"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission."

Being a veteran who served in the 60's, I cannot express to you the degree to which I agree with the above statement. The rules were much stricter then, but there were a few homosexuals that slipped in. Unit cohesion was most definitely impaired when it did happen.

I have a son who spent time in the National Guard. He, too, supports the statement. I have another young man currently living with us who wants to join the army, but the issue is of concern to him as well.

Clinton made a big mistake. Mr. Soetoro wants to greatly magnify that mistake. We must convince Congress to stop this move.

Since women can join the military, perhaps a heterosexual might also "seek to join the military because the close quarters associated with the military life would present him or her with a source for desired liaisons"

As I stated, I was in the military in the 60's. In answer to your statement, I can attest that in some cases, the answer is, "Ahhhh, YEAH!".

You are absolutely correct.

What is not mentioned in this article is that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a member of the CFR and the former Director of Central Intelligence at the CIA, who has continued his term in office starting in the G. W. Bush Administration onto the Obama Administration, is also in favor of eliminating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule, so as to let homosexual soldiers act freely among their comrades. Also, what is not widely known is the promotion of Homosexualism for several decades under the UNESCO Gender Mainstreaming policies.

I think it would be dreadful for heterosexual soldiers under the command of a homosexual Sergeant, to be ordered to perform homosexual services on the Sergeant, and, if refusing to do so, to be accused of a "Hate Crime," or to be accused of insubordination. Such events could cause a severe drop in recruitment.

Since when do libertarians care what people do in their bedroom? Even if that bedroom is on an army base?

Even if that bedroom is on an army base? - Open Source

A "bedroom" in the army isn't exactly what one would consider private. One of my "bedrooms" had perhaps 30 guys in it. And the showers weren't just a stall with a translucent door. There was no door and perhaps 6 or 8 shower heads. And what of toilet stalls? Forget the doors... we were lucky if there WAS a stall!

To be sure, what happens in the "bedroom" on an army base IS of concern!

Why does the lack of privacy raise concerns different to the concerns that are raised by having women in the military?

If you're homophobic, at least have the guts to just admit that flat out.

Why does the lack of privacy raise concerns different to the concerns that are raised by having women in the military? - Open Source

Who says it's different? And why do you think the lack of privacy is the concern?

Open sore, get lost.

Administrator, please remove this twerp from this site.

Septic, the idea of having an army is to win wars and not to socialize it. The army isn't a PTA or a college fraternity that you can tinker around with. The army is used to kill people who want to kill us.

It isn't a question whether a homo can kill the enemy as well as a healthy, normal red-blooded male, it's a question of decipline in the ranks. You don't want any fox hole romances getting in the way of having a squad from attacking an enemy position at the command of a squad leader. He hasn't got time to break up a lover's quarrel when the objective is to take out an enemy position.

If "sceptic" and "open source" (or as realtorgal so properly puts it: "septic" and "open sore") ever had the guts to serve in the armed forces? Somehow I doubt it. I'm betting they're just part of the vast swarm of hangers-on enjoying the benefits someone else fought/worked for.

If you're homophobic, at least have the guts to just admit that flat out. - Open Source

Ever notice that when anyone from the gay/lesbian lobby has exhausted any logical responses to an argument (which doesn't take very long) and feel backed into a corner, the only thing they can do is call the opposition "homophobic"? Is that word supposed to be some kind of "magic weapon"? I call it a "cop out".

rprew!! I was thinking the same thing and was just getting ready to post. You beat me to the draw. I couldn't agree with you more.

Chuck Baldwin in his column writes:
"It was globalist President Bill Clinton who introduced the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allows homosexuals to serve in the US armed forces--but not openly. ... From George Washington's Continental army until the Clinton administration, homosexuality was deemed "incompatible" with military service. And now globalist Barack Obama is leading Congress to change the policy even further by allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military."

"...if our governmental and military leaders would cover up the raping of American servicewomen by servicemen, don't you know that they will cover up the raping of American servicemen by homosexual servicemen? Mark this down: mixing sex (heterosexual or homosexual) and military service is a recipe for disaster. And the potential damage inflicted upon military units (especially combat units) is exacerbated exponentially by the introduction of large numbers of homosexuals and women into those units. (This is the universal sentiment of virtually every active duty or retired serviceman I have ever spoken with.) But it does fit perfectly into the plans of the New World Order architects, who want to use the US military as much for the advancement of their politically correct agenda as they do for any actual military purpose."

continued below

"...violent gangs in North America are encouraging their members to join the US military in order to learn tactics and skills, which enable them to more effectively inflict their criminality upon the American people? ... And our military brass knows it's true, and yet they still allow these thugs to enter our military."

According to a report in The American Conservative magazine, "[R]ecent figures indicate that gang membership in the Armed Forces significantly surpasses civilian levels. Stars and Stripes reported that 1 to 2 percent of the military are gang members, compared to 0.02 percent of the general population."

"... while many of our fine military leaders (not to mention many of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines) see all of this taking place, they are practically powerless to stop it, because political correctness and globalism run rampant in Washington, D.C., including at the Pentagon."

So wait:

Some of you say that the military are brave and noble folks (something I'd agree with).

Some others of you (eg Mr Gonzalez) say that the military is made up of "violent gangs", "thugs", "Rapists", etc.

Which is it?

(And for what it's worth, do you know much about military history in places like Sparta and Athens and Rome? You know what I'm talking about?)

"You don't want any fox hole romances getting in the way of having a squad from attacking an enemy position at the command of a squad leader. He hasn't got time to break up a lover's quarrel when the objective is to take out an enemy position"

I completely agree with this, but I fail to see how this is a problem with homosexuals only. You are suggesting, as Mr. McManus did, that a homosexual man has substantially less control than a heterosexual man. I believe this is false. If the issue is discipline then take appropriate actions for having sexual relations for on duty officers, not simply on suspicion of being a 'homo'.

The larger part that I disagree with is the generalization of a rather loose definition into clear groups. What makes a man homosexual? If he as a confused teenager kissed another man, immediately felt disgust at the act, and went on to have normal heterosexual relations for the rest of his life - can this man join military service? If a seemingly heterosexual married man harbors some homosexual feelings, but fails to openly acknowledge them, how will you prevent this man from joining the military? Banning homosexuals from the military incites witch hunts and breeds hostility. Too easily this could become a situation of guilty until proven innocent.

In addition I fail to see how homosexuality is any different than any other kind of fetish -sexual or otherwise- which, if studies are to believed, affects more than a third of the population. Perhaps we should also consider banning anyone who enjoys BDSM as military service would certainly play into their fantasies far better than for homosexuals. And once they are banned why stop there? Ban anyone who does not fall into a better than 50th percentile set of standards and beliefs.

I understand and acknowledge that homosexuality can and does cause unease within the ranks, but witch hunts and a policy of innocent until proven guilty is as bad if not worse in that respect. There is no silver bullet here.

Our military is under attack from various quarters:
1.) The Council on Foreign Relations' influence at the top is misdirecting the mission of the military from one of being a defensive military to one of being an offensive one.

CFR men and women in the administraion set the policy but CFR Generals cooperate with the aggressive foreign policy. In addition our miltary academies teach cadets that their role is to be the policemen of the world. That may sound macho but our military is not suppossed to be to be used to push people around who have never attacked us- Iraq and Afghanistan for example.

The hit on our economy by spending enormous funds on these wars of agression is a form of reverse warfare that the CFR leadership is waging on America. These costly wars of agression (in the name of fighting terrorism) are weakening our economy by adding to our national debt.Our nation's "leaders" borrow money from foreigners or they simply print more money to "pay" for these agressive wars. Borrowing and printing leads to a watering down of our currency through inflation. How is any of that good for America? But that is the CFR/ NWO policy.

2.) The culture war also fits in with the plan to weaken our military morally and spiritually. Homosexuality plays a huge part in turning our military into a kind of organized mob that is more appetite than noble mission oriented. I included excerpts from Chuck Baldwin's column above to show that other factors are at work sapping the noble mission of our military. He says that violent street gang members are joining the military.

When there are witches to hunt - you hunt them. When you find them you tell them to leave. You give them a discharge and give the name of a psychiatrist. You don't throw them in a pond of water or "waterboard" them, you just say: "sorry son, this man's army is for men.Bye, bye, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out."

Why, reartorgal?

Is it just because you're scared of gay people?

Is it just because you're scared of gay people? - Open Source

Whenever at a loss on how to respond, fall back to the "magic weapon"!

I bet you'd like to see my magic weapon, RP!

But if Reartorgal explains why, no-one will need to resort to accusing him of any phobia. Until he does, it seems the most plausible explanation.

There's homosexual sexual abuse, increase in AIDS and STDs, trading sex for promotions and medals, wanting to join only because if they get AIDS in the military then the US government gets the medical bills because it's "service related". (By the way, I've now realized when the homosexuals say "homophobe" people, they really mean "normal" people.)

To answer your arguments
(1) sexual abuse = happens if you mix genders too
(2) increase in AIDS and STDs = happens if you mix genders too
(3) trading sex for promotions and medals = happens if you mix genders too
(4) wanting to join only because if they get AIDS in the military then the US government gets the medical bills because it's "service related" = = happens if you mix genders too (and wildly insane that people would want AIDS in order to get free medical cover for AIDS - how's that for a circular argument).

Try again.

"I bet you'd like to see my magic weapon, RP!" - Opened Source

We've already seen it... thrice!

1. "If you're homophobic, at least have the guts to just admit that flat out."
2. "Is it just because you're scared of gay people?"
3. "Maybe you're scared of sex."

The magic weapon doesn't seem to be working. Is it loaded? Did you check the safety? Maybe if you tried it in Klingon... that's a pretty intimidating language.

Sticks and stones... sticks and stones.

Appears to be a master at sophistry. Why bother with a fool?

Nah! He doesn't even qualify as a rank amateur. All he can do is parrot back what he hears and try to appear menacing with his magic word ray gun.

Before long it's "back in the closet."
11 states codified that marriage is the sole property of normal people. sickoo need not apply.http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

California says NO: marriage:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/1105/california-votes-down-same-sex-marriage

The New York senate says NO!:http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/02/ny-senate-votes-down-gay-marriage-time-for-federal-action.aspx

Florida, the sunshine state, blocks the sun from fruitloop marriage:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html

New Jersey votes sickos down:http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/nj_senate_votes_down_same-sex.html

Boo,hoo, they cry and are so afraid. Take a look at the pictures. They are so pathetic.

Correction received and accepted. Thank you.

Of course, still no answer to my objection.

Chalk up another glorious argumentative victory to the JBS.

Has proven himself an abject fool and seems not to care.

Step 1:
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Proverbs 26:5
This has been done repeatedly by many people.

Step 2:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

And now this step will be employed (at least by myself).

As a reminder:
Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him. Proverbs 27:22

So you see, a fool is a fool and these is no fixing of the thing as it's most often by deliberate choice.

So long, Open Source. Sure hope you get better.

Step 2 above is Proverbs 26:4

Red blooded American, North Carolinian by birth, military service in the USAF and 76 years on earth causes me to believe in all clarity of mind gentlemen that there is at least two frauds in this conversation who have essentially received the benefit of American citizenship but who would not stand in harms way to defend her. It seems to me that a bit of God fearing education would benefit them greatly but perhaps they would not care for an introduction to HIM.

It's a shame that many gay Americans don't have the chance to stand in harms way to defend their country too.

In about 50 years, people will look at this issue like we look at the pre-desegregation military today.

"It's a shame that many gay Americans don't have the chance to stand in harms way to defend their country too."

With the present "don't ask, don't tell" policy how do you know that they aren't in "harms way?"

"In about 50 years, people will look at this issue like we look at the pre-desegregation military today."

You are comparing men who have sex with other men to the heroes like the Tuskegee Airmen. You are way out there in space.

No we don't have to wait fity years. This is happening right now to right the wrong that Sodomites have brought to America with their phony equal rights for their perverse death style:
11 states codified that marriage is the sole property of normal people.http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

For mine, I think discriminating against someone for their sexuality makes about as much sense as discriminating against someone on the basis of their skin color.

But, moreover, Mr Gonzalez, aren't you the one who earlier in this post accused the current military of being made up of "violent gangs", "thugs", "Rapists", etc?

Who's out there in space, exactly?

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Proverbs 26:5

Chuck Baldwin continues:

"...violent gangs in North America are encouraging their members to join the US military in order to learn tactics and skills, which enable them to more effectively inflict their criminality upon the American people? ... And our military brass knows it's true, and yet they still allow these thugs to enter our military." === End of quote

I now quote American Conservative Magazine:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/may/05/0012/
"Street gangs—particularly Hispanic gangs, the fastest growing in the U.S.—are making major inroads into America’s Armed Forces. Hunter Glass, a retired police detective and gang expert in Fayetteville, N.C., home to Fort Bragg and the 82nd Airborne, knows of members of Florencia 13, Latin Kings, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Norteños, and Sureños serving in the military. A 2006 report produced by the Los Angeles Joint Drug Intelligence Group also lists the 18th Street Gang, Eastside Longos, and Vagos as having military-trained members. According to the FBI, “Members of nearly every major street gang … have been documented on military installations both domestically and internationally.”

I return to Chuck Baldwin {Notice the quotation marks}

"According to a report in The American Conservative magazine, "[R]ecent figures indicate that gang membership in the Armed Forces significantly surpasses civilian levels. Stars and Stripes reported that 1 to 2 percent of the military are gang members, compared to 0.02 percent of the general population."

"... while many of our fine military leaders (not to mention many of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines) see all of this taking place, they are practically powerless to stop it, because political correctness and globalism run rampant in Washington, D.C., including at the Pentagon."

1.With the present "don't ask, don't tell" policy how do you know that they aren't in "harms way?"

2.Why haven't the death style advocates noticed the backlash against fraud marriage? They are in a state of denial that 11 - count them - eleven states (so far! "You ain't seen nothing yet!!")have turned down faux marriage. So forget about using the rights angle to gain sympathy. People aren't listening to the idiotc chants and cliches. Trying to compare men who have sex with men with real men in uniform is a disgrace.

Wikipedia:
"A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election.On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying:

"The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution."

My apologies. You don't believe the military are thugs and rapists. You just approvingly quote some guy who believes that.

If Chuck Baldwin says it, it must be true. This is the same Chuck Baldwin who says Lincoln was one of the worst US Presidents, right?

As for your other point, yeah, 11 out of 50 sure is pretty impressive.

Given the rape and sexual intimidation of women in the forces that seems to be endemic, then I think you already have the discipline problem you all seem so fearful of. Its just in a form that appears to be "acceptable" so you don't address it.

How dare you say that anyone from here favors the rape of women in uniform! How dare you twist a report on this despicable crime against women and society in general, when Pastor Baldwin was using documentation showing that our higher ups in the militiary and in the committees of Congress who have a duty to put a stop to this crime are not doing their job of exposing it. You obviously believe it otherwise you wouldn't have made that stupid crack. You are like the idiotic king who killed the messenger because he didn't like the message. In fact you are worse with your sick and twisted comment. You hate the truth and the messenger.

I see you made pretty much the same comment on 07FEB that I made on 04FEB about certain folks enjoying the benefits and liberties of this nation probably without having fought for and/or earned them. I see that there's been no answer from any of those certain folks. Typical.

How queer that eleven have gotten on board in such a short time. Most state legislatures aren't in session all year long to craft their bills and get them through both chambers. This is just the beginning. Can you hear the closet doors opening?

Whenever a cook is making apple sauce, jelly or preserves sometimes the apples have worms in them but after cooking for some time the worms and the other scum rises to the top due to the roaling water and the high temmperature. At that point the cook takes a big spoon and sweeps up the frothy scum and throws it in the garbage can and sets it out by the curb for the trashman to pick up.

Who can blame the real scumy creatures from complaining. The call to the local refuse collector was placed by the JB Society to come and pick up the scum. Can you hear the engine of the trash truck? Chan, chan, chan-ing!

"If the issue is discipline then take appropriate actions for having sexual relations for on duty officers, not simply on suspicion of being a 'homo'."===sceptic

Having a suspicion is how people begin to look deeper into things. People use their powers of observation and then become suspicious which leads to collecting evidence and finally drawing a conclusion and making a case either in court or in their private lives. There is nothing wrong with gathering evidence based on a hunch. That "gut feeling" can be wrong and a person's reputation has to be protected. That's why we have courts and military defense lawyers to protect the rights of the accused who are innocent until proven guilty.

What you are suggesting is that the military be exactly like civilian society and the military is not like that. It has a function and that is to win our wars. There cannot be any pandering to certain groups. Everyone must be treated equally as long as they are not breaking the rules of conduct and disrupting the function of the military's mission. Once they break the rules homosexuals, latent or otherwise, must be dealt with by a prompt discharge.

Military and civilian:
These are two different worlds and even though soldiers do have the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect their rights those rights don't include having sex with other men or free sex with women in the barracks or off the army base. An officer, non-com or private can get discharged for carrying on a liason with someone else's husband or wife. That sort of action brings disharmony to a unit or a company. Messing around can bring harsh punishment and get a man or a woman kicked out of the military. Do you prefer no punishment and let anyone and everyone sleep around with whomever they wish?

" What makes a man homosexual? If he as a confused teenager kissed another man, immediately felt disgust at the act, and went on to have normal heterosexual relations for the rest of his life - can this man join military service? If a seemingly heterosexual married man harbors some homosexual feelings, but fails to openly acknowledge them, how will you prevent this man from joining the military?"===sceptic

It's the actions that people are charged with not their thoughts. It doesn't matter what a man thought at 15 years of age in a "confused" state of mind that makes him this or that. It's the act of committing them that the army is looking at. That should answer your question concerning "thought crimes."

We are concerned with actions, sceptic not with thoughts. The army may have psychological evaluations tests that would weed out homosexuals but as this administration is handling things the tests could be worded to keep out men who believe that homosexuality is a sin and not be allowed to join. When that happens I doubt that the ACLU would fight for their "equal rights."

Your "fetishes" analogy is too silly to give it a response. You're grasping at straws with that one.

Your "witch Hunts" theory is supposed to get a reaction that the army isn't suppose to weed out homosexuals. Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy was the go ahead signal that some time down the road eventually all the witches could be safely ensconced in the military.

Society is beginning to take an opposite view that homosexuality needs to be confined and nearly a dozen states are pushing back the homosexual revolution.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

Well, Mr Gonzalez, you have outdone yourself this time. This paranoid surreal rant about apple sauce has got to take the cake (forgive the mixed metaphors):
" Whenever a cook is making apple sauce, jelly or preserves sometimes the apples have worms in them but after cooking for some time the worms and the other scum rises to the top due to the roaling water and the high temmperature. At that point the cook takes a big spoon and sweeps up the frothy scum and throws it in the garbage can and sets it out by the curb for the trashman to pick up.

As for DDW, the logical result of your reasoning is that people don't get constitutional liberties if they haven't fought in the army. That's madness and entirely unAmerican. What about those that are too old? What about mothers? What about kids who are too young? What about people who serve their country in other ways - through missionary work or charity work etc? Your logic says that citizenship is linked to military service. If that's what you want, go back to Sparta.

The glory of America is that the Bill of Rights protects everyone, everyone. Even if they disagree with you. Even if they protest against war, even if they protest in favor of war. Don't trash the United States by associating it with those shallow countries that reserve freedoms and citizenship for a select few.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him." Proverbs 22:5

"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." Proverbs 17:28

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DeLorenzo
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lin...761536418

You'll find the reason why Chuck Baldwin said that about Lincoln in this book. chuck is right and you are,well,you know what you are and smart isn't it.

I am in the military.

THere are many challenges presented by being an integrated military, gender wise, racially, religiously. There are challenges. But the mixing of gender, race and religion isnt going anywhere. It will stay through neccesity if nothing else. So the addition of homosexuality will not add much more to the issues. Racial animus, gender bias and the specter of sex in uniform are already there. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan already have some manuever units as small as squads gender integrated (when dealing with muslims it helps to have a female on hand to search female muslims). It is being dealt with.

OBTW, with the exception of basic training and living conditions down range we dont have platoon bay living anymore. It is mostly two man rooms in garrison now.

John McManus in his article says:
"Serving in the military is not a right; it’s a privilege. It is denied some because of height, weight, age, physical condition, even inability to pass an intelligence test. In other words, there are standards, one of which has always been avoidance of homosexuality. All who serve know that they are about to embark on a very different lifestyle with rules and regulations not found in most other pursuits. Barring homosexuals may be termed discriminatory by some, and they are correct. It makes sense to discriminate against homosexuals serving in the military."

The present policy of "don't ask ,don't tell" and women serving along side men can be changed by a phone call to the Secretary of Defense.I'm certain that the change would be welcome by every unit and the incidence of rape of women would also plummit.

Mr.McManus asks a very pertinent question:

"... Would a parent possessing fundamental morals and religious values stand by and allow a son or daughter to enlist in today’s military? The answer is no and, because of the situation that already exists, the military is being denied a source of the type recruit that all services want and that have always regularly been filled in the past."

In addition to those issues there are other issues like the street gang members who are entering our military. Here is a stroy of that issue in Stars and Stripes:http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=42002

All of this could be easily resolved by Congress getting involved or the president placing that phone call to the Pentagon.

Solider, thank you for your service.

And for your logic.

"Acceptance of homosexuals is a severe departure from long-standing practice. It makes more likely the acceptance of other fundamental departures from military discipline and the proper function of the military. Moral relativism, a feature of homosexuality, spawns the attitude that all military orders and practices are relative and not to be acted upon swiftly or carried out without question."=== John F.McManus

An rprew, once made the comment that pieces like these are like insect spray that brings all the roaches out of the woodwork. Boy was rprew right.

The malathion is working. The roaches are running around in an agitated fit of terror, fighting their alethophobia. Their posts are prolific, but shallow and lack substance.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I think what's striking is that all of the arguments in favor of the JBS line (such as it is) involve long block-quotes from oddball JBS luminaries or from obscure scripture.

The arguments against the JBS line (not just mine) involve original thought, challenges, and arguments.

Who's drinking the Kool-Aid?

And shame on anyone who voted down the opinions of a serving US soldier.

US Army General and John Birch Society member Andrew Gatsis said that our soldiers deserve more than to have a bridge or a higway named in their honor- they deserve to be told the truth.

"obscure scripture?" The quote provided above is in the collection of books called the Bible, which by the way, is a top seller, even if the trolling idiots have never heard or read any of its passages. And he beleilves he's giving us gems! How funny, but he is after all our little pet trollite.

"The arguments against the JBS line (not just mine) involve original thought, challenges, and arguments." - Open Sauce

Original thought? Satan had the same irrational thoughts several thousand years ago. He still clings to them.
Challenges? Satan made the same challenges. They haven't panned out.
Arguments? What arguments? All I've seen are whining protests.

Who's drinking the Kool-Aid? You are. We laced it with malathion. It serves to keep you from crawling back into hiding.

"obscure scripture"? All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2 Timothy 3:16

And shame on the person who has to (usually) vote up his own comment the instant it is posted so he can be above zero for at least a couple minutes. You thought we hadn't noticed?

chan insulted the author of the above article. To my thinking it shows that chan can't take the heat. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Yes. The moral degeneration caught up to them and their civilizations collapsed!