Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 42  Next

"Why does it seem that gays are prone...and straights aren't" you ask, Bart.
This is strictly based upon my own life experience, and I have no scientific, or otherwise, data to back this up.
I'm really trying to be serious here, with no innuendo or snide inferences. I hope I can pull this off! Keep in mind that I am only referring to guys.
Perhaps it is in the genes. 'Straights' it seems are predisposed to manly characters, and all that it encompasses. We seem to be able to better withstand physical pain. We relish manly persuits such as hunting and other 'redneck' activities, whereas 'gay' men, although they will engage in such activities, seem to do so only to either cover up their true wants,needs, feelings, or just to make someone else 'happy' or to 'prove' that they are just as manly as any straight guy is. This does not come natural to gays, whereas 'straights' go about such a lifestyle without giving it a second thought.
So it seems, that such genetic makeup would/does extend to the physche(sp) of each group.
Gays are effeminate/feminine and it is a well know fact that for the most part, that once a woman knows a secret, they just have to tell someone!

   

Actually, I'm calling you bigoted because you're a bigot - simple and full stop. Your predilection to put up hysterical posts when it comes to all things that a) you dislike b) that scare you suggests that you are trying desperately to justify in your mind, the type of behaviour that should someone, who values freedom as much as you purport to, be actually reprehensible. I have in fact been cleared for higher level security, and no I'm not an officer, which all NONCOMs on the forums might tell you is irrelevant. I have, I'm willing to state, far more than your extraordinary limited experience wrt homosexuals in the military because homosexuals have been an open part of the CF for decades and I have experienced the social nuances and have seen the positive role in group dynamics that they play. You have not. Therefore, yes, Bart, you are ignorant, and your inability to wish to move beyond that ignorance also makes you a bigot.

   

All those who don't hunt or engage in what ever other manly pursuits are likely gay?

   

Except that I didn't say that.



IMHO, it would seem to me that since simply being gay is not universally indicative of a security issue, but being gay is disproportionately found as a concurrence with people who are proven to be security issues, then there is demonstrably a type of person who is both inclined to treason and to being gay.

To borrow the mathematical expression:

(A+B)=C

A =/= C

B =/= C

Someone who is A is not necessarily C unless they are also B.

Still, the equation applies and it's worth looking at and, no doubt, the Obama Administration is currently ordering the Pentagon to do exactly this.

   

And I'm calling you an a$$hole because you're an a$$hole. Simple and full stop.

Now let's see if you're clever enough to even find this comment.

   

No! That's not what I am trying to say! Just that 'straights' are more inclined to willingly engage in the 'masculine persuits' whilst gays are more inclined to engage in 'feminine persuits'.

   

Following EB's earlier post about wikileaks being the enemy of the west. Apparently the new head honcho is the guiding force behind the anti-west/anti-American slant that rules the day on his site. Previously they exposed leaks from any and all nations unlike his decidedly anti-west position of today.

   

My bad then Bart. Perhaps I read something into one of your earlier posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BartSimpson
CKA Uber








Posts: 24538 Posted: 2010-11-29, 17:35:13


Mr_Canada wrote:
Is there any science behind why gays are more likely to be 'traitors', or could it be a cause and effect situation?


I won't speak to any science, but I will speak to the observable fact that gays are disproportionately more likely to be disloyal even in countries where it's perfectly legal and accepted to be openly gay.

I have no idea why it is this way, just that it is this way.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, observant Mormons are the least likely to betray their trust. Again, I have no clue as to why nor do I care.

All I care about is getting the job done.

If a Mormon is the best person for a job, hire them. If the same applied to gays I'd say the same.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   

He has 'agenda' written all over his face.....

   

   

It is traitors handing over this information--noo doot aboot it. However, that does not make wikileaks itself traitorous, as they need not be American (if we are referring to leaks of American secret information). I don't hold wikileaks in as high regard as they see themselves. But I'm of the impression that there is far too much being kept from the people these days, and also the threat that those in power now know that what they decide may end up on the internet one day is not all bad.

I'd like to see some other nations besuides the Brits and Americans being embarrassed though. They should pread it around a bit.

   

Some things need to get public and some do not. Leaking frauds or patent lies from the government is one thing. Leaking diplomats day-to-day discussions is another. Diplomacy is complicated. There's the public part and the private part. They are not the same and it has always been like that. It helps to bring better relations with others even if you do no agree to everything he has done. Without diplomacy, the world would constantly be at war. It's no surprise the art of diplomacy dates back to philosopher like Plato.

Personally, I think this leak is totally irresponsible and only shows that Julian Assange is in a crusade against the USA. If everything that is told in private should be public, there would be no peaceful relations with anyone. Just imagine if everything the women talks about together about other persons was made public ! Total annihilation of the society !

Assange has shot is own credibility on this one.

   

I am of the opinion that Treason was not the intent. I think disclosure was the intent. Just as with the last round of 'leaks', all names, places etc. had been removed. It was no longer 'raw' intel. The only names found so far in these leaks - one person is dead, one is a double agent and the other is a foreign agent. I don't think anyone speaking to a US diplomat assumes everything they say won't be recorded and analyzed.

Like what foreign ministers said to Hillary yesterday - "You should see what we say about America"



I whole wholeheartedly agree. When the simplest request (the dinner menu for the G20 summit comes to mind) for information under the Freedom of Information act is met with 'Denied on grounds of National Security' - I think that disclosure of what is done in our names cannot be a bad thing.

If you don't want anyone else to accidentally read it - don't write it down. If you don't want it on the internet, don't store it on a computer.



I think there was quite a bit from countries like France and Japan on the site. Just this stuff from the US is the largest and juiciest so far.

   

If I had indisputable proof that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was actually a Jewish merchant who wrought a sham over the Arabs in one of the greatest farces in human history I could assert that I was disclosing this when I did so.

But with the certain knowledge that thousands, if not millions, of people would die from the resultant turmoil would I perhaps have a responsibility to at least restrict that information to a select few people, or maybe keep the secret?

In this case we've got things in the public domain that will result in bloodshed.

Julian Assange is as responsible for the resulting deaths of US & allied soldiers all the same as if he was pulling the trigger himself.

Intellectualizing the topic does not wash the blood away.

   

Do we 'need' to know this stuff? Do we 'need' to know the names, villages, GPS co-ords of Afghan's who have helped the US Army?

Do we 'need' to know the efforts and techniques we have used to detect and disarm IED's?

Do we 'need' to know the contents of frank diplomatic notes?

I'm sure that 'frank' will be a thing of the past in the diplomatic world and we will get the PC crap between countries that we now get from our own govt departments.

All is see is wiki-thefts of information. These are not leaks, nobody 'leaked' this info, it was STOLEN.

National security may extend to menus, but it also stops our irresponsible media from giving secrets or compromising information to our enemies, just like they are doing now and do at any opportunity.
The media don't care if we lose guys to the Taliban because they print the information, people have a right to this stuff don't they eh? Ooops, there goes another LAV to an IED.....

Saying we are entitled to see this stuff is bollocks. I like the 25/50/100 year rules for the release of classified docs.

This is just not good stuff and those of us who have worked in any of these areas are well aware that our enemies now have a lot of really good information that they will use against us, our troops in combat and our diplomatic missions.

Yep, it's a great day for freedom.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 42  Next