This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-09-24 11:02
[video=youtube;1HGo-B39Fhw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HGo-B39Fhw&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Poor guy.
-
TA wrote on 2011-09-24 11:05
This is just stupid...
-
Cynic wrote on 2011-09-24 11:13
Someday, I will boo their funerals.
-
TA wrote on 2011-09-24 11:15
Quote from Cynic;597509:
Someday, I will boo their funerals.
nono... <insert that one pic of that little kid saying "you're next">
-
Cynic wrote on 2011-09-24 11:16
I was trying to be mild so to avoid all the "zomg that's too meannnnn~" comments. Orz
-
starpaw7 wrote on 2011-09-24 11:17
*slowly removes shoe from foot*
How on Earth did he connect to the question?
They're pulling "unfairness" out of his ass - in no way did they say anything sexual, and he's saying they're giving a "special privilege"
Does he even know what progress they made?
He's begging the question.
What bigotry.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2011-09-24 11:41
Whatever.
In my opinion, repealing "don't ask, don't tell" would be a mistake. We have standards set in place (such as AFI 36-2909) to prevent unprofessional relationships.
Personally, I would rather have a gay man keeping my ass safe on the frontlines than a straight man back home ****ing my girl.
-
starpaw7 wrote on 2011-09-24 11:54
Quote from Kaeporo;597532:
Whatever.
In my opinion, repealing "don't ask, don't tell" would be a mistake. We have standards set in place (such as AFI 36-2909) to prevent unprofessional relationships.
Me just reading through the bill now to understand it;
Were they not barring those who were open about their orientation from joining, simply because of that - and making it forbidden to speak about that or face being kicked out?
Although I need more explanation on the law itself, that what I'm finding wrong in it :what:
-
radionoise wrote on 2011-09-24 12:02
>Fox news
Unsurprising.
-
TA wrote on 2011-09-24 12:07
Quote from radionoise;597559:
>Fox news
Unsurprising.
GOP debate
-
Cynic wrote on 2011-09-24 12:07
Quote from starpaw7;597548:
Me just reading through the bill now to understand it;
Were they not barring those who were open about their orientation from joining, simply because of that - and making it forbidden to speak about that or face being kicked out?
Although I need more explanation on the law itself, that what I'm finding wrong in it :what:
It was my understanding that it was just bad in general, since the entire LGBT community hated it and even Obama didn't want it to be a permanent thing.
Frankly, there shouldn't be any such rule, since it implies that asking or telling would be a bad thing. As long as you can wield and use a gun, it shouldn't matter if you're gay, straight, like coke or pepsi.. it's all trivial, useless information.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2011-09-24 12:35
They should've outlawed DADT, so it had no chance of coming back.
The Supreme Court should've found it unconstitutional.
-
Kollin wrote on 2011-09-24 13:58
Quote from Phunkie;597584:
They should've outlawed DADT, so it had no chance of coming back.
The Supreme Court should've found it unconstitutional.
sadly [S]americans[/S] [S]christians[/S] some people are too ignorant to do that.
-
Adelynn wrote on 2011-09-24 14:05
I should switch to the Mac side of this computer to be able to hear this...
For some reason, the school thinks people that use PCs don't like listening to things.
-
Adelynn wrote on 2011-09-24 14:30
Reaction: "Wow, seriously?"
If it's not an issue then why does there need to be a law about it that states that this is specifically a homosexual thing? Mm?