America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by frankj1. 51 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
WTF Has happened to the military leadership?????
ZRX1200 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military



New meaning to horse
FuzzNJ Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
I know, it's crazy. Now everyone in the military will be f*cking each other up the arse and buggering sheep. What will we ever do?
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
I don't agree with homosexuality and the normalizing of it in the military is wrong. That's just my opinion fuzzy.


Now you wanna defend why they had to SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS BESTIALITY?

senate really has nothing more important to do right?
yardobeef Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
I think that I can speak for all of us who enjoy unwinding at the end of the day by sodomizing livestock when I say that this will take a lot of the fun out of it. Part of the reason we got into yak penetration in the first place was because it had that forbidden fruit aspect that made it exciting. If I can just take an albino naked molerat into my bunk at night, where's the danger??? Where's the romance?

Oh well, looks like it's necrophilia for me from now on...at least until those bass-turds legalize it!!!!
FuzzNJ Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
"I don't agree with homosexuality and the normalizing of it in the military is wrong. That's just my opinion fuzzy."


Too bad really. Finally our society is moving in the right direction despite your opinion.
ZRX1200 wrote:

Now you wanna defend why they had to SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS BESTIALITY?



No, I have no idea what's up with that, nor do I care. If there's a dog f*cker in the military I'm sure it will be handled appropriately.
dubleuhb Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Normalizing immoral behavior is not a step in the right direction.
FuzzNJ Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
dubleuhb wrote:
Normalizing immoral behavior is not a step in the right direction.


lol. really? What business does any government have in enforcing your sexual morallity, especially since we're talking about consentual activivites?

Clue: None is the correct answer.
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Classy fuzzy.

I know you don't see things the way I do on this subject (not horses and dogs though I hope) but I have NO problem with your beliefs on it and understand why you might disagree.

But you wont see me calling you names over it.

Disagreeing over homosexuality doesn't mean I think homos are bad people, or I hate them. I just don't think its right . period.
yardobeef Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
1. I don't see Fuzz calling anyone names, ZRX. I don't think he was referring to you as the dog f*cker.
2. As per why bestiality was specifically addressed, I am sure that there was a blanket law that outlawed all sorts of sexual behavior that got struck down, it just happened to include bestiality. I am sure that it will rectified. :)
fiddler898 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Rectified? He was calcified! (Or something to that effect.)
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,560
yardobeef wrote:
I think that I can speak for all of us who enjoy unwinding at the end of the day by sodomizing livestock when I say that this will take a lot of the fun out of it. Part of the reason we got into yak penetration in the first place was because it had that forbidden fruit aspect that made it exciting. If I can just take an albino naked molerat into my bunk at night, where's the danger??? Where's the romance?

Oh well, looks like it's necrophilia for me from now on...at least until those bass-turds legalize it!!!!



Mellow
Whistlebritches Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
Former President Clinton visits troops in Iraq


Upon arrival Clinton noticed a very old, seedy looking camel tied out back of the enlisted men's barracks. He asked the Colonel leading the tour, "What's the camel for?".

The Colonel replied "Well sir it's a long way from anywhere, and the men have natural sexual urges, so when they do, uh, we have the camel."

Clinton said "Well if it's good for moral, then I guess it's all right with me."

As soon as the sun went down Clinton could not stand it any more so he told the Colonel to "BRING IN THE CAMEL!!!"

The Colonel shrugged his shoulders and led the camel into the presidents quarters.

Clinton grabs a foot stool & proceeds to have vigorous sex with the camel. Upon being satisfied Clinton steps down from the stool and ask the Colonel, "Is that how the enlisted men do it?"

The Colonel replies, "Well sir uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................................they usually just ride her into town."
FuzzNJ Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
Classy fuzzy.


Having a different opinion from you does not mean I am not classy. There are a lot of other reasons for that.
ZRX1200 wrote:

I know you don't see things the way I do on this subject (not horses and dogs though I hope) but I have NO problem with your beliefs on it and understand why you might disagree.

But you wont see me calling you names over it.


And I did?
ZRX1200 wrote:

Disagreeing over homosexuality doesn't mean I think homos are bad people, or I hate them. I just don't think its right . period.


No one asked you to be sexually attracted to a person of the same sex so why should it bother you if someone else is and why would you expect them to be punished for it? (which is essentially what thinking homosexuality should be banned in the military)
Mathen Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
Aw man, I'm going to have to try to clean this one up a bit. This one got told a million times when I was deployed.

A young replacement joins a battle hardened unit that is seeing daily action. After a short time, he starts feeling the urges that young men feel and comments one day that he sure misses getting a little sumpin' sumpin' once in awhile. His squad leader pulls him aside and says "Private, you know we don't have any women around here, but on the back side of the mess tent there is a barrel with a knot hole in it at a certain height. When you feel the need to release some tension, just get out of your rack in the middle of the night, and use the barrel."

Well, the young soldier, fresh from the world is aghast and insists that he's not going to use a barrel. That ain't natural.

"Ok." his squad leader says. "Your choice."

After another couple of weeks, the urges overpower him, so in the middle of the night, he slips out of his rack and sneaks out behind the mess tent where sure enough, he finds a barrel. There's a whole in it right where ol' Sarge said it would be, so after looking around nervously for a bit, he pulls himself out of his pants, and inserts himself into the hole.

It's amazing! It's incredible! It feels awesome! After just a few moments, he's done... And he feels much better.

The next morning he excitedly tells his squad leader "Sergeant, you were right! That barrel is great! I'm going to use it every night!"

"Every night but Tuesday." his squad leader says.

"No way Sergeant! I'm going back every night! I can't believe how good that was. I've got to do that again!"

"No problem, just not on Tuesday." his squad leader says again.

"Why can't I use it on Tuesday" the young soldier asks.

"Because Tuesday is your day in the barrel."
DadZilla3 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
FuzzNJ wrote:
What business does any government have in enforcing your sexual morallity, especially since we're talking about consentual activivites?

Clue: None is the correct answer.


Dunno if bestiality could be classified as consensual at all, but I can see trial lawyers having a field day (no pun intended) arguing the legal implications of whether a dog's age of consent should be calculated in dog years or people years.
jarhead72485 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 09-01-2011
Posts: 190
FuzzNJ wrote:


No one asked you to be sexually attracted to a person of the same sex so why should it bother you if someone else is and why would you expect them to be punished for it? (which is essentially what thinking homosexuality should be banned in the military)



it wasn't banned it just wasn't talked about. if you were gay, fine, just keep it to yourself. Its just like anyother taboo, if you like to have your wife/husband take a sh^t on your chest to help you get off, more power to ya, just keep it at home.
FuzzNJ Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
jarhead72485 wrote:
it wasn't banned it just wasn't talked about. if you were gay, fine, just keep it to yourself. Its just like anyother taboo, if you like to have your wife/husband take a sh^t on your chest to help you get off, more power to ya, just keep it at home.


Not true. Thousands were kicked out of the military and lost benefits because someone found out about their homosexuality. Now that can't happen anymore for just being gay.
FuzzNJ Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DadZilla3 wrote:
Dunno if bestiality could be classified as consensual at all, but I can see trial lawyers having a field day (no pun intended) arguing the legal implications of whether a dog's age of consent should be calculated in dog years or people years.


If you read the thread and weren't being disingenuous, you would realize and/or should know that I was not speaking about f'in animals.
wheelrite Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
fiddler898 wrote:
Rectified? He was calcified! (Or something to that effect.)



nearly killed him...
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,163
While you people are are all outraging and FuzzNJ is padding his application for Grand Marsall of another gay pride parade, I'll be off securing a no-bid contract with the US military to supply sheep and pigs.
Mathen Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
Sole source awards are getting to be really difficult to get. You better start your own Alaskan Native Corporation. They're running roughshod on the Federal Acquisition Regulation these days.






OMG... Why am I talking work?
yardobeef Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
HockeyDad wrote:
While you people are are all outraging and FuzzNJ is padding his application for Grand Marsall of another gay pride parade, I'll be off securing a no-bid contract with the US military to supply sheep and pigs.


Some of them for food.
Mathen Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 05-27-2011
Posts: 2,338
Look, budgets are getting tight. They'll all be dual purposed.
HockeyDad Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,163
Once their check clears, I don't care how they use them!
yardobeef Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
Hey, you stuff a turkey before you eat it, right?
DadZilla3 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
FuzzNJ wrote:
If you read the thread and weren't being disingenuous, you would realize and/or should know that I was not speaking about f'in animals.

I appear to have struck a nerve somewhere. Allow me to extend a disingenuous apology.
borndead1 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
ZRX1200 wrote:
Disagreeing over homosexuality doesn't mean I think homos are bad people, or I hate them. I just don't think its right . period.



Hypothetical question to you and anyone reading who agrees with you.


In your opinion, which is "worse"? 2 gay guys who have a monogamous relationship, or a hetero couple who are swingers?
ZRX1200 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Neither is worse to me. Both to me aren't what I consider "normal" or what I think a relationship should be.
FuzzNJ Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
borndead1 wrote:
Hypothetical question to you and anyone reading who agrees with you.


In your opinion, which is "worse"? 2 gay guys who have a monogamous relationship, or a hetero couple who are swingers?


Depends. Does the guy touch other guys when swinging?

The truth is it's not a moral issue with them even though they say it is, it's the ickyness factor. Have you ever seen anyone here complain that two women can marry? It's like wheel saying he's a great catholic using the church as his moral guide and authority, but not when it comes to porn, that he says is fine. So it's not the church that gives him his moral compass, it's really himself.
FuzzNJ Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
Neither is worse to me. Both to me aren't what I consider "normal" or what I think a relationship should be.


Do you support banning swinging in the military or not allowing swingers to marry?
borndead1 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
FuzzNJ wrote:
Do you support banning swinging in the military or not allowing swingers to marry?



Beat me to it. That was my next question hahahaha......
borndead1 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
ZRX1200 wrote:
Neither is worse to me. Both to me aren't what I consider "normal" or what I think a relationship should be.


But...should a certain ideal be legislated?

The reason I'm bugging you about this is because you seem very Libertarian in your views. Which is why I find such a strong opinion from you about this type of thing kinda weird.
FuzzNJ Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
borndead1 wrote:
But...should a certain ideal be legislated?

The reason I'm bugging you about this is because you seem very Libertarian in your views. Which is why I find such a strong opinion from you about this type of thing kinda weird.



Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to say they're Republican. ;)
ZRX1200 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Im not embarrassed to admit both.

Borndead1 I know, drug legalization is another pure libertarian one I have issues with.

No I don't think legislation is necessary I think the government should get out of the marriage business and it should be up to churches.

With this bill I figured sodomy was to cover the gays in the military. Bestiality???

borndead1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
FuzzNJ wrote:
Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to say they're Republican. ;)



Wrong.

Do you really believe that or are you just being cheeky?
borndead1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
ZRX1200 wrote:
Im not embarrassed to admit both.

Borndead1 I know, drug legalization is another pure libertarian one I have issues with.

No I don't think legislation is necessary I think the government should get out of the marriage business and it should be up to churches.

With this bill I figured sodomy was to cover the gays in the military. Bestiality???




In reading the wording of the Article 125 of the UCMJ, sodomy and bestiality were banned in the same sentence, so it looks like the only way to repeal the sodomy ban was to repeal the whole Article as it was written. But that doesn't make a sexy headline like "Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military".
FuzzNJ Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
borndead1 wrote:
Wrong.

Do you really believe that or are you just being cheeky?


Being cheeky, but there is truth to it. During GW's administration there were a whole lot of republicans who started calling themselves big 'L' libertarian, but still want government to stop things they don't like, ie homosexual marriage, drug control etc, as shown here with Z. That can't be in any way large L Libertarian.

Now small L libertarian is a different issue. There are many issues where I am libertarian and they usually fall into the don't tell me what to do unless I'm hurting someone else, but not anti-government because it's needed for a civil society. I wouldn't claim to be Libertarian because of it and Z and people like Z should be called out for calling himself Libertarian when clearly he is not. He's a normal conservative, saying he dislikes government envolvement in our lives, unless it's used to enforce his morality.

FuzzNJ Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
borndead1 wrote:
In reading the wording of the Article 125 of the UCMJ, sodomy and bestiality were banned in the same sentence, so it looks like the only way to repeal the sodomy ban was to repeal the whole Article as it was written. But that doesn't make a sexy headline like "Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military".


Exactly. That's why you will only see this story in the right wing media.
ZRX1200 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Hey Fuzzy you wanna show me where I said I was a big libertarian. You wanna show me where I asked for govt controls for MY issues?


Your a dolt really.

Big D.

FuzzNJ Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
Hey Fuzzy you wanna show me where I said I was a big libertarian. You wanna show me where I asked for govt controls for MY issues?


Your a dolt really.

Big D.



Oh no name calling. cry

Ok, you are a Republican. Fine with me. What's all the support for Ron Paul then?

You want the government control on this issue right here, on this thread, this issue.
borndead1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
FuzzNJ wrote:
Being cheeky, but there is truth to it. During GW's administration there were a whole lot of republicans who started calling themselves big 'L' libertarian, but still want government to stop things they don't like, ie homosexual marriage, drug control etc, as shown here with Z. That can't be in any way large L Libertarian.

Now small L libertarian is a different issue. There are many issues where I am libertarian and they usually fall into the don't tell me what to do unless I'm hurting someone else, but not anti-government because it's needed for a civil society. I wouldn't claim to be Libertarian because of it and Z and people like Z should be called out for calling himself Libertarian when clearly he is not. He's a normal conservative, saying he dislikes government envolvement in our lives, unless it's used to enforce his morality.




You're right about that. A lot of "Libertarians" will vote Republican because they somehow think it's the lesser of 2 evils or something. But the truth is, the Republican party really can't call themselves "the party of small government" anymore with a straight face. They are only the party of small government when it comes to giving corporations whatever the hell they want. When it comes to liberty/equality/privacy, they are the party of all-powerful moral authority government.

But on the other side, Democrats believe that their party represents "the little guy" when nothing could be further from the truth. The bailouts, the Patriot Act, the Tobacco Control Act, and the Food Safety and Modernization Act make it very clear whose side Democrats are on.

Lefties and righties are all for big government, as long as it's their kind of big government.


Signed,

A big L Libertarian
FuzzNJ Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
borndead1 wrote:


Lefties and righties are all for big government, as long as it's their kind of big government.


Signed,

A big L Libertarian



Truth.
MACS Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,824
What a man does with his sheep, goat, cow, etc... is none of the government's business. Period.

I, personally, do not see the appeal of doinking an animal. But I'm not gonna tell Fuzz he can't do it.

As far as sodomy goes... you homophobes go straight to gay... sodomy is still sodomy, even with a woman. Maybe the man and his woman like doing it that way? So. Is it anyone's business, but theirs?

NO... it isn't.

What has happened to the society our forefathers built on the premise of FREEDOM is the better question.
ZRX1200 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
O.k.

Now were talking about hot anal sex andytv should be checking in soon.......
yardobeef Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-25-2011
Posts: 849
ZRX1200 wrote:
O.k.

Now were talking about hot anal sex andytv should be checking in soon.......


Okay, I think we're all finally in agreement--anal sex should be allowed as long as it's HOT!
dubleuhb Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
FuzzNJ wrote:
lol. really? What business does any government have in enforcing your sexual morallity, especially since we're talking about consentual activivites?

Clue: None is the correct answer.

Well then what business does government have forcing those that feel it is immoral to have to turn a blind eye ?
You can do whatever you want behind your bedroom door just don't make others go along like it is OK. The kind of people you hang with have been around since the beginning of mankind, no doubt but there was a reason it was kept quiet and no one talked about it, it is abnormal behavior, plain and simple. There is a reason we have men and women and that is to pro-create. Now I don't expect you to understand this way of thinking, as it is far reaching for someone who idolizes Barney Frank and his type.
FuzzNJ Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
dubleuhb wrote:
Well then what business does government have forcing those that feel it is immoral to have to turn a blind eye ?
You can do whatever you want behind your bedroom door just don't make others go along like it is OK. The kind of people you hang with have been around since the beginning of mankind, no doubt but there was a reason it was kept quiet and no one talked about it, it is abnormal behavior, plain and simple. There is a reason we have men and women and that is to pro-create. Now I don't expect you to understand this way of thinking, as it is far reaching for someone who idolizes Barney Frank and his type.




What does not turning a blind eye consist of? What is it you want to be able to do and what is the government preventing you from doing?

HockeyDad Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,163
I've always assumed that the US Navy never enforced the sodomy provision. Now we are going to have to teach our retiring military personnel that once the enter the civilian world, bestiality is no longer acceptable.
HockeyDad Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,163
I assume that New Zealand will no longer allow US Navy vessels to make a port of call in their country.

Unintended consequences.
MACS Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,824
HockeyDad wrote:
I've always assumed that the US Navy never enforced the sodomy provision. Now we are going to have to teach our retiring military personnel that once the enter the civilian world, bestiality is no longer acceptable.


Not after this passed!! whip
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>