News Stories

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Taufiq91

Oh, and the responses by conservatives regarding this issue is hilarious:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...ts?q=1&;page=1

You've got to read the page. Your mind will explode!

What's that timmy? Free Republic is a massive illogical right wing circle jerk?


Well no shit.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The end of DADT really doesn't change much as far as military law is concerned.
So long as UCMJ 925 Article 125 exists in its current form, anyone engaging in anal-sex, "carnal sex" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), and beastiality, is subject to a court-martial.
Therefore, until the UCMJ is amended (and I believe it will be) the military still can court martial anyone engaging in sodomy.

I'm a bit more optimistic than that. It's pretty clear the current military leadership isn't all that actively interested in kicking out gays period. Even before the courts and congress repelled DADT, the military had set new restrictions on how DADT was carried out that made it impossible to kick anyone out under it unless a military secretary approved it. And all those guys were testifying that DADT was harmful.


I think I'll point out a case of that Female officer who got kicked out under DADT but got reinstated due to the courts ruling that the way the evidence was handled was inappropriate. She had engaged in an affair with a civillian mans wife, and technically speaking an officer engaging in an affair is something they can court martial you for. But none of the legal experts believed that would happen in this case.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I'm a bit more optimistic than that. It's pretty clear the current military leadership isn't all that actively interested in kicking out gays period. Even before the courts and congress repelled DADT, the military had set new restrictions on how DADT was carried out that made it impossible to kick anyone out under it unless a military secretary approved it. And all those guys were testifying that DADT was harmful.


I think I'll point out a case of that Female officer who got kicked out under DADT but got reinstated due to the courts ruling that the way the evidence was handled was inappropriate. She had engaged in an affair with a civillian mans wife, and technically speaking an officer engaging in an affair is something they can court martial you for. But none of the legal experts believed that would happen in this case.

I agree that the days of the military brass kicking servicemen out for simply being gay are long since passed.
There are other reasons these laws were used, which if you've served then you know, involve internal politics.
Having served 4 years in the USAF I know how gay men (especially) were ignored (I mean their sexuality here) even under DOD Directive 1332.14. Nobody cared so long as the person maintained the integrity, honor, and military professionalism that all servicemen are required to have.
I don't know about the other services, but in the USAF there were more cases of drug abuse and adultery by heterosexuals than anything else during my enlistment.

I have to admit that DADT, and all bans on gays in the military, were ridiculous to begin with.
It's not as though the base medical staff didn't know who was a gay man and who wasn't.
All personnel are required to get annual physical checkups and that used to include an examination of your rectum.


Anyhoo, can we please move on!!!

Everyone, meet Der Furer of Venezuela.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1729156220101217

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It's not as though the base medical staff didn't know who was a gay man and who wasn't.
All personnel are required to get annual physical checkups and that used to include an [URL="http://www.5min.com/Video/The-Link-Between-Anal-Sex-and-Fecal-Incontinence-236989090"]examination of your rectum.

Well I suppose they could claim that they like girls who use strap ons...

[flying ^]

whew i'm glad i haven't joined the smarthphone craze

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Next time, please just admit that you were wrong.
It's not a big deal, so I don't understand why you didn't do the mature thing and amend what you said in the first place.

I'm not going to admit I'm wrong, unless there's an article from a reliable source that says I'm wrong. Would you admit to being wrong if someone posted a sensationalist article from a source you aren't that familiar with, but have heard questionable things about the reliability of? A check on wikipedia and a glance at other articles on there didn't allay those concerns. Standards of evidence and all. If you claimed muslims weren't going to take over Europe and turn it into "Eurabia", and I showed an article from the Daily Mail saying they were, would you then admit to being wrong, or rightfully call the article sensationalist from a questionable source and ask for other sources to back up the claim? You've since provided more sources though.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Dream Act fails in US senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us...s/19immig.html

brace for euro-style protests/revolts

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights...ils-the-senate

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

brace for euro-style protests/revolts

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights...ils-the-senate

Their idea of a riot is to burn a bunch of American flags and post videos on youtube. Not particularly worried there.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Their idea of a riot is to burn a bunch of American flags and post videos on youtube. Not particularly worried there.

eyah... in recent years, the energy of Americans to protest has gotten pretty dismal. In jest, I blame it on the idea of not actually requiring congressmen to stand there and talk when they filibuster. They just leave a notecard saying they intend to filibuster.

Something is fundamentally different, maybe its the obesity trends in an unholy union with the basic knowledge dive?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You've since provided more sources though.

I'm glad you were satisfied.

Originally Posted by flying ^

brace for euro-style protests/revolts

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights...ils-the-senate

Oh yeah, that'll help.

The only ones who will profit off of any kind of widespread revolution or violence in this country will be the military industrial complex.

I'll go out on a limb here on pure speculation and conjecture (no facts, just my opinion, albeit an informed one to an extent).

I highly doubt the police forces or National Guard could handle a widespread rash of rioting and violence in the US. The National Guard is already spread too thinly around the world and there simply aren't enough police.
Therefore, I speculate that in such an emergency we would see private contractors used on the streets to aid the National Guard and domestic police units.
Think Blackwater, and Haliburton.
I hope that the Latino community isn't fool enough to actually start mass rioting or else the military industrial complex will most certainly get to fill its coffers with taxpayer monies to "stop the emergency."

Every time I see a group scream "revolution" over some perceived "injustice" I wonder if there isn't an arm of the corporate military industrial complex playing a role.

Eisenhower was right IMHO:

[yezhanquan]

Aye. Ol' Ike was one of my personal heroes for a reason.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by flying ^

whew i'm glad i haven't joined the smarthphone craze

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

But Steve Jobs is here to save us from big brother!

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

But Steve Jobs is here to save us from big brother!

That was until Apple became big and famous, and became part of Big Money too.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

That was until Apple became big and famous, and became part of Big Money too.

but now we have skynetgoogle to save us...

[ganbaru]

Gbagbo allies "ready to die" in Ivory Coast fight
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6BH0X320101220
We are gonna get another bloodbath in africa soon...

[GundamFan0083]

This just plain sucks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...250748540.html

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

This just plain sucks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...250748540.html

Yeah it sucks, because it is written in a way that makes the reader feel sympathetic with the corporation's cause and against the FCC.
What the FCC basically tries to protect is, that if you rent a line (internet access) and were promised x MBit/s service transfer rate, that you get it regardless of which internet service you are using. It also ensures that if you have a contract that guarantees you x MBit/s sustained transfer rate, that you are not penalized for actually using it sustained for certain services.
I always wonder why people buy into the deregulation mantra (especially those who can only loose in such scenarios)... just because it is written in a way that appeals to your sense of rightness... what some people never learned is to think critical... which makes them self-righteous (not critical with themselves) and susceptible to manipulation (not critical with peers, politicians, other people who are good talkers).

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

This just plain sucks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...250748540.html

Welcome to Rupert Murdoch's view of the world? The WSJ isn't really a *great* resource like it used to be. Its always been business-biased but with the acquisition by Murdoch it moved out of the realm of, say, The Economist and Foreign Policy and closer to tabloid sensationalism and pushing agendas favorable to Murdoch (aka anti-NetNeutral player).

This article is utter bullshit, using soundbites and reasonable-SOUNDING noises that have been shot down repeatedly by anyone who takes the time to connect the historical dots - there is barely a single sentence in that article with any credibility. Its just the Big Lie repeated over and over.

At some point you feel like Carl Sagan encountering yet another version of the Velikovsky crackpot reality or a pack of flat-earthers. Do I have to explain AGAIN why this schill's point of view is bullshit? That the Net IS historically (so far) net neutral but that it is the corporations who bribe him that want to balkanize the Internet and have made moves to do so?

Originally Posted by Jinto

I always wonder why people buy into the deregulation mantra (especially those who can only loose in such scenarios)... just because it is written in a way that appeals to your sense of rightness... what some people never learned is to think critical... which makes them self-righteous (not critical with themselves) and susceptible to manipulation (not critical with peers, politicians, other people who are good talkers).

They foolishly think there is some chance *they* might be a member of the "country club" one day.... when in fact the "country club" is getting very very small. The bell curve of society is collapsing to an inverted bell curve - and in no small part because some peasants were fooled into thinking they were standing in a higher grade of shit.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Yeah it sucks, because it is written in a way that makes the reader feel sympathetic with the corporation's cause and against the FCC.
What the FCC basically tries to protect is, that if you lend a line (internet access) and were promised x MBit/s service transfer rate, that you get it regardless of which internet service you are using. It also ensures that if you have a contract that guarantees you x MBit/s sustained transfer rate, that you are not penalized for actually using it sustained for certain services.
I always wonder why people buy into the deregulation mantra (especially those who can only loose in such scenarios)... just because it is written in a way that appeals to your sense of rightness... what some people never learned is to think critical... which makes them self-righteous (not critical with themselves) and susceptible to manipulation (not critical with peers, politicians, other people who are good talkers).

Dammit. You got that out first.

Well look at the sub-header :

'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

How is is going to inhibit investment? I seriously don't get it at all. Deregulating it will cause this instead because there would be no rules to play by. Metaphorically, how would you like a baccarat game where the banker has the right to determine the amount of your wins and losses, instead of the established rules of the game itself? That would be no different from loan-sharking.

Secondly, the web has always been free for innovation because there are so many places to hide. Sure google may make searches easier, but how many people would actually have the patience to track through thousands and thousands of pages? Innovation CREATES, meaning that the invention/knowledge HAS NOT EXISTED BEFORE. So how will the rules actually deter innovation?

WSJ has become decadent to serve the needs of Rupert Murdoch and those people who pay him to print their version of the news. It used to be very well written like TIME, but now it is simply a shadow of its former self, seeking to skew perspectives from rather corporatist POVs.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

This just plain sucks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...250748540.html

Look, WSJ = Murdoch flagship paper.
Oh well.

[GundamFan0083]

UK says "No porn unless you Opt-in" under proposed new plan.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1225973481287