"I Didn't Tell. It Didn't Matter"- DADT policy used to conceal Navy abuses against both gay AND straight individuals
Dysperdis
shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able to report his
treatment without fear of being discharged, there would have been fewer
lives ruined. As it stands, however, those who suffer such abuses have
little recourse unless they're willing to risk their careers.
"Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled
parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to.
They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission
of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right
to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a
feces-filled dog kennel.
"Once, the abuse was an all-day event; a training scenario turned into
an excuse to humiliate me. Normally we ran the dogs through practice
situations -- an earthquake, a bomb or a fight -- that we might
encounter in our work. That day, in a classroom at an American school in
Bahrain, with posters of the Founding Fathers lining the walls, the
scenario happened to be me. I was the decoy, and I had to do just what
Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint ordered.
"In one corner of the classroom was a long sofa, turned away from the
door. When you walked into the room, it appeared that one man was
sitting on it, alone. But I was there too -- the chief had decided that
I would be down on my hands and knees, simulating oral sex. A kennel
support staff member and I were supposed to pretend that we were in our
bedroom and that the dogs were catching us having sex. Over and over,
with each of the 32 dogs, I was forced to enact this scenario.
"I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting
the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders
and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself,
punishing me because I wouldn't "tell."
"I even saw "don't ask, don't tell" used against heterosexual female
service members who had reported being the victims of sexual assault. If
my chief acted on their statements, he would be forced to punish a
friend of his, so the easiest way to make the problem go away was to
scare the women into silence by saying something like: "You weren't
sexually assaulted by a male in my unit. I hear you're a lesbian." After
all, homosexuals have no rights in our military. You can't sexually
assault someone who doesn't exist.
"The Navy confirmed 93 incidents of misconduct, including hazing, abuse,
physical assault, solicitation of prostitutes and misuse of government
property and funds, but the case was closed. After receiving a letter of
caution, the military's version of a slap on the wrist, my chief was
eventually promoted in rank and position.
"In the course of that investigation, the Navy decided to charge my best
friend, Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, a 27-year-old Sailor
of the Year and second in command of my unit, for failing to put an end
to my chief's tyranny. The idea that she could have stopped the abuse
is, to me, unfair and unreasonable. The Navy itself failed to stop him.
"Val, as I called her, was set to return home when she was told of the
charges and that she wouldn't be leaving Bahrain as planned. She was
afraid that she would never see the United States again. My mentor ended
up taking her life."
--
Society, like water, needs to move and change to remain fresh. To keep
it from doing so is to allow it to become stagnant and malodorous. The
religious right would have us all living in a swamp to assuage their own
fears.
Popeye
wrote:
>Despite what the religious right claims, DADT only encourages abuses and
>shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able to report his
>treatment without fear of being discharged, there would have been fewer
>lives ruined. As it stands, however, those who suffer such abuses have
>little recourse unless they're willing to risk their careers.
They knew when they enlisted that they were trying to fuck over the
military by hiding the homosexuality - There's an old military saying;
YOU FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU GET THE HORN,."
aka The Homosexual Gazette
>"Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled
>parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to.
>They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission
>of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right
>to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a
>feces-filled dog kennel.
>
>"Once, the abuse was an all-day event; a training scenario turned into
>an excuse to humiliate me. Normally we ran the dogs through practice
>situations -- an earthquake, a bomb or a fight -- that we might
>encounter in our work. That day, in a classroom at an American school in
>Bahrain, with posters of the Founding Fathers lining the walls, the
>scenario happened to be me. I was the decoy, and I had to do just what
>Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint ordered.
>
>"In one corner of the classroom was a long sofa, turned away from the
>door. When you walked into the room, it appeared that one man was
>sitting on it, alone. But I was there too -- the chief had decided that
>I would be down on my hands and knees, simulating oral sex. A kennel
>support staff member and I were supposed to pretend that we were in our
>bedroom and that the dogs were catching us having sex. Over and over,
>with each of the 32 dogs, I was forced to enact this scenario.
A male homosexual acting out giving oral sex -- what's your problem,
that's what male homosexuals do.
>
>"I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting
>the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders
>and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself,
>punishing me because I wouldn't "tell."
There are all sorts of hazing that goes on in the Navy - it's a
tradition.
>
>"I even saw "don't ask, don't tell" used against heterosexual female
>service members who had reported being the victims of sexual assault. If
>my chief acted on their statements, he would be forced to punish a
>friend of his, so the easiest way to make the problem go away was to
>scare the women into silence by saying something like: "You weren't
>sexually assaulted by a male in my unit. I hear you're a lesbian." After
>all, homosexuals have no rights in our military. You can't sexually
>assault someone who doesn't exist.
Pure BULL SHIT!
>
>"The Navy confirmed 93 incidents of misconduct, including hazing, abuse,
>physical assault, solicitation of prostitutes and misuse of government
>property and funds, but the case was closed. After receiving a letter of
>caution, the military's version of a slap on the wrist, my chief was
>eventually promoted in rank and position.
You do the job, you pass the test, you pass the board you get the
rank.
>
>"In the course of that investigation, the Navy decided to charge my best
>friend, Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Valdivia, a 27-year-old Sailor
>of the Year and second in command of my unit, for failing to put an end
>to my chief's tyranny. The idea that she could have stopped the abuse
>is, to me, unfair and unreasonable. The Navy itself failed to stop him.
An E-6 has no authority over an E-7
>"Val, as I called her, was set to return home when she was told of the
>charges and that she wouldn't be leaving Bahrain as planned. She was
>afraid that she would never see the United States again. My mentor ended
>up taking her life."
Obviously she was unstable. and probably a closet case - many of that
kind often can't hack the rough life of a Sailor and take the easy way
out.
Your post is the story of "A homosexual fairy sand castle BUILT FROM
BULL SHIT!"
Pink Freud
"Popeye" <pop...@sealbeach.org> wrote in message
news:k0qfd5lb4k5cc2fnq...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:36:52 -0700, Dysperdis <dysp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Despite what the religious right claims, DADT only encourages abuses and
>>shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able to report his
>>treatment without fear of being discharged, there would have been fewer
>>lives ruined. As it stands, however, those who suffer such abuses have
>>little recourse unless they're willing to risk their careers.
>
> They knew when they enlisted that they were trying to fuck over the
> military by hiding the homosexuality - There's an old military saying;
> YOU FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU GET THE HORN,."
>
Exactly which part of 'Don't tell' is confusing you?
Popeye
wrote:
What part of 'The military doesn't want homosexuals in the ranks' is
confusing you?
Syd M.
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:30:48 +0100, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Popeye" <pop...@sealbeach.org> wrote in message
> >news:k0qfd5lb4k5cc2fnq...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Despite what the religious right claims, DADT only encourages abuses and
> >>>shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able to report his
> >>>treatment without fear of being discharged, there would have been fewer
> >>>lives ruined. As it stands, however, those who suffer such abuses have
> >>>little recourse unless they're willing to risk their careers.
>
> >> They knew when they enlisted that they were trying to fuck over the
> >> military by hiding the homosexuality - There's an old military saying;
> >> YOU FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU GET THE HORN,."
>
> >Exactly which part of 'Don't tell' is confusing you?
>
> What part of 'The military doesn't want homosexuals in the ranks' is
> confusing you?
The fact it doesn't exist?
PDW
raven1
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:30:48 +0100, "Pink Freud" <some...@here.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Popeye" <pop...@sealbeach.org> wrote in message
>>news:k0qfd5lb4k5cc2fnq...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:36:52 -0700, Dysperdis <dysp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Despite what the religious right claims, DADT only encourages abuses and
>>>>shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able to report his
>>>>treatment without fear of being discharged, there would have been fewer
>>>>lives ruined. As it stands, however, those who suffer such abuses have
>>>>little recourse unless they're willing to risk their careers.
>>>
>>> They knew when they enlisted that they were trying to fuck over the
>>> military by hiding the homosexuality
In what way were they trying to "fuck over" the military by complying
with the official military policy? You seem rather confused.
>>> - There's an old military saying;
>>> YOU FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU GET THE HORN,."
>>>
>>
>>Exactly which part of 'Don't tell' is confusing you?
>
>
>What part of 'The military doesn't want homosexuals in the ranks' is
>confusing you?
What part of the actual policy do you not understand? "Don't ask,
don't tell" is just four one-syllable words.
Syd M.
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:50:38 -0400, Popeye <pop...@sealbeach.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >>"Popeye" <pop...@sealbeach.org> wrote in message
> >>news:k0qfd5lb4k5cc2fnq...@4ax.com...
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>Despite what the religious right claims, DADT only encourages abuses and
> >>>>shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able to report his
> >>>>treatment without fear of being discharged, there would have been fewer
> >>>>lives ruined. As it stands, however, those who suffer such abuses have
> >>>>little recourse unless they're willing to risk their careers.
>
> >>> They knew when they enlisted that they were trying to fuck over the
> >>> military by hiding the homosexuality
>
> In what way were they trying to "fuck over" the military by complying
> with the official military policy? You seem rather confused.
>
> >>> - There's an old military saying;
> >>> YOU FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU GET THE HORN,."
>
> >>Exactly which part of 'Don't tell' is confusing you?
>
> >What part of 'The military doesn't want homosexuals in the ranks' is
> >confusing you?
>
> What part of the actual policy do you not understand? "Don't ask,
> don't tell" is just four one-syllable words.
It just dosn't penetrate the bigotry in his eye.
PDW
Dysperdis
Yanno, I always wonder about those who cling to the idea that straight
military personnel are incapable of serving alongside openly gay
military personnel without resorting to violence. I mean, straight
Canadian soldiers can do it, as can Australian, British, and Israeli
service members- so, why wouldn't members of the US military be able to?
Do they really think so little of those serving in the US military?
Pink Freud
So just to get this straight: in your eyes, the military, which has a "Don't
ask, Don't tell" policy, is being 'fucked over' by homosexuals who are
following that policy to the letter? That makes sense to you? Wow.
Dionisio
> What part of 'The military doesn't want homosexuals in the ranks' is
> confusing you?
Nothing. It's a nice special right.
Since heterosexuals caused God to damn the race to death, it is only fitting that they --
and they alone -- should die in warfare. We had no part in it, and they can keep their
"right" as jealously as they want.
(I'd offer to kiss ya, but I know where your mouth has been.)
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Q. What did George W. Bush call one of his dog Millie's pups?
A. "Spot." (Born in the White House 1989/03/17.)
Q. Why did the Clintons name their dog Buddy???
A. Because yelling "Come Spot" in the White House started to cause stampeds.
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
BE-VA
Homosexuals in the military joined under false pretenses. They enlisted
knowing that the military does not allow homosexuals to serve. They
knew they were homosexuals when they took the oath. They are all LIARS,
The Chief Instigator
How the hell would human wreckage like you know? They've served in the
armed forces, and did far better than you can even guess. If they're
motivated for that, they have a job to do, and they do it. You'd be ground
beef in the same situation. You're a piss-poor American if you can't accept
their choice to serve us civilians, if needed.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 2, Houston 1 (OT, November 22)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 25 at Hamilton, 6:05
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Beirut 1983 <no...@yourbiz.net> wrote:
<bigotry flushed>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
FREEDOM is ACCELERATING!
Same-sex marriage (SSM) is REALITY in all these places, and
the list is steadily and inexorably* growing:
( * RRR Cultists: Look up "inexorable." Take it to heart.)
� Netherlands (as of 2001)
� Belgium (2003)
� Massachusetts (2004)
� Canada (2005)
� Spain (2005)
� South Africa (2005)
� Norway (2008)
� Connecticut (2008)
� New York ** (2008)
...and getting very CLOSE in 2009.
� Iowa (2009)
� Vermont (2009)
� Sweden (2009)
� New Hampshire (2009)
� Washington, D.C.** (2009)
� New Jersey: PENDING in 2009
� Hungary: PENDING in 2009
� Albania: PENDING in 2009
� California: Has 18,000 legally-married
same-sex couples, and the future looks
very BRIGHT, per THIS clear trend:
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/CA-SSM-Progress--00-08.html
� Australia: 60% of Population now SUPPORTS it!
� Britain: 61% of Population now SUPPORTS it!
** New York State, Rhode Island, Washington, D.C.,
France, and Israel now recognize gay marriages
for couples legally married outside of the
state/district/country.
Gender composition is IRRELEVANT. Expect this to be the case
in almost ALL of the world within a few more years, as its societies
continue to OUTGROW and REJECT mindless bigotries.
The bigots have *already* LOST, and the RATE of their loss
is accelerating. A few years from now, SSM will be legal in ALL
50 states, and people will look back at them and their agenda, and
both will very properly be recalled with the *same* DERISION that
we now hold for the Segregationists and *their* EXTINCT agenda.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Puck Greenman
Which is odd really, because a few years ago, when you still had conscription, assertion
of homosexuality, didn't excuse you your service.
anonymous
>
> The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote in
> news:slrnhgp9ve....@eris.io.com:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:12:35 -0500, BE-VA
> > <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-16 19:21:31 -0400, "Pink Freud" <some...@here.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Popeye" <pop...@sealbeach.org> wrote in message
> >>> news:8gchd59kvk1iiva72...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:30:48 +0100, "Pink Freud"
> >>>> <some...@here.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Popeye" <pop...@sealbeach.org> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:k0qfd5lb4k5cc2fnq...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:36:52 -0700, Dysperdis
> >>>>>> <dysp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Despite what the religious right claims, DADT only encourages
> >>>>>>> abuses and shields abusers. Perhaps if the author had been able
> >>>>>>> to report his treatment without fear of being discharged, there
> >>>>>>> would have been fewer lives ruined. As it stands, however, those
> >>>>>>> who suffer such abuses have little recourse unless they're
> >>>>>>> willing to risk their careers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They knew when they enlisted that they were trying to fuck over
> >>>>>> the military by hiding the homosexuality - There's an old
> >>>>>> military saying; YOU FUCK WITH THE BULL AND YOU GET THE HORN,."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Exactly which part of 'Don't tell' is confusing you?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What part of 'The military doesn't want homosexuals in the ranks'
> >>>> is confusing you?
I accept the fact that many heterosexual men in the military don't want
homosexual men.
But there are lots of books and official documents that women are abused
and mistreated. I understand the military for women is just horrible.
I also accept the fact that until the fix the military for women, that
the military for homosexual men will be a problem. If we extend that
principle to outside the military, life for women was just horrible
along time ago. No right to vote, no property rights in a marriage, no
right of education, no right of divorce, no right of estates. But the
world changed and women have the same rights as men and have done
amazing things in just the few short years since the change which was
the beginning of the 1070s.
> >>>
> >>> So just to get this straight: in your eyes, the military, which has
> >>> a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, is being 'fucked over' by
> >>> homosexuals who are following that policy to the letter? That makes
> >>> sense to you? Wow.
> >>
> >> Homosexuals in the military joined under false pretenses. They
> >> enlisted knowing that the military does not allow homosexuals to
> >> serve. They knew they were homosexuals when they took the oath. They
> >> are all LIARS,
> >
I thought that the rule was that homosexuals were able to join the
military and the military wanted them on the condition that they didn't
disclose they were homosexual.
But I also understand military men to say that guys in their unite
didn't talk in sexual terms about women. These men minded their own
business. They didn't talk about wanting fuc- anything that moved. So
the unit then decided based on that information that the guy must be a
homosexual. They then tormented the guy who did his job and was an
excellent soldier until they drove the guy out of the military, made him
confess while being tortured in some hazing fashion or outright killed
the guy. What makes those heterosexuals good soldiers?
> > How the hell would human wreckage like you know? They've served in
> > the armed forces, and did far better than you can even guess. If
> > they're motivated for that, they have a job to do, and they do it.
> > You'd be ground beef in the same situation. You're a piss-poor
> > American if you can't accept their choice to serve us civilians, if
> > needed.
>
> It will be a cold day in hell when real men need a fag to lift a rifle.
>
Now, sir, if you could pause for a moment and explain what a real man
is. The reason I say that is that homosexual or heterosexual, men went
over the top to fight only to die, but there were homosexual and
heterosexual men who refused to go over the top and fight and they were
shot or punished in some other way. Additionally, I understand that
when men can't find women, they will resort to homosexual sex in prison
and in war to name two. So again please explain what real men are.
And just to remind you, the rife is not the problem and never will be
the problem for any soldier. It is only the bullet striking the solder
that is the problem. When the bullet strikes the soldier, he
immediately needs several things to survive. He needs to be removed to
an area he can be medically treated. He needs to be medically treated,
and he perhaps need a blood transfusion, and perhaps ultimately drive or
flown to a recovery area. All of the manpower that gets that soldier
through these steps just mentioned may be accomplished by a homosexual
soldier, homosexual doctor, homosexual driver, homosexual transport
soldier, homosexual blood donor. The point being that just because a
soldier is heterosexual doesn't make him special or make him a man.
> Your ignorance is showing. The Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids
> and punishes homosexual conduct.
No, your ignorance is showing. Homosexual conduct has to be conduct
that is homosexual. So unless the soldier is kissing another guy, having
anal sex with another guy - because anal sex with a woman is not
homosexual conduct., or blowing another guy because when women blow men,
it is considered a heterosexual act, then there is no homosexual
conduct.
The UCMJ is the law of the military,
> and non-serving pussies like you don't have a clue what that means.
> Criminal law and politics do not supercede the UCMJ. Queers can whine
> all they want to about it, but each enlistee gets a class on the UCMJ
> when they go through boot camp or basic. They know what the rules are.
> They have the chance to cry "I'm a FAGGOT!" during this phase, and they
> can get out as unsuitable with a discharge under honorable conditions at
> that point.
I had understood that during manpower shortages, the military ignored
anyone's pleas who said they were homosexual.
>
> When they graduate, it's a different story. They had their chance, and
> on their own, they decided the UCMJ does not apply to them because they
> personally or politically don't agree with it. Tough shit. They just
> entered the real world of the military where the rules are enforced for
> a reason. Learning to abide by the rules will save your life and that of
> your squad members. If your squad members feel they cannot depend on you
> in a combat situation, because you continually disobey the rules, they
> will not hesitate to kill you themselves, and nobody will see or hear a
> thing. A tight squad will do that and they will survive without looking
> back.
Nobody would disagree with you, but you have only given a negative
example. Assuming the homosexual soldier is a good soldier and obeys
the rules and the squad feels they can depend on him in a combat
situation, then there is no issue. But what I want to make sure you are
not saying is that because the homosexual has remained closeted under
the don't tell don't ask rules that that alone is not enough to kill a
homosexual in your unit if he has proven as good or better than any
other soldier in the unit.
>
> Faggots have already demonstrated that they willfully intend to be
> deceitful, and will not comply with the rules.
I don't like it when you make those statements because it reminds me of
the fellow Canadian I know who said black guys are lazy. He was married
to an East Indian woman. When I was a student in the states during the
vietnam war I heard statements like there will never be a black 5 star
general. There will never be a black president. And now you are
saying homosexuals willfully intend to be deceitful and will not comply
with the rules.
That's one choice
> they're living, and it's important to make the distinction. If they are
> willing to bust one rule, they can be counted on to refuse to comply
> with others when the situation is critical. If it was your life on the
> line, dependent on a person like that, are you truly willing to risk it?
>
>
> I'm not. The fag either leaves the squad once he is detected and
> becomes a pansy REMF keeping his mouth shut, or he's fucking dead the
> next time the shooting starts. Simple as that.
So how do you feel about women in the military, how do you feel about
women in your squad in a combat situation? You told us the standard for
homosexuals. Now what is
your standard for women in the military. I understand women suffer a
lot of sexual harassment. If a woman is caught blowing a fellow soldier
outside a bar at 2:00 a.m. will his squad kill the woman soldier like
they kill known homosexuals because she pleased a fellow soldier
sexually last night and they didn't get any?
Puck Greenman
>It will be a cold day in hell when real men need a fag to lift a rifle.
>
>Your ignorance is showing. The Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids
>and punishes homosexual conduct. The UCMJ is the law of the military,
>and non-serving pussies like you don't have a clue what that means.
>Criminal law and politics do not supercede the UCMJ. Queers can whine
>all they want to about it, but each enlistee gets a class on the UCMJ
>when they go through boot camp or basic. They know what the rules are.
>They have the chance to cry "I'm a FAGGOT!" during this phase, and they
>can get out as unsuitable with a discharge under honorable conditions at
>that point.
Child, come over to Blighty, and I'll introduce you to "faggots", any one of which could,
and would, rip your arms off, with about the same ease that you pull the wings off flies.
Let us all see if you've got the bottle,to tell them, face to face; or are you all wind
and piss?
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.oihjregoihjery.com> " <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:30:05 +0000 (UTC),
> Beirut 1983 <no...@yourbiz.net> wrote:
>
>
> <bigotry flushed>
Coward.
<snippage restored>
> It will be a cold day in hell when real men need a fag to lift a rifle.
>
> Your ignorance is showing. The Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids
> and punishes homosexual conduct. The UCMJ is the law of the military,
> and non-serving pussies like you don't have a clue what that means.
> Criminal law and politics do not supercede the UCMJ. Queers can whine
> all they want to about it, but each enlistee gets a class on the UCMJ
> when they go through boot camp or basic. They know what the rules are.
> They have the chance to cry "I'm a FAGGOT!" during this phase, and they
> can get out as unsuitable with a discharge under honorable conditions at
> that point.
>
> When they graduate, it's a different story. They had their chance, and
> on their own, they decided the UCMJ does not apply to them because they
> personally or politically don't agree with it. Tough shit. They just
> entered the real world of the military where the rules are enforced for
> a reason. Learning to abide by the rules will save your life and that of
> your squad members. If your squad members feel they cannot depend on you
> in a combat situation, because you continually disobey the rules, they
> will not hesitate to kill you themselves, and nobody will see or hear a
> thing. A tight squad will do that and they will survive without looking
> back.
>
> Faggots have already demonstrated that they willfully intend to be
> deceitful, and will not comply with the rules. That's one choice
> they're living, and it's important to make the distinction. If they are
> willing to bust one rule, they can be counted on to refuse to comply
> with others when the situation is critical. If it was your life on the
> line, dependent on a person like that, are you truly willing to risk it?
>
>
> I'm not. The fag either leaves the squad once he is detected and
> becomes a pansy REMF keeping his mouth shut, or he's fucking dead the
> next time the shooting starts. Simple as that.
>
<Chilton silliness flushed>
BE-VA
That, my boy, is widely known as looking up a dead horses ass.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Beirut 1983 <no...@yourbiz.net> wrote:
<bigotry flushed>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
BE-VA
(in article <slrnhgp9ve....@eris.io.com>):
Most are one hitch fuck off who are only in the military to grab the
education benefits. Invariably they escape ever having to serve in combat
and simply coast for four years OR they get their 180 days in then scream
"I SUCK DICKS", snatch up a general discharge and scurry off the after brow
headed for the nearest homo-bar to gloat about how they fucked the tax
payers. I've seen it happen so many times.
BE-VA
(in article <kqdqg5hg82cbqekmm...@4ax.com>):
> <bigotry flushed>
Crazy Craig, this is what homosexuals do:
"Bug parties are private functions, sometimes with more than one hundred
participants, where HIV positive men (at these parties called gift givers)
and HIV negative men (bug chasers) willingly have unprotected anal
sex.several dozen times This often leads to the infection of the HIV
negative person."
That you are QUEEN of the homo-defenders surly you can tell us about a
heterosexual activity that compares with this disgusting and repugnant
homosexual behavior.
Let's hear what you have Crazy.
BE-VA
(in article <rbhrg5l90ab888f65...@4ax.com>):
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:30:05 +0000 (UTC),
> Beirut 1983 <no...@yourbiz.net> wrote:
>
>
> <bigotry flushed>
Puck Greenman
...And that, my child, is widely known as an evasion.
Puck Greenman
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:56:57 -0500, �`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) wrote
>(in article <kqdqg5hg82cbqekmm...@4ax.com>):
>
>
>> <bigotry flushed>
>
>Crazy Craig, this is what homosexuals do:
>
>"Bug parties are private functions, sometimes with more than one hundred
>participants, where HIV positive men (at these parties called gift givers)
>and HIV negative men (bug chasers) willingly have unprotected anal
>sex.several dozen times This often leads to the infection of the HIV
>negative person."
>
>That you are QUEEN of the homo-defenders surly you can tell us about a
>heterosexual activity that compares with this disgusting and repugnant
>homosexual behavior.
>
You seem to have a great amount of information about these events, for a "straight" guy.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Beirut 1983 <no...@yourbiz.net> wrote:
<bigotry flushed>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Beirut 1983 <no...@yourbiz.net> wrote:
<bigotry flushed>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
BE-VA
(in article <8boqg5drlpmte6jdf...@4ax.com>):
Were he (the faggot to use your word) to indicate that he intended to rip
someones arms off that would be adequate reason for whom ever he threatened
to kill him in self defense. You might be surprised at the number of
Americans who carry concealed firearms. It just doesn't pay to threaten
some one with serious bodily harm today unless you have a big friendly
smile on your face.
> Let us all see if you've got the bottle,to tell them, face to face; or are
> you all wind and piss?
Mr. Colt, levels the playing field.
anonymous
I doubt that any homosexual would be that ungrateful. But I would much
rather hear heterosexual stories of how awesome and wonderful it is to
be in a military, how wonderful the soldiers are treated and how the
education and money earned while under contract during a tour of duty is
that it would entice all young heterosexual boys from simply getting a
local job but instead joining the military. Traditionally, I have
understood many military men come from family with a lot of sons and a
downturn in the economic condition in the area they are living and
joining the military gives them instant opportunities that wouldn't
otherwise be available - but at a cost, of course.
RamRod Sword of Baal
"BE-VA" <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote in message
news:jqHPm.262433$sz1.2...@en-nntp-10.dc1.easynews.com...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:01:23 -0500, Puck Greenman wrote
> (in article <8boqg5drlpmte6jdf...@4ax.com>):
>> Child, come over to Blighty, and I'll introduce you to "faggots", any one
>> of
>> which could,
>> and would, rip your arms off, with about the same ease that you pull the
>> wings off flies.
> Mr. Colt, levels the playing field.
You could not take Mr. Colt into England, so you would have to face him man
to man, one to one, something you bigots hate to do, and would run a mile
rather than do it.
You like the odds 10 to one in your favour as been shown so many times when
you bully bigots attack a lone Gay person, or as you have shown above, you
armed with a colt and he unarmed.
Puck Greenman
Not in Blighty, he doesn't.
BE-VA
<ram...@truthonly.com> said:
But you homos fuck with your face and we hets know that and we also
know that you are the No.1 vector of HIV/AIDS in England as you are in
the US. No het male wants to expose himself to that deadly disease that
is so prevalent among you face fuckers consequently, we choose to beat
your ass with a big stick if a firearm is not readily available. See
how that works?
BTW -- Nobody goes to England! You have far to many of the rejects of
human refuse from France and the other progressive Euro-countries. And
then, to make things even worse there is always the factor of your own
grimy soot cover society. So not to worry, old bean - Nobody goes to
England.
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
>
> Gender composition is IRRELEVANT. Expect this to be the case
> in almost ALL of the world within a few more years, as its societies
> continue to OUTGROW and REJECT mindless bigotries.
I suggest that you do a test to prove your prediction has come to pass;
go to any any city in a predominately Islamic country in 2014 and ass
fuck some dude at high noon on the town hall
steps and then come back and tell us how great it was. Deal?
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
BE-VA
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> said:
Crazy Craig, you're reporting isn't FAIR AND BALANCED! To be considered
such you have to present both sides of the story, meaning that you must
post a list of all the US states, cities and Foreign Countries that do
not allow homosexuals to marry or provide them with special perks.
Get To It, Crazy!
Tak A#344
>> Mr. Colt, levels the playing field.
>>
> Not in Blighty, he doesn't.
And thats why I like living in the USA. :)
Waiting around for some bored chav to stick me with a steak knife just
to knick my iPod is not my idea of a "better way of life".
Armed Gays don't get bashed! If I am getting attacked I don't have to
worry about waiting 45 minutes for the police to show up "assuming they
show at all" and also hope I don't get a homophobic cop who is as likely
to help my assailant as protect me.
I don't need to call the police, I can defend myself. I will not let
my partner or myself end up like Matthew Shepard.
If you lived with these homophobic murderous religious wingnuts
everywhere you would carry a gun too. :/
Tak A#344
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>"
> Crazy Craig, you're reporting isn't FAIR AND BALANCED! To be considered
> such you have to present both sides of the story, meaning that you must
> post a list of all the US states, cities and Foreign Countries that do
> not allow homosexuals to marry or provide them with special perks.
>
> Get To It, Crazy!
I'm glad you pointed that out.
Why should I pretend to be fair and Balanced?
My chief goal in life is to advance the cause of perversion.'
The end justifies the means, so I only want to make comments about how
perfectly normal and superior queers are.
Being a queer is just as normal as being left-handed.
In fact, some of my best ass-hole buddies are left-handed queers.
My many fans, admirers and worshipers know how important I am in the
struggle to promote homosexuality.
I love queers
My wife, Steve, loves queers
My dog, Ram-Butt, loves queers.
To know a queer is to love him.
>
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Tay;or (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
...NOTHING intelligent. As usual.
<flush idiocy>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
How CLUELESS is BILL TAYLOR?
Pretty Much Everyone Knows!
"That dimwitted closet queen is truly one of the most worthlessly
dreary posters of all time. His insane gay sex obsession isn't even
entertaining, and it's hard to pull off crazy without being funny.
"However, his latest ridiculous claim about multiple girlfriends and a
perpetual hard-on was mildly amusing for about thirty seconds. What
a self-parody the pitiful lying turd is."
-- "Lefty" <lefty_t...@yahoo.ca>, 11-23-09
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
***OBVIOUS*** FORGERY by a SUBMORON ---
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:53:56 -0600,
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
<Qu...@erection.invalid> wrote:
<forged garbage flushed>
It's FUN to watch the DESPERATION of the bigots as their
hate-agendas swirl faster and faster down the Drain of Extinction!
It's the best comic theater since the equally-ignorant segrega-
tionists bit the dust!
[[[ READERS: Note the DISCREPENCIES between the data
above, and the user information in MY posts.
So in case you want to see a good example of just *how*
abjectly IGNORANT the FORGER who posted this crap is
-- just consider the fact that the average 4-year-old newbie
would probably be able to copy and paste my user data
accurately -- but THIS dolt isn't even THAT intelligent. Thus
making it OBVIOUS that I had nothing to do with the posting.
They should start a new TV show for that bigoted CLOWN
and entitle it, "Are You Smarter Than a PRE-schooler?" The
pre-schooler would run circles around the ignoramus.
(AND -- what a good reminder provides that bigotry and
intelligence NEVER go together. LOL!!! What a tool. ]]]
-- (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <xana...@mchsi.com>
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> "RamRod Sword of Baal" <ram...@truthonly.com> wrote:
>> Submoronic Bigot, BILL TAYLOR (aka "BE-VA") wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Mr. Colt, levels the playing field.
>> You could not take Mr. Colt into England, so you would have to
>> face him man to man, one to one, something you bigots hate to do,
>> and would run a mile rather than do it.
>>
>> You like the odds 10 to one in your favour as been shown so many
>> times when you bully bigots attack a lone Gay person, or as you
>> have shown above, you armed with a colt and he unarmed.
>
> But [gays] fuck with your face...
And straights DON'T? Boy, will THAT ever come as a surprise to the
billions of straights worldwide who engage in oral sex!!
> BTW -- Nobody goes to England!
LYING is certainly your long suit, Taylor! England (and especially
London) is among the TOP tourist destinations, worldwide.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor (aka "BE-VA")
<blackwater...@testland.org> wrote:
> Craig, you're reporting isn't FAIR AND BALANCED! To be considered
> such you have to present both sides of the story, meaning that you must
> post a list of all the US states, cities and Foreign Countries that do
> not allow homosexuals to marry.
My SIG above is VERY fair. It compares the BENIGHTED world of
1989 and before (when same-sex couples were hatefully and irrationally
excluded from marriage *everywhere*) with the far BETTER one of 2009,
and shows the wonderful PROGRESS we've made on this planet in EMERG-
ING from the bigoted Dark Ages.
The fact that you are too DENSE to figure that OBVIOUS fact out will
probably come as NO surprise to anyone in here, Taylor.
Bigotry and intelligence are mutually-exclusive.
There is NO SUCH THING as an *intelligent* bigot. You are NO exception.
Puck Greenman
>On 2009-11-27 12:44:59 -0500, "RamRod Sword of Baal"
><ram...@truthonly.com> said:
>
>>
>> "BE-VA" <blackwater...@testland.org> wrote in message
>> news:jqHPm.262433$sz1.2...@en-nntp-10.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:01:23 -0500, Puck Greenman wrote
>>> (in article <8boqg5drlpmte6jdf...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>
>>>> Child, come over to Blighty, and I'll introduce you to "faggots", any one of
>>>> which could,
>>>> and would, rip your arms off, with about the same ease that you pull the
>>>> wings off flies.
>>
>>
>>> Mr. Colt, levels the playing field.
>>
>>
>>
>> You could not take Mr. Colt into England, so you would have to face him
>> man to man, one to one, something you bigots hate to do, and would run
>> a mile rather than do it.
>>
>> You like the odds 10 to one in your favour as been shown so many times
>> when you bully bigots attack a lone Gay person, or as you have shown
>> above, you armed with a colt and he unarmed.
>
>But you homos fuck with your face and we hets know that
So it is jealousy, is it; Wifey won't give you a blow job.
>and we also
>know that you are the No.1 vector of HIV/AIDS in England as you are in
>the US. No het male wants to expose himself to that deadly disease that
>is so prevalent among you face fuckers consequently, we choose to beat
>your ass with a big stick if a firearm is not readily available. See
>how that works?
Feel free to try
We'll even supply the stick.
I can see you now, a poor little homophobic lobster, with a gut like a bay window,
struggling to even pick up a descent sized stick, much less survive the recoil of his
*supposed* Colt, Big Bang Stick.
>
>BTW -- Nobody goes to England!
Sadly, that aint true.
But we do try to arrange it so that very few want a second visit.
> You have far to many of the rejects of
>human refuse from France and the other progressive Euro-countries.
American history just aint your best subject, is it?
> And
>then, to make things even worse there is always the factor of your own
>grimy soot cover society. So not to worry, old bean - Nobody goes to
>England.
If only.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Puck Greenman
>Puck Greenman wrote:
>
>>> Mr. Colt, levels the playing field.
>>>
>> Not in Blighty, he doesn't.
>
> And thats why I like living in the USA. :)
>
> Waiting around for some bored chav to stick me with a steak knife just
>to knick my iPod is not my idea of a "better way of life".
So emigrate, but not here, although knives are illegal in the UK, as well
>
> Armed Gays don't get bashed!
That depends on whether it is worth killing you for your weapon, or not.
If it is, it will probably be gays that do it.
> If I am getting attacked I don't have to
>worry about waiting 45 minutes for the police to show up "assuming they
>show at all" and also hope I don't get a homophobic cop who is as likely
>to help my assailant as protect me.
You are projecting your country's values, onto the rest of the world.
If you were attacked because you were gay, one would have to ask how your attackers knew
that you were gay.
You see, from reading your post, I suspect that you would deliberately provoke an attack,
so that you could use your big gun to seemingly, "legitimately", shoot some one.
>
> I don't need to call the police, I can defend myself. I will not let
>my partner or myself end up like Matthew Shepard.
I recall that, wasn't it in good old, christian, god loving, bible belt, Wyoming, USA,
that, that poor kid got killed?
...And wasn't it by some, good old, christian, god loving, bible belt, Wyoming, USA, boys?
>
> If you lived with these homophobic murderous religious wingnuts
>everywhere you would carry a gun too. :/
>
Are you trying to tell me that they give you warning?
That's jolly sporting of them.
In the UK, a gun would not protect you, but it would most likely get you killed,as you
say, long before the police got there, because someone else wanted it.
Should you manage to unship your gun, and fire it, the local police would almost certainly
shoot you first, question you later.
Should you survive that...
...Well you might find British prisons, a little more comfortable, and safer, than
American ones.
But you would be quite old before you ever saw the outside again.
OTOH, if you managed to kill someone, you would never see the outside again.
But then, the police might be busy else where, and the gang that you have opened fire on,
are not interested in arresting you.
...Or your partner.
And you could both end up wishing that you hadn't had a gun.