john_anderson_ii

I spent six years in the USMC, one of them was in Iraq. I can tell you this. When the ---- hits the fan, I don't care if you are a Chinese Muslim who likes to screw gay dogs, as long as you are pulling the trigger as fast as me, and know how to call in a medivac, you can screw your gay dogs on your prayer rug in the group shower next to me for all I care.

Just don't get all pissed off when I make fun of you for it.

I realize not all Marines share this thought with me, at least not until they've been shot at. Then I'd imagine quite a few more will think like me, not all, but quite a few more.

The military should decide their own policy regarding this issue. Civilians would be wise to keep the hell out of this one. We sign on the line for many reasons, we deserve the freedom to make the best situation we can out of it.

N1ghtM0nkey

The military has decided their own policy, and for a very good reason - you should know this just as well as I do.

I would be more inclined to pick up a straight Marine that isn't going to get a raging bonar when I pick him up for a fireman's carry or something like that.

The policy is also for the protection of the homosexuals as well, imagine the hazing they would get in boot camp and the suicide missions they would be on in Iraq.

stevenb

See, it's the idea that they're going to sexually harass you at every corner that is a pretty disgusting notion. You must not have very much experience with homosexuals just like random-strike.

Maybe some day you should diversify yourself and learn about the other 1/3 of the population that's living around you.

I said that the act itself disgusts me, personally I don't deal with it... because none of my gay friends subject me to the details. They know how I stand on the issues and they respect my belief. (quite a bit more tolerant than you and random-strike are... I know random-strike isn't preaching tolerance here, and you've not really said anything about it).

The people who got caught in the barracks getting it on.. should have gotten whatever it is when you're dishonorably discharged. But.. in the same pretense, so should any other marine who is caught getting it on in the barracks.. (If it is such a rule in your guy's core). I do agree that civilians shouldn't have anything to do with the military, but I do believe any civilian that is physically capable and mentally capable should be allowed to serve in our military. Like John said, if they can pull the trigger and call medevac as fast as he can.. why the hell should they be kicked out of the service because of who they like to screw or pray to?

AWDstylez

That's really what this arguement comes down. Informed, diversified people trying to argue with a back woods hill billy with a miniscule world view; it simply doesn't work.



The paper is full of "logcial fallacies" only because you fail to understand it or mearly skimmed over it rather than reading and understanding the content. It isn't opinion, it's fact. Its like you trying to tell me that basic algebra principles are biased and flawed and only you have the correct view on math, as if differing views on a factual subject exist.

You also (not surprisingly) did not get the point of my post. I don't give a rat's *** what is LEGAL. I'm refering to what is RIGHT, what is DECENT, and what is RESPECTFUL.



You have yet to make a point. Maybe you should go read my last post to you and respond to the many points made against you.

Still waiting on you to PROVE IT. Claiming you're right is not proof.

And I'm STILL waiting on that explaination of what makes your morals more right than anyone else's.

J-SMITH69

i never said my morals were more right.

im not forcing my morals on you, im not trying to make it illegal for you to be a queer. you're perfectly able to do what you want.

YOU and your liberal left socialists ALREADY HAVE made it illegal for me not to agree with your "tolerance". i can't say i don't want a queer working for my private company. thats your morals, you've forced on me. you're forcing your morals on children, they are taught its "ok" to be queer. thats your morals, not mine. you are forcing them others.

i love how you preach tolerance, then go on a rant about hillbillies, rednecks, bible thumpers, and bs about world views, stupid people, etc...

i guess tolerance means accepting only socialist left wing morals.

why do you think you even have a leg to stand on, when you preach tolerance and then go on a bigoted rant.

accepting queers is diversity. any mention of god, or traditional values, now thats not allowed...

J-SMITH69

if you go to lp.org

their platform does not mention anything about foreign policy and war...

stevenb

Wait.. I'm a product of the public education system....

And I wasn't taught anything by the teachers or staff of the schools about homosexuality being okay.

Neither were either of my brothers, and neither is my little sister who's starting her track through the public education system.

Where is your proof that they're pushing this "Liberal homosexual agenda" on everyone in public schools? Do you have cold hard documented cases that they are?

And last time I checked a school is a neutral area, where you're not to be hated on because of your beliefs or sexual orientation. So if the homosexuals were denying normal people their rights to happiness and education blah blah they'd be in just as much trouble as your people who hate on them and deny them their rights. It just so happens that more people from your belief region interfere with their educations and life, than they do with your's.

So it requires more intervention than the opposite way around. I fail to see how this is the homosexual's pushing their agenda on you?

john_anderson_ii

So, if the platform doesn't mention it, then that means you can drop the all the principles the platform does represent, and just adopt the Democratic party's view of foreign policy as the neocon's have done?

The libertarian philosophies of personal freedom, limited government involvement, and a high amount of respect for private property would also be reflected in libertarian foreign policy. Did you ever stop to think that libertarian principles don't require a 'foreign policy' at all, because under a libertarian society only individuals and private companies would be interacting with foreign parties?

To sum up foreign policy: If you want peace and prosperity, then the government needs to get their damn hands out of the business sector. We need a separation of stock market & state so to speak. Then the lobbies won't have any reason to influence government, and the government won't have the authority to influence trade. We are safer, our currency is more stable, and our standard of living improves.

If you want to go fight foreign wars, be prepared to sacrifice your standard of living!

Now that you know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now that you know what our involvement in Iraq is costing us in both money and more aggression, you need to ask yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze?

Is it worth a declining currency and a slip in our standard of living?
Is it worth more deaths?

In the future.....
Will it be worth another great depression?
Will it be worth the possibility of nuclear war?
Will it be worth another World War where America plays the part of the Germans?

The policy is wrong. The People of American didn't make it, we didn't write it, and we didn't vote on it. We can all say thank you for 60 years of State Department incompetence for that. Our policies are a mistake and their is absolutely nothing wrong with admitting the mistake and fixing the mistake. It's frigging simple. If you botched a fuel pump installation, would you leave it all screwed up because of you were too proud to fix it? I think not.

J-SMITH69

google search it, it happens everyday. you will get thousands of articals of lawsuits about it.

J-SMITH69

weather you like it or not there is a federal government, its powers are supposed to be limited, currently it has too much power. this is true... but our country needs a federal governent

you're totally naive of the world around you, without any foreign policy and a federal government our country will be on the short road to gone.

do you actually think our standard of living is worse than it was 10 years ago. or 20 years ago. or anytime?

if we pull every base and american presence out of the middle east, and the rest of the world. iran will continue to grow. they will aquire nuclear weapons, they will eventually acuire the means to get them to us, or to europe, or israel (they already could) and we'll have a huge menace on our hands we will be forced to fight, and it'll be WWIII. much greater death and destruction than the iraq war.

tell me did appeasement work with hilter. did neville chamberlain have success with that remember what he said coming off the plane from germany?

you are living in a dream world if you think the united states will ever try to take over the world ala **** germany.

the policies that have made us enemies, won us the cold war. would it have been better if communism would've taken over the world? during the cold war, if there was an isolationist and non interventionist president, we would've lost it, communism would control the world. and you woudl have zero freedom.

because you play nice, and don't mess with anyone else. does not mean evil people will do that same to you. its so very very naive to think if we mind our own buisness people will leave us alone. it is not the 1700s where it takes 2 years to moblize a force for war, where its basically impossible and would take decades to take over another country.

the united states is a force for good in the world. there is evil out there, and they will not stop unless we stop them. all your flower power will do nothing. us sitting at home waiting for the inevitable will only be our descruction