Jump to content

WTF? (**NSFW**)


slacker

Recommended Posts

I honestly don't know what's more surprising; that Gordon Ramsay has a midget porn double, or that the dude was found dead in a badger's den. Do badgers commonly snatch up little people?

That's Gravedigger for you, asking the hard hitting badger questions everyone else is too scared to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't sure where to post this... But it definitely seems like a WTF are they doing "exploring the wonderful tourism in Pakistan" or any other mid-east third world work shit hole...

I honestly feel bad for these people but I have to ask the question: Darwin at work?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/23/gunmen-kill-11-foreign-tourists-in-pakistan/?test=latestnews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart...f-The-Air-Force

Well,that's just fukcing fabulous.

A guy who served knowing he was breaking the rules is now the boss.

This is what we reward and what we have become. I am ashamed of my service.

Who gives two shits about what he may or may not have been doing behind closed doors during DADT? I'd be more concerned about the potential for focusing more on the "see[ing] sexual orientation policies further changed and better codified" part and not enough on the 'killing our enemies and breaking their shit' part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gives two shits about what he may or may not have been doing behind closed doors during DADT? I'd be more concerned about the potential for focusing more on the "see[ing] sexual orientation policies further changed and better codified" part and not enough on the 'killing our enemies and breaking their shit' part.

Exactly. If I had to guess, that was the focus of the interview because, surprise, this guy is gay and that's the question the reporters asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that his sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of anyone serving is irrelevant. The problem I have is how we not only identify, but glorify a group of people based on any "sexual" orientation, yet we seem to have a problem with "sexuality" of the heterosexual kind in the workplace in DoD. So, homosexuals come to work identifying themselves as "homosexual," we call it diversity and tolerance. If I, a flaming male lesbian, were to come to work bragging about how much I love women, they call it sexual harassment or inappropriate talk in the workplace. With all the news in the media today about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, why is anyone's "sexuality" being celebrated as if it is ok to say "I love cock" in the workplace. Gay people are (mostly) only identifiable because they tell you they are gay. Why is that ok, but it is not ok for me to celebrate my love of boobies by telling people at work?? THAT double standard is what I have a problem with....

Edit: I have problems with the grammers...

Edited by BitteEinBit
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that his sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of anyone serving is irrelevant.

What happens when sexual orientation with animals is the preference? How about with dead people?

How about "my sexual orientation means I am attracted to having multiple wives"?

What about cross-dressing? Can a squadron commander wear a woman's uniform?

Some things that seem far-fetched now might be quite plausible in 10-20 years.

For me, a candidate's orientation is relevant. Why? One reason is because it is a given they will push their agenda. And they will often do that at the expense of what is right, and what is needed.

Not to go off on a tangent, but let's face it: we had folks being required to wear reflective belts pretty much 24/7, and anywhere outdoors.

Then DADT gets repealed.

Now this.

Am I the only one that sees a connection here?

Edited by Huggyu2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens when sexual orientation with animals is the preference? How about with dead people?

How about "my sexual orientation means I am attracted to having multiple wives"?

What about cross-dressing? Can a squadron commander wear a woman's uniform?

It's been quoted before, "Liberty for Me, but not for Thee". I have no doubt that transgenders will be allowed to serve in 20-30 years, if not sooner. All it takes is a President and a majority of politicians willing to push an agenda, and there you have it--and then it's here to stay.

I don't have a problem with gay folks serving but at the same time then I just don't understand why dudes/chicks can't bunk together downrange and why I can't date the enlisted finance chick. Oh well.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that his sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of anyone serving is irrelevant. The problem I have is how we not only identify, but glorify a group of people based on any "sexual" orientation, yet we seem to have a problem with "sexuality" of the heterosexual kind in the workplace in DoD. So, homosexuals come to work identifying themselves as "homosexual," we call it diversity and tolerance. If I, a flaming male lesbian, were to come to work bragging about how much I love women, they call it sexual harassment or inappropriate talk in the workplace. With all the news in the media today about sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault, why is anyone's "sexuality" being celebrated as if it is ok to say "I love cock" in the workplace. Gay people are (mostly) only identifiable because they tell you they are gay. Why is that ok, but it is not ok for me to celebrate my love of boobies by telling people at work?? THAT double standard is what I have a problem with....

I'd hardly call the position of homosexuals in our society "glorified." What you are speaking of is the fact that they are being praised for having the nerve to "come out" in a society where fear of reprisal is a very real threat. This is something you (I presume you are straight) and I have never had to worry about. So sure, publicly admitting who you are sexually and being honest with yourself and others about your orientation, when you know that it could affect just about every aspect of your personal and professional life, is something to be commended.

Why is a gay man admitting he is gay equated to a straight man talking about how much he loves poon at work? They are two different scenarios. A gay man talking about his love of cock is the same a man talking about tits a work, they are probably both inappropriate conversations to have in a professional environment.

The only double standard I see is the one where my friend can't marry his partner that he loves just as much as the next straight couple and is consequently denied hundreds of benefits that he would otherwise have if he were straight. That is a double standard.

What happens when sexual orientation with animals is the preference? How about with dead people? How about "my sexual orientation means I am attracted to having multiple wives"? What about cross-dressing? Can a squadron commander wear a woman's uniform? ...

Yes, a man marrying another man is the same me marrying my dead 1st cousin while a wear a wedding gown doing so. You're right.

Let's not get all Jerry Falwell.

Edited by kchsload
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hardly call the position of homosexuals in our society "glorified." What you are speaking of is the fact that they are being praised for having the nerve to "come out" in a society where fear of reprisal is a very real threat. This is something you (I presume you are straight) and I have never had to worry about. So sure, publicly admitting who you are sexually and being honest with yourself and others about your orientation, when you know that it could affect just about every aspect of your personal and professional life, is something to be commended.

Why is a gay man admitting he is gay equated to a straight man talking about how much he loves poon at work? They are two different scenarios. A gay man talking about his love of cock is the same a man talking about tits a work, they are probably both inappropriate conversations to have in a professional environment.

The only double standard I see is the one where my friend can't marry his partner that he loves just as much as the next straight couple and is consequently denied hundreds of benefits that he would otherwise have if he were straight. That is a double standard.

Yes, a man marrying another man is the same me marrying my dead 1st cousin while a wear a wedding gown doing so. You're right.

Let's not get all Jerry Falwell.

Bingo. Under the rules of DADT, it wasn't just telling people you were gay that would cause problems. Let someone in the military see you downtown, off-duty, in civies, holding hands with a same-sex partner, and that person is obligated to report it.

Put a picture of your same-sex partner on your desk they way your colleagues put up pictures of their wives, and you're subject to investigation.

What people keep missing is that DADT didn't prevent gay people from serving, it just made their lives fucking miserable while they were in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people keep missing is that DADT didn't prevent gay people from serving, it just made their lives fucking miserable while they were in.

I think by the end of this week it won't make much of a difference--my money is going on that SCOTUS will strike down DOMA as unConstituional.

Huggy'a argument about dead people is a foolish one (hard to have a relationship with a person who is not a person)...but the argument about multiple wives, marrying your siblings, etc still stands as a valid argument. IMO the church and whatever non-govt organization that is allowed to perform marriages should get out of the contract business and the State should get out of marriage business. States should enforce legal contracts, regardless of what combination of people want to enter into the contract. After that we can get rid of all the silly 'benefits' rules that the State and Federal to govt extend to people who are in these contracts. That way people can 'marry' whoever they want, anybody can enter into legal contracts for whatever reason (ie sharing a bank account, child custody issues, etc), and then I don't have to pay to support or not support various different lifestyles, regardless of whether of not I agree with them. Problem solved.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...