T1B

If serious investors are guided by the likes of Glen Beck that would explain the stock market bust a few years ago.

Remember Chuck Harder's For The People radio show?

That iodot pimped everything from shortwave radios to cuckoo clocks.

Meh,
Not the first talking head to pimp something he had no fucking clue about.

Should we be up in arms that fools acted foolish with their money? As a psychopath once said ......."stupid is supposed to hurt".

Just a bunch of dumbasses being taken by their leader. Nothing to see here.

JscHypocrite wrote:Judge turns the company's operations over to a receiver after L.A. County and Santa Monica sue the company and owner Bruce Sands, alleging fraudulent business practices.

and

....that this was a scam.

So you feel that Claude Jones got fucked, yet you won't allow Bruce Sands his due process?

you're a fuckin' jerkoff.

Roach wrote:know your dealer.

Damn straight. They better measure up.

Sin,
Irie.

I liked it better when the only thing these talk show guys tried to sell were sleep numbered beds.

88 wrote:http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/lef ... z-hartmann

You read that commie rag?

Mikey wrote:Mother Jones scooped ABC on this story...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05 ... ine-weiner

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... es#p685079

R-Jack wrote: Not the first talking head to pimp something he had no fucking clue about.

Agreed.

Sin,

R-Jack wrote:

Roach wrote:know your dealer.

Damn straight. They better measure up.

Sin,
Irie.

rackable

that puckering sound was Beck's sphincter

I thought this thread was going to be about the Senate cock blocking fags in the military.

Jsc has had a bad day.

Jsc810 wrote: Our own military says they should serve.

Gee, and here i distinctly remember reading an article recently where the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines testified before Congress that repealing DADT wasn't a good idea.

I guess you can cherry pick the news nuggets, but the fact remains that DADT is still in effect and will be for quite some time. And I don't guess we'll be seeing military weddings between same sex partners any time soon either.

Whitey, nobody cares what those low level fucks think. Bob Gates and Mike Mullen support the repeal. Doesn't get any higher up than that.

War Wagon wrote:And I don't guess we'll be seeing military weddings between same sex partners any time soon either.

Who knows. Of course if the two are men, it will definitely put a new spin on the "Arch of Swords".

Tom In VA wrote:

War Wagon wrote:And I don't guess we'll be seeing military weddings between same sex partners any time soon either.

Who knows. Of course if the two are men, it will definitely put a new spin on the "Arch of Swords".

A meatspin?

That which has been seen, can nevermore be unseen.



Trying to sound biblical and stuff.

Tom In VA wrote:That which has been seen, can nevermore be unseen.

werd

APs' prancing panties and Anas' glorious funbags.

Open faggotry is coming.

Will it cause problems and lower the effectiveness of the military?

Of course it will, but, co-ed crews have already done that, but the PC nazis running things don't give a fukk.

As for those serving, they will deal with it as best they can just as they have dealt with dumbfukkery imposed on them by politicians for ages.

smackaholic wrote:Will it cause problems and lower the effectiveness of the military? Of course it will...

Folks said the same thing when we started integrating blacks into combat units. Then they realized that a black guy could stop a bullet just as easy as a white guy. Maybe some of the backwards ass fucks who populate our military barracks should think about that before they get their APs in a bunch.

BSmack wrote:Then they realized that a black guy could stop a bullet just as easy as a white guy.

A black gay and a white gay walk into an Army bar, holding hands...

War Wagon wrote:

BSmack wrote:Then they realized that a black guy could stop a bullet just as easy as a white guy.

A black gay and a white gay walk into an Army bar, holding hands...

In time nobody will give a fuck. Think back Wags. 40 years ago, in OUR lifetimes, being gay was something that people were forced to hide from all but their closest confidants. Gay bars were routinely shaken down by both cops and gangsters, both looking to blackmail gay men with exposure and public humiliation. Now the average person could give a fuck if their co-worker is gay. And it certainly isn't a fireable offense. That is, unless you happen to be in the military.

But can they shoot straight?

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Will it cause problems and lower the effectiveness of the military? Of course it will...

Folks said the same thing when we started integrating blacks into combat units. Then they realized that a black guy could stop a bullet just as easy as a white guy. Maybe some of the backwards ass fucks who populate our military barracks should think about that before they get their APs in a bunch.

apples and oranges.

blacks and whites are still all guys. guys for the most part get along. add a few females into the mix and now the guys have something to fight over.

this is a universal truth that goes back before recorded time. it is true with humans and every other species on the planet. it's not a simple matte of getting over cultural prejudices.

when you add gays to the mix, you have the same problem. it's not rocket surgery, really.

DADT, IMO was a common sense rule that was adapted which allowed gays to serve ,so long as they kept it quiet. it was basically making official, what was pretty much the case anyway prior to DADT.

the bottom line is that the purpose of a military is not to provide careers for people. the purpose is to have an organization that can knock the FUKK* outta somebody that needs it. GUBMINT*'s job is to make this organization work as efficiently as possible. females and gays take away from this efficiency by introducing potential conflicts within the group. when they talk about esprit de corps or unit cohesion, it is a nice way of saying that two guys banging the same chick tend to not be the best of pals.

some try to make the claim that the military is actually improved because it increases the size of the talent pool. i might buy that argument for women if at the same time they didn't lower the bar for them.

not saying that women or even openly gay men shouldn't be banned from the military in general. i am all for them filling logistical and medical billets ashore or "in the rear".

* all caps added just because i know it annoys truman.

smackaholic wrote:apples and oranges.

blacks and whites are still all guys. guys for the most part get along. add a few females into the mix and now the guys have something to fight over.

this is a universal truth that goes back before recorded time. it is true with humans and every other species on the planet. it's not a simple matte of getting over cultural prejudices.

when you add gays to the mix, you have the same problem. it's not rocket surgery, really.

DADT, IMO was a common sense rule that was adapted which allowed gays to serve ,so long as they kept it quiet. it was basically making official, what was pretty much the case anyway prior to DADT.

the bottom line is that the purpose of a military is not to provide careers for people. the purpose is to have an organization that can knock the FUKK* outta somebody that needs it. GUBMINT*'s job is to make this organization work as efficiently as possible. females and gays take away from this efficiency by introducing potential conflicts within the group. when they talk about esprit de corps or unit cohesion, it is a nice way of saying that two guys banging the same chick tend to not be the best of pals.

some try to make the claim that the military is actually improved because it increases the size of the talent pool. i might buy that argument for women if at the same time they didn't lower the bar for them.

not saying that women or even openly gay men shouldn't be banned from the military in general. i am all for them filling logistical and medical billets ashore or "in the rear".

* all caps added just because i know it annoys truman.

You serious, Clark?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

smackaholic wrote:apples and oranges.

blacks and whites are still all guys. guys for the most part get along. add a few females into the mix and now the guys have something to fight over.

this is a universal truth that goes back before recorded time. it is true with humans and every other species on the planet. it's not a simple matte of getting over cultural prejudices.

when you add gays to the mix, you have the same problem. it's not rocket surgery, really.

DADT, IMO was a common sense rule that was adapted which allowed gays to serve ,so long as they kept it quiet. it was basically making official, what was pretty much the case anyway prior to DADT.

the bottom line is that the purpose of a military is not to provide careers for people. the purpose is to have an organization that can knock the FUKK* outta somebody that needs it. GUBMINT*'s job is to make this organization work as efficiently as possible. females and gays take away from this efficiency by introducing potential conflicts within the group. when they talk about esprit de corps or unit cohesion, it is a nice way of saying that two guys banging the same chick tend to not be the best of pals.

some try to make the claim that the military is actually improved because it increases the size of the talent pool. i might buy that argument for women if at the same time they didn't lower the bar for them.

not saying that women or even openly gay men shouldn't be banned from the military in general. i am all for them filling logistical and medical billets ashore or "in the rear".

* all caps added just because i know it annoys truman.

You serious, Clark?

dead serious.

i didn't just read this shit in a book. i lived it. when i was on active duty, war ships were still all male, but were starting to experiment with co-ed crews. i served with guys that had been on co-ed crew ships such as tenders and supply ships. they said it was a fukkin' nightmare. they all preferred all male crews because you just didn't have the baggage that comes with mixed crews. you see the same shit in the civilian world, but, it's not nearly the problem for a few reasons. first, you don't have to live 24/7 with one another and as a rule, civilian workforces are quite a bit older.

now imagine the bullshit that comes with co-ed crews plus the fact that with gays, you will be sleeping/showering in very close quarters.

anyone that thinks this will not cause potential problems is a dumbfukk.

Don't kid yourself. Sailors have been buggering each other for centuries.

DADT has been going on for a looooonnnggg time. They just didn't call it gay.

Mikey wrote:Don't kid yourself. Sailors have been buggering each other for centuries.

DADT has been going on for a looooonnnggg time. They just didn't call it gay.

sounds like you speak from experience. you do live in a sailor town afterall, so it's possible. do tell us about this buggery you are familiar with.

smackaholic wrote:

Mikey wrote:Don't kid yourself. Sailors have been buggering each other for centuries.

DADT has been going on for a looooonnnggg time. They just didn't call it gay.

sounds like you speak from experience. you do live in a sailor town afterall, so it's possible. do tell us about this buggery you are familiar with.

He guy does regular guy things with his regular guy friends. You know, like naked tickle fights and "snorkeling."

sin

smackaholic wrote:

Mikey wrote:Don't kid yourself. Sailors have been buggering each other for centuries.

DADT has been going on for a looooonnnggg time. They just didn't call it gay.

sounds like you speak from experience. you do live in a sailor town afterall, so it's possible. do tell us about this buggery you are familiar with.

I'm 50 miles from San Diego and I've never been a sailor.

You, on the other hand, have first hand experience. Is there something you're holding back here?

Lindsay Graham wrote:I can't imagine what I would do if I was stuck in a foxhole with another man.

Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) ponders what would happen if it really was raining men

Screw_Michigan wrote:Whitey, nobody cares what those low level fucks think. Bob Gates and Mike Mullen support the repeal. Doesn't get any higher up than that.

4 star generals aren't low level and they speak for the rank and file, despite what their queerbait Obamified bosses might mouth breathe to the contrary.

RACK those leaders for speaking their mind, despite all pressure to say otherwise.

Cunts like Jsc may go unfuck themselves.

Pretty simple, really. If you're a fag, don't sign up.

dear people who are against the repeal of dont ask dont tell.

this is going to happen. if not today, sometime in the near future. if you're too old and stupid to accept it, your children will have to step up and do it. and your children will wonder why their parents were so damned ignorant.

seriously. this will happen soon enough. the yute of today are okay with the fudge packers.

smackaholic wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

smackaholic wrote:apples and oranges.

blacks and whites are still all guys. guys for the most part get along. add a few females into the mix and now the guys have something to fight over.

this is a universal truth that goes back before recorded time. it is true with humans and every other species on the planet. it's not a simple matte of getting over cultural prejudices.

when you add gays to the mix, you have the same problem. it's not rocket surgery, really.

DADT, IMO was a common sense rule that was adapted which allowed gays to serve ,so long as they kept it quiet. it was basically making official, what was pretty much the case anyway prior to DADT.

the bottom line is that the purpose of a military is not to provide careers for people. the purpose is to have an organization that can knock the FUKK* outta somebody that needs it. GUBMINT*'s job is to make this organization work as efficiently as possible. females and gays take away from this efficiency by introducing potential conflicts within the group. when they talk about esprit de corps or unit cohesion, it is a nice way of saying that two guys banging the same chick tend to not be the best of pals.

some try to make the claim that the military is actually improved because it increases the size of the talent pool. i might buy that argument for women if at the same time they didn't lower the bar for them.

not saying that women or even openly gay men shouldn't be banned from the military in general. i am all for them filling logistical and medical billets ashore or "in the rear".

* all caps added just because i know it annoys truman.

You serious, Clark?

dead serious.

i didn't just read this shit in a book. i lived it. when i was on active duty, war ships were still all male, but were starting to experiment with co-ed crews. i served with guys that had been on co-ed crew ships such as tenders and supply ships. they said it was a fukkin' nightmare. they all preferred all male crews because you just didn't have the baggage that comes with mixed crews. you see the same shit in the civilian world, but, it's not nearly the problem for a few reasons. first, you don't have to live 24/7 with one another and as a rule, civilian workforces are quite a bit older.

now imagine the bullshit that comes with co-ed crews plus the fact that with gays, you will be sleeping/showering in very close quarters.

anyone that thinks this will not cause potential problems is a dumbfukk.

Most service members opposed integration of the military back when Truman integrated the troops by Executive Order. Any question, in hindsight, that Truman made the right decision?

Bizzarofelice wrote:the yute of today are okay with the fudge packers.

I'm old and stupid, but I doubt the youth of today are ok with gays defending their homestead. I know they aren't.

Get a backbone, if that's even possible.

War Wagon wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:the yute of today are okay with the fudge packers.

I'm old and stupid, but I doubt the youth of today are ok with gays defending their homestead. I know they aren't.

you are in denial. younger generations don't care. maybe not the mouthbreather you raised, but on average the yute are more accepting of weirdos.

Get a backbone, if that's even possible.

That would be sage advice for some mongoloid jarhead skeert of a couple 'mos. Can't handle that much, and I'm not throwing you at the Taliban. Sayin'.

Like Bsmack alluded to, history shows no shortage of hand-wringing dipshits who are continually proven wrong over issues like this, as kids discover when they crack a history book x amount of years later, then laugh and shake their heads in wonderment.

Bizzarofelice wrote:you are in denial.

No. He knows he is old and stupid.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Most service members opposed integration of the military back when Truman integrated the troops by Executive Order. Any question, in hindsight, that Truman made the right decision?

terry, did you read one fukking word of my post?

apples and fukking oranges.

the difference between blacks and whites is largely cultural. it is artificial and can be overcome. the differences between males and females, particularly 19 year olds and the drama that ensues when you group them together is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ above the temperature outside this morning, which ain't that high.

you served as a div O at roughly the same time i was on active duty. i suspect your division was all male. talk to the guy that had your job 10 years later and ask him if there was not a loss of effectiveness due to co-ed crews. i talk all the time to those that serve in this atmosphere today and they all say pretty much the same thing. having a 19 year old girl work for you is the suck.

anyone that argues this is a fukking moron. anyone that says tough shit, get over it and adapt is also a fukking moron who apparently thinks career opportunities are the primary purpose of a military.

i will say in large with caps, so maybe you get it this time.

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE MILITARY IS TO FUKK SHIT UP, NOT SERVE AS A TRAINING/JOBS PROGRAM.

I'm not saying that the military is not a valuable resource for such things. I sure as hell took advantage of it. Just that it does not exist for this purpose. When career opportunities become more important than mission readiness, those in that job have been handed an extra hurdle they don't need.

smackaholic wrote:having a 19 year old girl work for you is the suck.

Damn straight.

Sin,

Bubba Clinton

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:Folks said the same thing when we started integrating blacks into combat units. Then they realized that a black guy could stop a bullet just as easy as a white guy. Maybe some of the backwards ass fucks who populate our military barracks should think about that before they get their APs in a bunch.

apples and oranges. blacks and whites are still all guys. guys for the most part get along. add a few females into the mix and now the guys have something to fight over. this is a universal truth that goes back before recorded time. it is true with humans and every other species on the planet. it's not a simple matte of getting over cultural prejudices.

The Israelis never had those problems you speak of. At least not to the point where they couldn't still whip the fuck out of the entire Arab world with one yarmulke tied behind their back. And lemme check, have we lost any battle engagements recently where women have been involved? I didn't think so.

when you add gays to the mix, you have the same problem. it's not rocket surgery, really.

Only of the backwards ass homophobes in the unit can't unfuck themselves. And if they can't, they should find another line of work.

DADT, IMO was a common sense rule that was adapted which allowed gays to serve ,so long as they kept it quiet. it was basically making official, what was pretty much the case anyway prior to DADT.

Which was probably not a bad compromise in 1993. But we're past that now.

the bottom line is that the purpose of a military is not to provide careers for people. the purpose is to have an organization that can knock the FUKK* outta somebody that needs it. GUBMINT*'s job is to make this organization work as efficiently as possible. females and gays take away from this efficiency by introducing potential conflicts within the group. when they talk about esprit de corps or unit cohesion, it is a nice way of saying that two guys banging the same chick tend to not be the best of pals.

some try to make the claim that the military is actually improved because it increases the size of the talent pool. i might buy that argument for women if at the same time they didn't lower the bar for them.

not saying that women or even openly gay men shouldn't be banned from the military in general. i am all for them filling logistical and medical billets ashore or "in the rear".

* all caps added just because i know it annoys truman.

Sorry 'holic. This isn't the 1950s. You can't try to pass off "separate but equal" as policy anymore. The remedy is simple. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and whatever you call those folks who fly shit need to snap to attention, salute and unfuck themselves of any previously held prejudices. It happens every year to more than a few racists. It can happen just as easily with homophobes.

Pretty good read on the topic in this morning's puppy trainer:

For obvious reasons, I can’t use the real name of the gay Marine I spoke to about the recent Senate hearings on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In fact, as he put it, “I’m more afraid of being investigated for homosexual conduct than I am of being sent to Afghanistan.” Taken in the context of his eight years of service and two tours to active combat areas, it’s all the more brave for Jake (as he asked me to call him) to agree to speak to me at all.

...According to the Department of Defense survey discussed at the Senate hearings, 58 percent of combat-unit Marines surveyed — compared with 30 percent of the military as a whole — predicted that repeal would have “negative” or “very negative” effects on their unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done.” This resistance is at odds with the reactions of those in the military who believed they had served in a unit with a gay or lesbian comrade. In that group, 92 percent of the respondents — and almost 90 percent of those who were Marines — ranked the performance of that unit as either “very good,” “good” or “neither good nor poor.”

But Marines had the lowest percentage (41 percent) of those who believed they had served with a homosexual. Jake thinks he knows why. “We’re Marines first; we’re Marines before we’re gay,” Jake said of himself and other closeted Marines. “I can guarantee the reason the Marines are so hostile as an institution is that we’re so good at doing what we do, no ones realizes we’re there.”

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the one sure way to ease a service member’s discomfort with the idea of serving with a homosexual is to actually serve with one.

Indeed, Jake wishes the survey had brought that point home to respondents: “They asked, ‘What if there was a gay in your unit?’ That’s not the point. What they should’ve asked is, ‘You know that guy in your unit who’s watched your kids grow up, who you’ve deployed with, who you’ve gotten into fights with, who got you out of a DUI? What would you do if he came out to you?”

“They’ll be shocked. They already serve with us. Every time they have one of these rants, saying something homophobic, we’ve been sitting right there.”

Jake has impatience verging on contempt for most of the arguments to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”: that it removes valuable personnel (translators, pilots, intelligence officers), that it costs money (when those personnel are removed), that it’s old-fashioned, that it’s discriminatory, that it keeps an important segment of our population from serving. “We kick people out every day,” he scoffs. Rather, he says, it comes down to something simpler than a court case and more basic than even a civil right.

“When I first joined, people told me that since I was going to be sent abroad with a weapon to fight and maybe die for our country, they said I could have a beer in their house, even though I was underage,” he remembers. “Well, if I can be sent out to war with a weapon to fight and to die, then can’t I be who I am? I think we’ve earned that. We’ve paid for dignity enough. If we die, we deserve to be known for who we are, rather than have to die as strangers to the people around us.”

Two tours is rackable. But women don't serve in Marine combat battalions either. I'm inclined to defer to the opinions of vets here whether open gaylord-ship in the military is a workable solution...