Something tells me we'll be seeing screen caps from this popping up around here a bit in the future... And from the last couple of seconds from the segment before... Some nice farker should be kind and hasten to post some, post haste!

/While we're on predictions, the segment before this one will also be referenced whenever someone says that Stewart doesn't call out the current administration
//and I will also have more Bundy rum tonight!
///I've got one right so far...

PS. Does anyone think they picked the segment of Anderson Cooper for the not-reversing-DADT segment as some sort of sly message?

Screen caps are gay.

CPT Ethanolic: If you go on the news and embarrass the military, you're going to have the hammer dropped on you.

So being gay is embarrassing to the military? Okay.

CPT Ethanolic: Bottom line, we all know there are gays in the military (just like we know many soldiers cheat on their spouses) and we know who the gay soldiers are.

Yes, because being gay is immoral and harmful like adultery is.

What we need to not allow is disruptive sexual behavior of any kind in the military. Probably allot more problems with disruptive heterosexual behavior in the military. Implementing this idea would be tricky.

As long as the gay guy isn't hitting on me and can do his job I really don't care what his orientation is.

Crosshair: As long as the gay guy isn't hitting on me . . .

Why do you care if a gay guy hits on you? Politely decline and move on. Same as if a woman you aren't interested in hits on you.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Crosshair: As long as the gay guy isn't hitting on me . . .

Why do you care if a gay guy hits on you? Politely decline and move on. Same as if a woman you aren't interested in hits on you.

Bbbbbut isn't that how teh gay is transmitted?

Crosshair: What we need to not allow is disruptive sexual behavior of any kind in the military. Probably allot more problems with disruptive heterosexual behavior in the military. Implementing this idea would be tricky.

As long as the gay guy isn't hitting on me and can do his job I really don't care what his orientation is.

Because...he's just...not...that...strong.

CPT Ethanolic: HulkHands: CPT Ethanolic: If you go on the news and embarrass the military, you're going to have the hammer dropped on you.

So being gay is embarrassing to the military? Okay.


No, but making your commander look like an idiot is. Fact: On paper, it's not allowed to be openly gay in the military. Fact: As the LT pointed out, people were aware that he was gay and nobody cared. Fact: If you go on the national news and announce you're gay, it FORCES your commander to act. This guys commander probably gave two sh*ts about him being gay until he went on the news and made his commander look bad.

I'm fine with him doing this, but don't do it and then get all butt hurt (no pun intended) because the military does exactly what it said it would do if you publicly came out as gay.

Or, heaven forbid, you start a chain reaction of courage and decency and the commander goes public saying that Choi is a damned fine man, gay or not, and that his skills are vital to the military...then, his CO supports him, then his CO supports him...and then maybe this stupid, archaic policy gets changed and we all move on to arguing about the next inane, nonsensical piece of bullshiat.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Why do you care if a gay guy hits on you? Politely decline and move on. Same as if a woman you aren't interested in hits on you.

Ding. What does sexual orientation have to do with your abilities as a human?

Howie Spankowitz: CPT Ethanolic: HulkHands: CPT Ethanolic: If you go on the news and embarrass the military, you're going to have the hammer dropped on you.

So being gay is embarrassing to the military? Okay.


No, but making your commander look like an idiot is. Fact: On paper, it's not allowed to be openly gay in the military. Fact: As the LT pointed out, people were aware that he was gay and nobody cared. Fact: If you go on the national news and announce you're gay, it FORCES your commander to act. This guys commander probably gave two sh*ts about him being gay until he went on the news and made his commander look bad.

I'm fine with him doing this, but don't do it and then get all butt hurt (no pun intended) because the military does exactly what it said it would do if you publicly came out as gay.

Or, heaven forbid, you start a chain reaction of courage and decency and the commander goes public saying that Choi is a damned fine man, gay or not, and that his skills are vital to the military...then, his CO supports him, then his CO supports him...and then maybe this stupid, archaic policy gets changed and we all move on to arguing about the next inane, nonsensical piece of bullshiat.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. This rule will change when a politician has the nerve to address it, head-on. In the meantime, there is no room for rule-breaking in the military. If you very publicly announce what you have been clearly informed not to announce (no matter how stupid the policy is), that's it. You're gone. The military is a functioning system of rules. Period.

However, I do agree with most - the policy is just farking retarded. To think that a gay man is any less capable is more than outmoded. And if you're the type whose morale is affected by serving with a gay man, you're too farking weak of character to be in the service in the first place.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Why do you care if a gay guy hits on you? Politely decline and move on. Same as if a woman you aren't interested in hits on you.

Ok I worded that wrong. Yes you are right, that's what I meant to say.

CPT Ethanolic: If this is what he was hoping for, maybe he should have ran it by his commander first. All I'm saying is that he's getting exactly what he knew he would get, so he shouldn't be acting shocked. If you rub it in the military's face that they're not enforcing their own regs, they're GOING to enforce them on you. Beyond that, he makes it quite clear that he was openly gay already. It's not like the military was forcing him to be in the closet. Him being gay was a non-issue until he went on a national news show and made it an issue.

So far as I can tell, he's not acting shocked; he almost certainly knew he'd get booted for publicly admitting his homosexuality. He's merely pointing out -- in a very effective way -- the backwardness and idiocy of this particular regulation.

Spacing is messed up in copypasta, .pdf version is here ^. You get the gist though.

Full results follow (*= less than 0.5 percent).
1-30 previously released.

31. On another subject, do you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 78 18 5
1/15/01 75 22 3
5/23/93 63 35 2

32. Do you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 75 22 3
1/15/01 62 35 3
5/23/93 44 55 2
***END***

So.. tyranny of the minority?

Howie Spankowitz: Or, heaven forbid, you start a chain reaction of courage and decency and the commander goes public saying that Choi is a damned fine man, gay or not, and that his skills are vital to the military...then, his CO supports him, then his CO supports him...and then maybe this stupid, archaic policy gets changed and we all move on to arguing about the next inane, nonsensical piece of bullshiat.

As cute an idea as this is, I realize that life isn't usually a Lifetime movie.

In reality, it is still a very positive thing that he came out - so we can have a more honest discussion about how ridiculous and backwards the DADT policy is in the first place.

But he was destined to become collateral damage of DADT when he outed himself to national media. And he was fully aware of this. If all goes well, all of this will help to accomplish exactly what he was hoping to accomplish. If not, it at least advances the discussion towards that goal.

yogaFLAME: Spacing is messed up in copypasta, .pdf version is here ^. You get the gist though.

Full results follow (*= less than 0.5 percent).
1-30 previously released.

31. On another subject, do you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 78 18 5
1/15/01 75 22 3
5/23/93 63 35 2

32. Do you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 75 22 3
1/15/01 62 35 3
5/23/93 44 55 2
***END***

So.. tyranny of the minority?

I love seeing polls like this. Gives me a glimmer of hope about humanity. And it makes me sing Beatles tunes. I've got to admit it's getting better, better. A little better all the time.

Is TDS getting good again?

Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

IXI Jim IXI: Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

The sanctity of warfare is in danger :(

netweavr: Is TDS getting good again?

No. Don't watch it.

deltabourne: IXI Jim IXI: Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

The sanctity of warfare is in danger :(

If they allow this, next thing you know, they'll allow animals in the military!

IXI Jim IXI: Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

Keep using terms like "teh gays" or "teh ghey" as subby did and don't expect for anyone to engage you in serious debate. When you trivialize the matter before the discussion has even begun, the majority of potential responders will just ignore the topic and move elsewhere.

Accept the fact that there is a reason for this regulation and that it isn't "big brother trying to strong arm the queers". Once you have done that and are ready to come to the table to maturely discuss a realistic alternative, let me know.

yogaFLAME: Spacing is messed up in copypasta, .pdf version is here ^. You get the gist though.

Full results follow (*= less than 0.5 percent).
1-30 previously released.

31. On another subject, do you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 78 18 5
1/15/01 75 22 3
5/23/93 63 35 2

32. Do you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 75 22 3
1/15/01 62 35 3
5/23/93 44 55 2
***END***

So.. tyranny of the minority?


In other news:

75% of men don't care who they get a beejay from

IXI Jim IXI: If they allow this, next thing you know, they'll allow animals in the military!

Fido sees what you did there.



/hot like the desert.

kleppe: Accept the fact that there is a reason for this regulation and that it isn't "big brother trying to strong arm the queers". Once you have done that and are ready to come to the table to maturely discuss a realistic alternative, let me know.

What is the reason?

deltabourne: IXI Jim IXI: Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

The sanctity of warfare is in danger :(


Slippery slope. First they'll allow gay soldiers and then child soldiers. What's next? Goat soldiers? Sick libtards.

The National Man Boy War Association is going to love this.

IXI Jim IXI: If they allow this, next thing you know, they'll allow animals in the military!

Stop trying to portray the issue as the military not allowing homosexuals to serve. You give up many rights that civilians enjoy when you serve in the military; the ability to enter your workspace and announce your sexuality is least among them.

kleppe: Stop trying to portray the issue as the military not allowing homosexuals to serve. You give up many rights that civilians enjoy when you serve in the military; the ability to enter your workspace and announce your sexuality is least among them.

This would be a whole lot more interesting if there wasn't such a thing still as the draft.

kleppe: When you trivialize the matter before the discussion has even begun, the majority of potential responders will just ignore the topic and move elsewhere

Oh.

kleppe: IXI Jim IXI: Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

Keep using terms like "teh gays" or "teh ghey" as subby did and don't expect for anyone to engage you in serious debate. When you trivialize the matter before the discussion has even begun, the majority of potential responders will just ignore the topic and move elsewhere.

Accept the fact that there is a reason for this regulation and that it isn't "big brother trying to strong arm the queers". Once you have done that and are ready to come to the table to maturely discuss a realistic alternative, let me know.

The realistic alternative is to allow gays to serve openly.

smooshie: CPT Ethanolic: Bottom line, we all know there are gays in the military (just like we know many soldiers cheat on their spouses) and we know who the gay soldiers are.

Yes, because being gay is immoral and harmful like adultery is.

Adultery is immoral and harmful?

IXI Jim IXI: deltabourne: IXI Jim IXI: Teh gays are trying to change the definition of military!

The sanctity of warfare is in danger :(

If they allow this, next thing you know, they'll allow animals in the military!

See also: Chimpy McFlightsuit




/Too easy!

Crosshair: As long as the gay guy isn't hitting on me...

What if the straight chick is?

Gecko Gingrich: What if the straight chick is?

Then she'd better be cute.

INeedAName: See also: Chimpy McFlightsuit

Wow...I walked right into THAT one.

kleppe: IXI Jim IXI: If they allow this, next thing you know, they'll allow animals in the military!

Stop trying to portray the issue as the military not allowing homosexuals to serve. You give up many rights that civilians enjoy when you serve in the military; the ability to enter your workspace and announce your sexuality is least among them.

I don't enter any workplace and announce my sexuality. However - people discuss personal issues. Who are you dating, have kids, etc? Few people would ever guess I am gay until they ask me if I had a girlfriend. I should be able to answer them honestly ("I don't but I have a boyfriend") as any straight person can. In addition - the simple act of putting a picture of my boyfriend on my desk shouldn't get fired (or kicked out of the military). But in my state its perfectly legal to do.

If he volunteers to do that crap job then let him, I certainly don't want to.


Side note: I went to a gay bar last week with a buddy of mine. The only thing that caught me as weird was when women started coming into the mens' bathroom. Also, I got 3 or 4 numbers from straight women who were there having a good time with friends.

My fellow gentlemen, I have found the hook-up-mecca.

CPT Ethanolic: This guys commander probably gave two sh*ts about him being gay until he went on the news and made his commander look bad.

Being gay made his commander look bad? How so?

I wonder, if he had announced that he was a Wiccan, or a Trekkie, or a furry would he have been dismissed?

There is a link in my profile to a petition to save Lt. Dan Choi's job if anyone is interested. It is from a GLBT political website so keep that in mind if you want to sign and are at work.

9/11 changed everything.

Except the notion that being gay is of greater importance than being able to fight terrorists.

HE'S GAY!!!1!!!

The daily show rarely puts anything into true perspective. Unless you think that "true perspective" is smug monkey-with-a-microphone ridicule. That show reminds me of the short story "Everything that Rises Must Converge". The setting is in the post-civil rights south. The main character is a young man who is taking his "old south" mother on the bus to the "Y" for exercise. On the bus has a conversation with her son where he treats her like a worthless rag who must accept the "new south" because black people deserve love, respect and tolerance. The mother then starts a conversation with a black lady and her son on the bus, certainly in a condescending tone. At the end of the conversation, she tries to give the little boy a "shiny penny" in what in her eyes seems like a magnanimous gesture. The black kid's mom punches the mother in the face and humiliates her. Instead of the son coming to his mother's aid, he thinks it is funny, has no compassion and continues ridiculing her in the street and further humiliating her. Then, she has a stroke and in the son's horror, he grabs her screaming "mommy!" "mommy!" and sits there in his loneliness and horror.

The point being that the son did nothing but preach to his mother that she needed to give love, compassion and tolerance, yet in his mother's greatest moment of need for those things, he ridicules her and humiliates her. So he is a disgusting hypocrite. While it is absolutely true that the mother should embrace the "new south" and offer respect to the black community, that is not to say that everything about her and her traditions are worthless, as the son apparently thought until he needed her and sat alone crying on the street for her. Then he knew her worth. But all he had left was his ignorance, his own predjudices, and his own failure to be tolerant, respectful and compassionate.

John Stewart and people like you = the son.
The people he brings on his show to lambaste and humiliate = the mother.

You Cannot bullshhitt the Daily Show or Jon Stewart. it just isn't possible. the nail it just about all the time.

Lionel Mandrake: Except the notion that being gay is of greater importance than being able to fight terrorists.

HE'S GAY!!!1!!!

Well, it's not like they've let go of a bunch of Arabic interpreters during a war in the middle east or anything.

Being gay is clearly a choice. Proof of such can be found in the countless gay Republican sex scandals.

/GOP = Gay Old Party
//duh

yogaFLAME: Spacing is messed up in copypasta, .pdf version is here ^. You get the gist though.

Full results follow (*= less than 0.5 percent).
1-30 previously released.

31. On another subject, do you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 78 18 5
1/15/01 75 22 3
5/23/93 63 35 2

32. Do you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?

........Yes No No opinion
7/13/08 75 22 3
1/15/01 62 35 3
5/23/93 44 55 2
***END***

So.. tyranny of the minority?

Tranny of the majority? THe majority of soldiers aren't trannies.

DarnoKonrad: Slippery slope. First they'll allow gay soldiers and then child soldiers. What's next? Goat soldiers? Sick libtards.

It's already started. This libruls vision of the future is already here

kleppe: Accept the fact that there is a reason for this regulation

Which is?

Umokay: One of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Um, okay.

And your take on gays in the military? I hope it's just as good.

Crosshair: As long as the gay guy isn't hitting on me and can do his job I really don't care what his orientation is.

Look at me! I am one sexy beast. I know gheys would love to be all up on this.

/you are so full of it your eyes are turning brown