DanG
-
Content
6,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by DanG
-
Trying to discuss things with you can be very frustrating. Let's use the same terminology: Anthropogenic Global Warming is very much related to Global Warming. The later is a physical phenomenon. Even if you don't think it is happening, the definition is quite simple. Anthropogenic is just an adjective meaning that a phenomenon is caused by the action of humans. Whether you agree that human are affecting the climate or not, saying the two terms are not related makes no sense whatsoever. - Dan G
-
Sure, the only difference being one side has heaps of scientific evidence on its side, and the other doesn't. Huh? That makes no sense. Climate change is a phenomenon. AGW (which is a crappy acronym, it should be ACC) theorizes the cause of that phenomenon. They have everything to do with each other. - Dan G
-
I don't recall that at all. Are you talking about Clinton vs. GHWB or Clinton vs. Dole? We all know that you don't like Obama, but if you think his charater wasn't attacked, you are seriously delusional. - Dan G
-
Not really. Character has always been important. Newt's reputation is so ruined right now that he couldn't get elected dog catcher. - Dan G
-
FIFY - Dan G
-
Newt ran in the midterms? - Dan G
-
BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
DanG replied to skyrider's topic in Speakers Corner
It doesn't have to be a show. There's a difference between being allowed to have an open relationship with a member of the same sex, and buttfucking him in the drill hall. The two are not the same thing. I can't remember seeing a desk/office belonging to a married/committed servicemember where there wasn't at least one picture of that person's spouse/girlfriend. That's the level of openness that gays want. If you think having a picture of your loved one on your desk is flaunting your sexuality, then pretty much everyone in the military is breaking your rules right now. - Dan G -
BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
DanG replied to skyrider's topic in Speakers Corner
Huh? What history are you talking about? Allowing gays to serve openly has nothing to do with getting RuPaul into fatigues. It is about allowing equal opportunity for all citizens to serve their country. The same standards for fitness, intelligence, loyalty, performance, and appearance would still be applied to everyone. - Dan G -
BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
DanG replied to skyrider's topic in Speakers Corner
Gays would be (and are) held to the same standard as straight soldiers. "Flamers" wouldn't cut it, just like PVT Benjamin (Goldie Hawn movie) wouldn't cut it. - Dan G -
BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
DanG replied to skyrider's topic in Speakers Corner
I'm not seeing it in the passage you quoted. If there is something else that you chose not to quote, please add it. I don't see any mention whatsoever about homosexuality. Perhaps Jesus didn't actually address it. - Dan G -
BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
DanG replied to skyrider's topic in Speakers Corner
Homosexuality is not mentioned in that passage. But you already knew that. Now you're going to say that the homosexual act is the sin, as are all lustful acts. So, if I may take your position to its logical end, homosexuals are all going to hell, but so is everyone else who has ever committed a lustful act without repentance. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And while you're at it, please explain what any of that has to do with gays serving in the military. - Dan G -
Where do you gather that from? - Dan G
-
BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
DanG replied to skyrider's topic in Speakers Corner
It sounds like you think only straight men have the capability to be combat soldiers. Have you ever met any gay men? They are not all prancy nancy-boys. - Dan G -
You do realize how arrogant you sound yourself, right? - Dan G
-
That was a law enforcement sting. Are you going to count police undercover drug buys as narcotics trafficking, too? Try again yourself. - Dan G
-
You've really bought into the fear, huh? How many attacks on US soil have happened in the last two years? - Dan G
-
No offense, but from my perspective, your views in this thread represent that same apathetic majority. I get that you are on the line about whether or not TSA's methods violate our rights. I'd argue that if you're on the line, you should tend toward rights over security. You should also balance the potential infringement of rights against the benefit. I believe there is a negative benefit for security, since we're allocating money for useless scanning and pat downs that could be better spent elsewhere. Thanks for the rational discussion. - Dan G
-
I disagree, but if you think body scanners and pat downs are violations of our rights, why be in favor of them? To me, liberty is more important than (a false sense of) security. - Dan G
-
Stressed out people with weapons might be a bad thing, but that's not why the TSA prevents you from carrying on anything that could be used as a weapon. They do it to prevent hijacking. Other security measures, such as reinforced cockpit doors and air marshalls, already address that threat quite well. There is no legitimate national security interest in making travellers throw away their nail clippers. But here we are anyway. The fact of the matter is that current TSA rules do not enhance security. That includes scanning and "enhanced pat downs". Once you give an organization power and funding, wresting it away is almost impossible. If we keep budging just one more inch (with no tangible benefit) eventually we won't have any rights in an airport at all. At that point we'll have lost what it is about America that's worth protecting. - Dan G
-
Well, my friend, you've come to the right place. - Dan G
-
No kidding. Do you have a problem with letting personal weapons (or at least things that only MacGyver could turn into personal weapons) through security? - Dan G
-
Here's what I propose: let people with nail clippers, knitting needles, pocket knives, machetes, and guns get on the plane. What are they going to do? Post-911, they're going to get their ass beat to a pulp. They won't get access to the cockpit, those are reinforced. Personal weapons don't pose any more threat on an airplane than they do on the street. Explosives are a different problem, but the scanners don't solve it. Explosive sniffers have been in use for years, and don't require naked pictures or fondling. Add in behavioral profiling and a better watch/no fly list, and you'll stop 99% of threats that make it to the airport. The other 1%? Guess what, you'll never stop them no matter what you do. - Dan G
-
And don't forget the option to flip-up the visor, or just rip it off. You may break your helmet, but it's better than killing your friend. - Dan G
-
We were not at war when this guy's crimes were committed. How else, besides the judicial system, are we supposed to deal with people who commit crimes against Americans during peacetime? I hope no one thinks that having a permanent military tribunal where "enemies of the state" are tried separate from other criminals is a good idea. Especially when the definition of an enemy combatant is unclear. - Dan G
-
Newsweek Depiction of Obama as Lord Shiva Upsets Some Indian-Americans
DanG replied to rushmc's topic in Speakers Corner
Never claimed they were. Allow me to clarify again (this is the last time): No one related to this article used the term Indian American, except the reporter (and possibly his or her editor in deciding on a title). - Dan G