12/12/12
 

For some 2012 is....

http://www.december212012.com/

http://www.december212012.com/articl...k_for_2012.htm

How can Shirley MacLaine, Jesse Ventura, Dan Aykroyd, Woody Harrelson, Janeane Garofalo and Mel Gibson be wrong? Deon Warwick could not see her own career end?


Will there be a major cataclysm in 2012? Quite possibly.

We are currently in a period of eleven years all of which have a day with the last two digits of the year repeated three times in mm/dd/yy form (or dd/mm/yy or yy/mm/dd). So May 5, 2005 was 05/05/05; June 6, 2006 will be 06/06/06; July 7, 2007 will be 07/07/07, etc.

Actually, a more significant date is December 21, 2012, as this is the end of the Mayan calendar. This will mark the end of the Piscean Age of secular materialism, and the true beginning of the Age of Aquarius, which will last for one thousand years. It is also prophesied in Revelation chapter 20 verses 1-3.

December 21, 2012 is 6 years, 6 months, 15 days from June 6, 2006, or 6/6/6 (or 2390 days)
December 21, 2012 is 7 years from December 21, 2005 (or 2557 days).
December 21, 2012 is 11 years, 3 months, 10 days from September 11, 2001 (or 4119 days)

I'm thinking the same thing will happen on Dec 21, 2012 that happened on Jan 1, 2000 - I'll get up, have a cup of coffee and consider, "Is it too warm or too cold to ski, shoot or fish?"

I'll consider it for roughly 10 minutes and then decide to do all the above.

Also betting upon my return to the house, the wood burning stove will work just fine.

Wet Dog

You answer a serious question with a silly question?

Pat

As has been discussed here before, gays have been allowed to serve. Just not openly. Some have excelled at being soldiers, some have done poorly. Just as those (straight, gay or otherwise) have done before. It's when, in a profession of discipline and uniformity, you want to stand up and say, "Oooh! Oooh! Look at me, I'm special!" that it becomes an issue. And not that kind of special because you excel at your job, but one that detracts from excelling at it.

Ex,,

Would you offer this same argument to the DREAM ACT, where citizenship is not required? Since you have served 4 years in the Army, you must remember that soldiers waive many rights that are constitutionally protected for civilians. "Anyone" is not needed nor required to serve in the military, but rather those that are best suited to accomplish the mission required. When did this become about individual rights? DADT preserved a delicate balance that will now be undone and a new balance will need to be found. At this time NO ONE can forecast how that new balance will appear. I appreciate your 4 years service, but I fail to see how that prepares you to speak on this subject when this in reality impacts the CMD level the hardest. Soldiers do as they are told, and they do their tasks as best they can. DADT was not an issue for those who wanted to serve, only to those who wanted to be GAY first and serve second. Sorry if the military inconvenienced your personal life choices, welcome to the club Nancy.

The logistical and UCMJ adjustments that this can of worms now opens is HUGE, for if we now have to consider a soldiers personal sexual preference as a CMD issue, then what other personal preference issues will have to be accommodated? This new direction placed by civilian leadership will now have to be directed, supported, and executed by the military leadership who just now is beginning to investigate the issues involved. "Two ongoing wars, NK and China, plus Chavez. The continuing threat from AQ, but hey wait guys, let me deep dive into this DADT issue that "could" represent an issue." Really? Did you really think this would just "happen" at the snap of the fingers? This will most likely remain what it is now, a political hot potato that a new group of politicians will leverage when it is needed to secure more votes.

And I agree with my mentors. For those who strongly disagree with this decision, retirement is always a legitimate and honorable COA.

True blue, Retirement just looks more attractive now two more years and im out.

I think that they should have issued 'Pink Berets"to all gays and lesbians............:eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
-- Aldous Huxley

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Well, the openly homo system worked with the military in Rome circa the time of its fall.

I don't think your average American, or even Congresscritter understood the evolution of the policy in the first place.

Prior to DADT, you could be investigated for suspicion of homosexuality and put out of the military if found guilty. You could be as gay as you pleased on the inside, you just had to abstain from homosexual conduct.

After DADT, the military was not allowed to pursue allegations of homosexuality unless it was overt and was brought to the attention of the chain of command. Be gay as you want, just don't get caught in the act.

Now it would appear that you can flaunt your gayness. Get ready for the transgender soldiers and the military float in your local gay pride parade. There are going to be some hilarious blotter reports from this. And the first promotion/assignment complaint because of discrimination is only months away.

TR

For those who want to know where their reps stood on the vote:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...e/2/votes/281/

Richard

Sir you've hit the nail on the head for anyone in a leadership position. I didn't think I'd become a dinosaur in my mid-thirties, but I guess I'm old fashioned. We're in two wars, recruiting and retention is through the roof, and we're worried about a small group who could already serve as long as they kept their private business private. Now, for a reservist like me training time is at a premium, but now we'll have to take even more time out of the training schedule for integration/sensitivity training. Seven years is all I've got left to deal with this unless they start offering early retirement.

Specious argument.

It also worked well in classical greece at the time 300 Spartans held off the Persian Hordes at the Hot Gates.

It worked well when Alexander the Great's army conquered the entire "known" world., and when Xenophon led the 10,000 on their epic retreat back from betrayal in the Indus valley ("the Anabasis").

Let's be real - the problem is not with homosexuals, it is with society's reaction to homosexuals.

Not so
 

Not so - your examples have one thing in common. They are empires thrown into the dustbin of history.

Empires rise and fall. Most declines are caused by similar social reasons. Rome did not fall in a day - took a couple of hundred years.

So the question about DADT repeal is "Is it helping us up or helping us down?"

And the answer (down) will be painfully obvious within the year, IMO.

Why is it when anyone brings up Thermopylae they neglect to mention the 300 Spartans were only a small percentage of the thousands of Greek troops there? Anyway, as far as ancient Greece went, it wasn't so much homosexuality as it was pederasty or what we would call child molestation. The whole argument is irrelevant anyway as Greece was never as great as the GREEK historians recalled, just as Rome was not as great as the ROMAN historians recalled. All of it is irrelevant when comparing it to our military today.
I personally do not want to share cramped quarters with or shower with anyone who is openly homosexual. Just as a vast majority of females I've served with did not want to shower with me (no matter how big my ego was).