Republicans support the troops...unless they're faggots

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:15 pm

More despicable, hypocritical and classless behavior from the Party of Small Penises. Dude is putting his life on the line "to defend freedom," and these cocksuckers have the nerve to boo him because he's gay.

Now seated at the right hand of Satan...the modern GOP voter.

Once again, Republicans held a presidential debate on Thursday night. And once again, the live audience helped give the party a black eye.

The debate, which took place in Orlando, Fla., and aired on Fox News, included questions from a panel of Fox personalities and from voters, who were invited to submit theirs through YouTube. The crowd's big moment came in the second hour, when the topic turned to social issues.

"This question stirred up a whole lot of controversy online," Fox's Megyn Kelly said as she introduced a video submission. "It comes from Stephen Hill, who is a soldier stationed in Iraq."

Hill, wearing a gray "ARMY" T-shirt, then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn't want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would "do anything to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers" now that the "don't ask, don't tell, policy has been officially repealed.

His video then ended and ... a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall. Otherwise there was silence -- not one cheer for an active-duty soldier asking the candidates if they'd let him continue serving his country without lying. No other voter-submitted question all night elicited such a harsh response.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:38 pm

what, is Stephen Hill your boyfriend or something?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:39 pm

^^^ Case in point, the Party's resident troglodyte checks in with his usual drivel.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:00 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:hypocritical

A limp wristed, hand-wringing liberal upset when someone in our military is derided.

Imus · Post by **Imus** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:22 pm

He'd prolly blow the soft soft out of his head if he found out that neggros have been using 'his' washing machines.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:56 pm

How did the candidates respond?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:31 pm

R-Jack wrote:How did the candidates respond?

The question was directed to Rick Santorum.

"I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," Santorum responded. "And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- and removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country."

He added: "What we're doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. And that's tragic."

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:56 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:More despicable, hypocritical and classless behavior from the Party of Small Penises. Dude is putting his life on the line "to defend freedom," and these cocksuckers have the nerve to boo him because he's gay.

Now seated at the right hand of Satan...the modern GOP voter.

Once again, Republicans held a presidential debate on Thursday night. And once again, the live audience helped give the party a black eye.

The debate, which took place in Orlando, Fla., and aired on Fox News, included questions from a panel of Fox personalities and from voters, who were invited to submit theirs through YouTube. The crowd's big moment came in the second hour, when the topic turned to social issues.

"This question stirred up a whole lot of controversy online," Fox's Megyn Kelly said as she introduced a video submission. "It comes from Stephen Hill, who is a soldier stationed in Iraq."

Hill, wearing a gray "ARMY" T-shirt, then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn't want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would "do anything to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers" now that the "don't ask, don't tell, policy has been officially repealed.

His video then ended and ... a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall. Otherwise there was silence -- not one cheer for an active-duty soldier asking the candidates if they'd let him continue serving his country without lying. No other voter-submitted question all night elicited such a harsh response.

Let me ask you a question smart guy

Why is it ok for a gay man to shower naked next to a straight man, BUT, its not ok for a straight woman to shower next to a straight man?
HUH moron?

I got you there, I just destroyed you, and it was that fuckin easy.

The reason we as a society do not allow the women of the military to shower naked next to the men is because women dont want men looking at their sexy naked flesh.
WELL THEN,
Why should we allow naked gay men to shower naked next to straight men? Whats different?
If they really are gay, then they will love to look at studs showering naked right beside them.
SEE THE POINT?

There is absolutely no difference here. For you to say otherwise is dis-honest.

SO, where does this leave us as a society? I say, just throw the women in the shower naked with the rest of us. If they dont like it, fine, dont sign up for the armed forces.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:04 pm

One could argue that excluding the butt-fuckers was social experimentation. Other than an inevitable segue into a KC Scott punchline, I don't know what Santorum is talking about when he mentions special privileges though.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:35 pm

as a protected group, the faggots will be expecting/demanding promotions and other types of affirmtive action

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:35 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote: Dude is putting his life on the line "to defend freedom," and these cocksuckers have the nerve to boo him because he's gay.

And the only reason you're licking his beanbag is because he is a fag.

Are you going to bristle with poorly closeted outrage when a "dude who is putting his life on the line to 'defend freedom'" is booed by liberal cocksuckers for saying he doesn't want to share a tent with a faggot?

It's also nice how you manage to belittle what your pet fag is doing by enclosing 'defending freedom' in quotes. That's fairly typical for the modern Demoract voter: a completely uninformed yet condescending moron.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:56 pm

When I was in my Navy squadron, us officers had to do CDO duty baby-sitting and getting ready to send out OpRep-3's. We had these shitty old hangars at NAS Moffett Field and had to inspect all department spaces as part of the checklist.

I go upstairs where the enlisted flight crew had lockers and I saw on this one guy's locker "Keith you are afraid of women." Very smart guy and when I took over the AW shop as the Division Officer we needed a new LPO (Leading Petty Officer). So this "Keith M" guy was politicing for the LPO spot. Smart dude, and a few of the AW's (Acoustic Warfare enlisted guys) pulled me aside and said that dude was a faggot and didn't want him as their LPO.

Personally, I don't give a shit what my enlisted did in their off-time but it was a really heated rant from the fellas. So I selected a different LPO based upon his Evals and that shut them up enough to where they would refocus on training.

So Keith gets transferred to the admin side of the base and I forgot all about him. Then I see on CNN this interview with a gay sailor standing in front of NAS Moffett Field and turns out it was Keith on worldwide TV after Clinton (who decreased the deficit by cutting military spending so bad that it hurt "Readiness") put in the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.

Keith was escorted off the base way back earlier when they found out he was gay. So he and some A-6 pilot from NAS Whidbey Island were in that segment. Me? I couldn't care less what their preferences are as long as it doesn't interfere with the missions we flew.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:58 pm

When I was in my Navy squadron

Jesus pissing Christ, here we go...

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:08 pm

Screwy, you are stupid beyond reproach. You buy any and all irresponsible writings disguised as "journalism" . Out of about probably 5000 in the audience, maybe 1 or 2 booed. Who knows, they could've been Acorn plants....

So let's just say every conservative on the entire planet is against gays openly serving in the military because of 2 people.

Fuck off, moron.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:13 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
When I was in my Navy squadron
Jesus pissing Christ, here we go...

Yep, and guess what? This guy was in my VP-47 squadron at NAS Moffett Field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC_Hammer

Scroll down and you'll see my squadron listed. I used to do some cool shit back in the day.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:43 pm

bradhusker wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:More despicable, hypocritical and classless behavior from the Party of Small Penises. Dude is putting his life on the line "to defend freedom," and these cocksuckers have the nerve to boo him because he's gay.

Now seated at the right hand of Satan...the modern GOP voter.

Once again, Republicans held a presidential debate on Thursday night. And once again, the live audience helped give the party a black eye.

The debate, which took place in Orlando, Fla., and aired on Fox News, included questions from a panel of Fox personalities and from voters, who were invited to submit theirs through YouTube. The crowd's big moment came in the second hour, when the topic turned to social issues.

"This question stirred up a whole lot of controversy online," Fox's Megyn Kelly said as she introduced a video submission. "It comes from Stephen Hill, who is a soldier stationed in Iraq."

Hill, wearing a gray "ARMY" T-shirt, then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn't want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would "do anything to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers" now that the "don't ask, don't tell, policy has been officially repealed.

His video then ended and ... a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall. Otherwise there was silence -- not one cheer for an active-duty soldier asking the candidates if they'd let him continue serving his country without lying. No other voter-submitted question all night elicited such a harsh response.

Let me ask you a question smart guy

Why is it ok for a gay man to shower naked next to a straight man, BUT, its not ok for a straight woman to shower next to a straight man?
HUH moron?

I got you there, I just destroyed you, and it was that fuckin easy.

The reason we as a society do not allow the women of the military to shower naked next to the men is because women dont want men looking at their sexy naked flesh.
WELL THEN,
Why should we allow naked gay men to shower naked next to straight men? Whats different?
If they really are gay, then they will love to look at studs showering naked right beside them.
SEE THE POINT?

There is absolutely no difference here. For you to say otherwise is dis-honest.

SO, where does this leave us as a society? I say, just throw the women in the shower naked with the rest of us. If they dont like it, fine, dont sign up for the armed forces.

And how exactly did DADT prevent gay personnel from showering with other male service members?

Take your time.....

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:11 am

Atomic Punk wrote:I used to do some cool shit back in the day.

Oh shit, I remember this one. You once were in a 4g inverted dive with a MiG28? Afterwards, you and Goose did a little duet singing Great Balls of Fire while wearing crotchless flight suits and fingering each other's assholes?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:51 am

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: Afterwards, you and Goose did a little duet singing Great Balls of Fire while wearing crotchless flight suits and fingering each other's assholes?

~fap, fap, fap~

--Tarddowned

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:00 am

ucunt = fail

Nope, but one time our P-3 was intercepted near our "playground" off the Russian coast by a MiG-31 when we went total EMCON to see when their GCI radars picked us up. They scrambled the aircraft and the Russian pilot formed up off my left wing. My ORD took pictures of him and the MiG pilot was actually pretty cool unlike the gooks did in China to a VPU (real spy plane) aircraft in that incident a few years back.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:32 am

Leave it to screwy to explain away the puddle on the floor he has to mop up...

No wonder he needs a new place, his laundy is really gonna piss the neighbors off.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:14 am

Because I need to go to bed as trev and I are doing a hook-up "Booze Cruise" next week... let me say the US Air Force had "Ravens" in the air every time we were ONSTA and that the Russians knew that when our carrier battle groups weren't around, the USAF F-15's were definitely around for quick response from a locale. So the Russians let us play our games and they would laser us from a few ships to piss us off but it was all good.

The young idiots on ours crews would admit to seeing lasers and there was a mandatory deal where they had to go to medical to be checked out, while the rest of us went to go drink after debriefings. After awhile many learned to deny seeing anything.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:46 am

The debate, which took place in Orlando, Fla., and aired on Fox News, included questions from a panel of Fox personalities and from voters, who were invited to submit theirs through YouTube. The crowd's big moment came in the second hour, when the topic turned to social issues.

"This question stirred up a whole lot of controversy online," Fox's Megyn Kelly said as she introduced a video submission. "It comes from Stephen Hill, who is a soldier stationed in Iraq."

Hill, wearing a gray "ARMY" T-shirt, then appeared on-screen and told the candidates that he is gay and that he had been forced to lie about his identity when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because he didn't want to lose his job. He then asked if the candidates would "do anything to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers" now that the "don't ask, don't tell, policy has been officially repealed.

His video then ended and ... a handful of very loud boos erupted in the debate hall. Otherwise there was silence -- not one cheer for an active-duty soldier asking the candidates if they'd let him continue serving his country without lying. No other voter-submitted question all night elicited such a harsh response.[/quote][/quote]

Let me ask you a question smart guy

Why is it ok for a gay man to shower naked next to a straight man, BUT, its not ok for a straight woman to shower next to a straight man?
HUH moron?

I got you there, I just destroyed you, and it was that fuckin easy.

The reason we as a society do not allow the women of the military to shower naked next to the men is because women dont want men looking at their sexy naked flesh.
WELL THEN,
Why should we allow naked gay men to shower naked next to straight men? Whats different?
If they really are gay, then they will love to look at studs showering naked right beside them.
SEE THE POINT?

There is absolutely no difference here. For you to say otherwise is dis-honest.

SO, where does this leave us as a society? I say, just throw the women in the shower naked with the rest of us. If they dont like it, fine, dont sign up for the armed forces.[/quote]

And how exactly did DADT prevent gay personnel from showering with other male service members?

Take your time.....[/quote]

Diego? I said TELL me the difference here!!! CAN YOU? Why is it ok for gay men to shower naked next to straight men, BUT, its NOT ok for straight women and men to shower naked together?

Take your time...........

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:24 am

mvscal wrote:
R-Jack wrote:How did the candidates respond?
The question was directed to Rick Santorum.

"I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," Santorum responded.

So our servicemembers should remain completely celibate during their military careers? Allrighty, then.

He added: "What we're doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. And that's tragic."

Reminds me of the time Truman integrated the military. I'm quite sure that Truman's opponents accused him of "playing social experimentation with our military," but does anyone doubt now that Truman made the right decision?

Santorum is a world-class assclown, plain and simple.

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:38 am

R-Jack wrote:One could argue that excluding the butt-fuckers was social experimentation.

Here's the thing, though: the military never really excluded homosexuals. Even pre-DADT, when there was a nominal ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

When I left the Navy in 1990, the Navy had approximately 1 million members. Does anyone with two functioning brain cells honestly believe that a group that large contained ZERO homosexuals?

And some of the reasoning behind the homosexual ban was downright laughable. When I first joined NROTC, I remember reading that the reason for the homosexual ban was that "homosexuals are a security risk, because they are subject to blackmail." This, of course, ignores the rather obvious fact that only a completely closeted homosexual (who, theoretically, could have served even during a complete ban on homosexuals serving in the military) is subject to blackmail. An open homosexual, who could not have served, wasn't subject to blackmail, in that everyone already knows that person's sexual orientation.

Once that fallacy was exposed, the military then turned to "morale" as their justification for continuing the ban. Thing is, (going back to my earlier point on integration of the troops), I'm quite sure that some of the opponents of integration cited "morale" of the troops behind their reasoning. Those people obviously were wrong, and those who cited "morale" more recently to continue the homosexual ban also were wrong.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:24 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
R-Jack wrote:One could argue that excluding the butt-fuckers was social experimentation.
Here's the thing, though: the military never really excluded homosexuals. Even pre-DADT, when there was a nominal ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

When I left the Navy in 1990, the Navy had approximately 1 million members. Does anyone with two functioning brain cells honestly believe that a group that large contained ZERO homosexuals?

And some of the reasoning behind the homosexual ban was downright laughable. When I first joined NROTC, I remember reading that the reason for the homosexual ban was that "homosexuals are a security risk, because they are subject to blackmail." This, of course, ignores the rather obvious fact that only a completely closeted homosexual (who, theoretically, could have served even during a complete ban on homosexuals serving in the military) is subject to blackmail. An open homosexual, who could not have served, wasn't subject to blackmail, in that everyone already knows that person's sexual orientation.

Once that fallacy was exposed, the military then turned to "morale" as their justification for continuing the ban. Thing is, (going back to my earlier point on integration of the troops), I'm quite sure that some of the opponents of integration cited "morale" of the troops behind their reasoning. Those people obviously were wrong, and those who cited "morale" more recently to continue the homosexual ban also were wrong.

hey terry? ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION, why is it ok for gay men to shower naked with straight men, BUT, its not ok for women and men to shower naked together?

Obviously, you see no problem for gay men to shower naked next to straight men? SO, it begs the question? Why dont we allow naked men and women to shower together?

Take your time, and realize that ive got you on this, BIG TIME, and you cant wiggle out of it.

its good to be the KING.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:42 pm

Brad,

If you need someone to explain the difference between men and women to you, there has to be a better way to go about it.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:57 pm

R-Jack wrote:Brad,

If you need someone to explain the difference between men and women to you, there has to be a better way to go about it.

Jack, so, let me get this straight, in effect, what you are saying is that the reason why we dont allow men and women to shower naked together in the military, is because men have a penis and women have a vagina and tits?

Because for the life of me, that doesnt cut it if your going to allow gay men to shower naked next to straight men, IT IS THE SAME DYNAMIC going on, anyone with an ounce of knowledge in human psychology knows this.

Human psychology? If you've studied it in your informative years, you will find that the same dynamic is at work here.
Naked men and women showering together is the same dynamic as naked gay and straight men showering naked next to one another. No one is suggesting that sexual activity will be thrust upon anyone, BUT, due to the way human beings are wired, from a purely scientific standpoint, THE dynamic here is exactly the same. Which is why the military does NOT allow men and women to shower naked together.
Am I clear here?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:10 pm

Can't we just shower together in peace? Just because I enjoy watching your "bigness" doesn't mean I'm going to shower rape you.

sin

KC Scott

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:06 pm

BSmack wrote:Can't we just shower together in peace? Just because I enjoy watching your "bigness" doesn't mean I'm going to shower rape you.

sin

KC Scott

ok, and the same logic works for men and women showering together, Just because I enjoy looking at your pussy tits and ass doesnt meant im gonna shower rape ya/

next

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:13 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:So our servicemembers should remain completely celibate during their military careers? Allrighty, then.

Uh, no. They're supposed to be focused on their mission not fucking each other with all the relationship drama that goes along with it. That's why adultery is still on the books in the UCMJ. It's the exact same reasoning that makes office relationships frowned upon: they create unnecessary and unwelcome distractions. The stakes are just a tiny bit higher in the military than in the corporate world, though.

Good job keeping up your unbroken streak of complete fucktardery.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:43 pm

bradhusker wrote:pussy tits

We call those "balls" in DC. You have heard that I live in DC?

sin

Screwy

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:14 pm

mvscal wrote: Uh, no. They're supposed to be focused on their mission not fucking each other with all the relationship drama that goes along with it. That's why adultery is still on the books in the UCMJ. It's the exact same reasoning that makes office relationships frowned upon: they create unnecessary and unwelcome distractions. The stakes are just a tiny bit higher in the military than in the corporate world, though.

You really do live in a boy's fantasy world of little tin soldiers being pushed around in a sandbox.

All this time I thought it was an act.

This isn't Sparta.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:56 pm

mvscal nailed it.

relationship drama is a huge problem. we have to put up with it in the civilian world. it is a problem there as well, but nothing like in the military where you live very closely together.

making the military much more co-ed has also created huge problems. of course the libtard deniers will say it has gone without a hitch and they would be terribly wrong.

we fought WWII with no women in battle roles just fine. we could very easily man these positions today solely with men. and they would perform better at a reduced cost. and there would not be concerns of guys beating the fukk out of one another over a piece of ass.

btw, THAT is the biggest problem and it is what they mean when they say morale will suffer.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:02 pm

smackaholic wrote:...guys beating the fukk out of one another over a piece of ass.

Isn't that why all wars are fought, essentially. Exclusive "pussy rights"?

Man's primitive and primal instinct is genetic propagation.
Kill enemy. Fuck his woman. Make babies that look like you.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:23 pm

Martyred wrote:
smackaholic wrote:...guys beating the fukk out of one another over a piece of ass.
Isn't that why all wars are fought, essentially. Exclusive "pussy rights"?

Man's primitive and primal instinct is genetic propagation.
Kill enemy. Fuck his woman. Make babies that look like you.

exactly. and eliminating this potential problem is a smart idea in a military unit. as for the libtards that try to compare mixing sexes with mixing races, why are you so prejudiced? mixing races is fukking childs play compared to mixing sexes/sexual proclivities.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:45 pm

mvscal wrote:That's why adultery is still on the books in the UCMJ. It's the exact same reasoning that makes office relationships frowned upon: they create unnecessary and unwelcome distractions. The stakes are just a tiny bit higher in the military than in the corporate world, though.

Good job keeping up your unbroken streak of complete fucktardery.

Fraternization was frowned upon also. You go out and party and you see some of the E's out in town and officers were always targets for the girlies.

This one chick that was ugly but had a VERY nice body showed me love letters written by one of our insecure idiot pilots that had an insane jealousy of me as she told him she wasn't interested. I mean, she handed me the letters he wrote to her and I knew after her constantly hitting on me, that I would be done if a "fling" with her went wrong. This dude got busted after he kept harassing her and he may be flipping burgers now.

Also, many of the pretty enlisted girls hit upon us officers and the dumbfucks that took the bait got screwed over in the Kansas City "end."

A drinking buddy that ended up being the CO of a certain VP squadron in Hawai'i warned me not to fuck the girls in my squadron but it's cool to get with the other enlisted chicks outside of our commands. "Fraternization" ended the careers of a few pilots I knew.

Back when I was in, the change over to the "Do not ask, Do not tell" policy was implemented and that seemed to be the focus, so fucking hottie enlisted chicks from other squadrons was left alone and there was nothing in place back then to get us into trouble.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:05 am

AP, did you know any over the "perps" involved in Tailhook?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:21 am

Yes I did Comrade. I wasn't there. I've heard all of these stories... and those that admitted to being there that had photographic evidence of them being there got thrown out of the Navy.

The funniest thing is when one guy from Naval Test Pilot school described the aerodynamics of a couch being thrown out of a window. For legal reasons I can neither confirm nor deny I was there, but that couch didn't do so well in the initial test flight.

Everybody got called in by NIS to see if we were there. For the record, I wasn't there and there is no way anyone can prove it to this day.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:43 am

Martyred wrote:This isn't Sparta.

Not yet, anyway. The Spartan military institutionalized pederasty.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:47 pm

ok, so you guys just want to ignore the ELEPHANT in the room, fine, I could care less, BUT, deep down, each and every one of you guys knows that gay guys who are "out" and in the "open", and showering next to straight guys, is not cool.

Thats why the military does NOT allow naked men and women to shower next to one another, its the exact same human dynamic in play here. BASIC human psychology and principles of human interaction are the center of my thesis here. YOU ALL want to ignore the ELEPHANT in the room here, and, quite frankly, GO AHEAD and IGNORE the ELEPHANT!! But, keep in mind, the same thing happened to ROME, and we all saw the decay of the roman empire.

You laugh? fine, but Rome started out fine, THEN, torward the end of the roman empire, homosexuality was RAMPANT, in the streets and out in the open, kinda like San Francisco of today.
BOTTOM LINE? I am correct about the "human dynamic" here, which is why we forbid men and women to shower together. its pretty simple, unless you are a complete idiot.