decision. That very president exemplified the problem with amorous relationships interfering in the execution of his duties.What if he had been called on in case of dire national emergency and couldn't be reached because he was being serviced by an intern in the Oval Office and had left orders that he didn't want to be disturbed? Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.

Oct 10, 2007, 04:52 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,453	xyzer, I bet it didn't take that long for Monica to clean out Clinton's tubes each day... On topic: who cares about the gays? Tell the hetero male troopers to quit raping thier female counterparts! "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Oct 20, 2007, 12:50 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
gallo Homo sapiens Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,160	Even if one didn't happen to notice the Onion logo, just look at the uniform of this "general". There are two lobes on the uniform lapels. Some of the insignia is clearly recognisable. For example, on the lower lobe of his left lapel, the general wears the brass 'US' insignia. That is, indeed, officer 'brass'. But it is in the wrong place. That should be on the upper lobe of both lapels. Officers wear branch insignia on the lower lobe of both lapels. Our "general" seems to have sergeant stripes on the upper lobe of his left lapel, and a medical corps emblem on the lower lobe of the right lapel. Further, there seems to be no Combat Infantryman badge, no airborne qualified wings, and no shoulder patches on either shoulder. Besides that, his "rack", the ribbons above his left pocket are uneven, not to mention the extraneous medals over his right pocket. Even before I caught on the the Onion, and before I actually listened to what he said, I knew he was a fake. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;... --From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli passed unanimously by the Senate 1797

Oct 7, 2007, 10:18 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Praxius Mass'Debator Posts: 4,730	All I gotta say is..... what the hell was that? was that some kind of parody of real news or just a straight out joke?

Oct 8, 2007, 12:55 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Kamehameha34 The dingos! Posts: 4,548	If you focus on what the general says in the last half of the interview, he's clearly playing on the fact that the "don't ask don't tell" policy is fuelled by standard gay stereotypes. "We would not want to subject their fragile psyches [to the war].." It's littered with quotes like that.

Oct 8, 2007, 12:58 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Night Flaming Homosexual Location: Las Vegas, NV (USA) Posts: 473	It confirms my views that G = 7H 1 Gay man = 7 Heterosexual men.

Oct 8, 2007, 01:10 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,936	Okay privates, get in line or I'll hit you with my purse. Ha!