Covert At The CIA

www.aim.org ^ | July 1, 2003 | Cliff Kincaid

[Tailgunner Joe]

No, then we will be in league with the narco-terrorists and complicit in their crimes.

Destroy the narco-terrorists the drugs and the terrorism will go away.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Sure, now it's the Christian "Homophobe" who will be blackmailed and turn against the perverse sodomite government that God has condemned. Oh but we can run all those intolerant bigots out of the CIA to make room for more gays, right?

[gcruse]

Are we in league with bootleggers since Prohibition was lifted?

[thinktwice]

Homosexuals are not only sexually challenged, they are also -- unfortunately -- emotionally and socially challenged.

[gcruse]

Are you addled? I don't do addled.

[RJCogburn]

he kept FBI agents in New Orleans investigating whore houses. Then there's the hassling of medical marujuana users in states where it is legal. How did any of that help in the war on terrorism?

Why that is a government secret, silly. They will release the information in fifty years, or so. You must not have faith.

[gcruse]

Look, RJ, seriously. I'll be dead in a lot less than fifty years, so I hope you take real good notes when the time comes.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You're the one who wants to give free reign to narco-terrorists to enslave the minds of our children while entrusting our safety to people less concerned with gathering intelligence than with their right to perform unnatural acts.

You are the one who's addled.

[gcruse]

If you really believe what you said in #22, the post to which I was responding, then you are addled and beyond intellegent discussion.

[Tailgunner Joe]

So we have to be tolerant of homosexuals, but not of Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong?

[gcruse]

As long as the homophobic Christians do not act on or cause the state to act on their phobias, it, like racism, is perfectly fine. Your #22 goes way, way beyond that.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You admitted that gays were targets of blackmail.

By taking sides on this issue the government is threatening to compromise the loyalty of those "homophobes" (moral Christians) who can't comply with sodomy sensitivity training.

[gcruse]

By taking sides on this issue the government is threatening to compromise the loyalty of those "homophobes" (moral Christians) who can't comply with sodomy sensitivity training.

                What does compromising their loyalty mean?  If a CIA homophobe
                  has to work alongside a lesbian, is he going to go over the Osama or something?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Homosexuals have been a security threat in the past. By switching sides and endorsing homosexual behavior, the government is removing the onus from homosexuals and onto Christians.

I think as long as we have a government that endorses anti-Christian behavior and an anti-Christian political agenda, then they should consider Christians as a possible security threat.

[takenoprisoner]

I favor the philosophy of "don't ask don't tell." Private matters are afterall private matters.

Enlist/hire the candidate based on the qualifications sought and not based on any other mandated preference.

At the same time, to promote/advertise for hire people of color(specific) or people of perverted persuasion(specific) is biased and unfair to people of a different color and a different persuasion. Moreover despite recent supreme court assertions otherwise, the SC is currently making decisions based on "the better good of society" to the detriment of Constitutional Law.

Course they claim it's only a temporary remedy/violation for "the better good" of society.

[gcruse]

Homosexuals have been a security threat in the
past. By switching sides and endorsing homosexual behavior,...

                 ...then that threat goes away.

the government is removing the onus from homosexuals and onto Christians.

                         How does that work?  Onus on Christians to do what?
                         Can a person of religion not work for a secular employer?
                         Is the bar to treason so low that you would go over to the terrorists
                         rather than work with a lesbian?  Or even know that fags
                         lived together openly?  I guess what I'm asking is this.
                         "Is a common hatred all that holds Christians loyal to the US?"

                   

[Tailgunner Joe]

You are the one who thinks that condemning perversion is hatred. Those of us who believe in right and wrong know that it is nothing more than Christian love to expose the depravity of willful sin and exhort the sinner to repentance.

Is hatred of Christian values the only thing that hold sodomites loyal to the U.S.?

[gcruse]

Beats me. I don't see any more anti-Americanism in homosexuals than straights. It's the Christians in your scenario whose loyalty to their country could be compromised by the recognizing the lifestyle of others.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Sure, I don't expect you to object to considering intolerant homophobe fundie bigots a security threat. Let's just be sure to coddle the sodomites whose perversion has proven to be a security threat in the past.

This is just like your solution to the drug use epidemic.

"Let's just make it legal and the problem will go away."

[gcruse]

Maybe so. I have this thing for liberty and responsibility.
Thanks for the dialogue, Joe.