Jon Stewart Rips McCain Resisting Repeal of DADT; Paints Him as Crazy Japanese Soldier Fighting WWII in 1949
Liberal comedian Jon Stewart once again lampooned Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) over his continued opposition to repealing the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy, saying the senator is quite behind the times with his stand. "Well you're really going down with the ship, huh," he ripped navy veteran McCain's remarks.
"McCain's like one of them Japanese soldiers living on Okinawa in 1949, still fighting because he doesn't realize the war ended a long time ago," Stewart quipped. "And for some reason, even though he's been alone for years and years on this island, he doesn't like gay people."
Stewart opened his Thursday show with an eight-minute segment covering the DADT debate, in the wake of a published study by the military showing that the majority of servicemen polled don't mind serving with gay comrades. He trumpeted soundbites from multiple figures who support a repeal of DADT – including remarks from Sen. Joe Liebermann (I-Conn.), a usual target of Stewart's mockery.
"Oh no, don't look now. ...here comes ol' droopy dog, the Senate's Debbie Downer. (Whiny voice) Here's why I don't think we should," Stewart mimicked the senator. But when Liebermann's soundbite showed his support for the repeal, Stewart was ecstatic. "That is as fine a Chanukah gift that has ever been given!"
Of course, Sen. McCain was next on the list. Stewart described him as "a man who in 2006 said he would revisit his views on Don't Ask Don't Tell if and when military leadership said it was time."
"Then, when they said it was time, he said well, he'd need to see a study. And now that that study has been done – well this should be interesting," Stewart continued.
The "Daily Show" host then played the response of Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praising it. "I think that landed," Stewart added approvingly. He then showed clips from the movie Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail in which a knight gradually loses an arm, another arm, and then his limbs in a swordfight – in a parody of the disintegration of McCain's argument.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on December 2 at 11:00 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
JON STEWART: We begin tonight with "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Legislation was enacted in 1993 designed to allow gay people to serve in the military, as long as they told their colleagues that the picture of the ripped, topless and bejean-shorted fireman that they had in their footlocker was Cousin Rico. It's the type of civil rights compromise legislation that typically precedes the more historic "Alright! You can have your civil rights!" Act. The House of Representatives has already voted to repeal. But what about that moody b****, the Senate?
(...)
STEWART: Oh no, don't look now. Don't look now, here comes ol' droopy dog, the Senate's Debbie Downer. (Whiny voice) Here's why I don't think we should.
(Video Clip)
Sen. JOE LIEBERMANN (I-Conn.): This country, from the beginning, was defined not by its borders, but by our values.
Every generation has realized those rights better, because they weren't realized at the beginning.
It's just wrong and un-American to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.
(End Video Clip)
JON STEWART: (Applauds) Well done, sir. I take the droopy-dog back. That is as fine a Hannukah gift that has ever been given!
(...)
STEWART: But really, there was only one senator that mattered in today's hearings – John McCain, a man who in 2006 said he would revisit his views on Don't Ask Don't Tell if and when military leadership said it was time. Then, when they said it was time, he said well, he'd need to see a study. And now that that study has been done – well this should be interesting.
(Video Clip)
Sen. JOHN MCCAIN (R-Ariz.): I'm troubled by the fact that this report only represents the input of 28 percent of the force who received the questionnaire – that's only six percent of the force at large.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: Well you're really going down with the ship, huh. McCain's like one of them Japanese soldiers living on Okinawa in 1949, still fighting because he doesn't realize the war ended a long time ago. And for some reason, even though he's been alone for years and years on this island, he doesn't like gay people. Alright Chairman Mullen, you want to address his concerns?
(Video Clip)
Adm. MULLEN: It was an extraordinarily positive response, when you talk about 28 percent of the 400,000 surveys that were sent out to the men and women in uniform, and the 150,000 to our families – more than statistically significant in all the key categories.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: I think that landed.
(...)
STEWART: So McCain's position weakened – what say ye, McCain?
(Video Clip)
From the movie "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail, KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
(End Video Clip)
(Laughter)
STEWART: He doesn't really have to listen to Admiral Mullen, see, because McCain said in an interview recently "In all due respect, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not directly in charge of the troops." Wow. Admiral Mullen?
(Video Clip)
Adm. MULLEN: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that as chairman I am not in charge of the troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battlegroup and two fleets. And I was most recently a service chief myself.
(End Video Clip)
(...)
STEWART: So the survey's pretty representative, Admiral Mullen has actually commanded fighting men – but he's still got a couple of limbs! Have at it, McCain!
(Video Clip)
MCCAIN: Certainly an issue of this magnitude deserves that leaders take into consideration the views of their subordinates.
Leadership is soliciting the views of your subordinates...
At least solicit the views of the military about whether this should be changed or not.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: This is the survey -- didn't ask for their views? (Reads from the survey) If Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed, how would it affect how service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done? How would it affect how you trust each other, and pull together to perform as a team? How would your job performance and personal morale be affected?
(...)
STEWART: But perhaps most disappointing to Sen. McCain is the lack of leadership displayed by military brass regarding the policy.
(Video Clip)
MCCAIN: Everything I ever learned about leadership, everything I ever practiced about leadership, every great leader I've ever known always consulted with the subordinates for their views.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: They did consult with them. But you know who would be really surprised with Sen. McCain's view on leadership? Sen. McCain.
(Video Clip)
MCCAIN: Leadership and responsibility often entail unpopular actions...
I've take unpopular stands because I knew what was right.
I will never ever take a poll on a matter of national security.
I've been called a maverick, a somebody who marches to the beat of his own drum.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: So, does that finally beat your drum? (...) We'll be right back.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Shut your stupid trap.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:16pm.
Thousands of officers have sent good men to their deaths, yes, knowing they would die. Shut your trap about things you know nothing about.
Stick to telling us about dealing with the smell during homosexual sex. That is your expertise.
So you don't think military
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:17pm.
So you don't think military servicemembers should be treated well within the confines of a dangerous job?
As I said, it's not about
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:26pm.
As I said, it's not about treating the military "well", it's about keeping them alive by whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean coddeling them.
John Candy is a lean mean green killing machine.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:40pm.
The military is about killing. When you are not actually killing, you are training to kill. Or doing maintenance on your weapons systems to have them ready to kill.
But the precious hippie that can't stand the details about the homosexual love will never ever understand that.
I've never been in the
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:21pm.
I've never been in the military, but I don't think they have any civilian rights. The army tells you when to wake up, when to sleep, when (and what) to eat, how much exercise you need, etc. And because we aren't a barbaric country, we don't use suicide bombers. However, our service people are ordered into harm's way. Ever see/read about the beaches of Normandy? Or the battles in the South Pacific? The basic right of these men, the right to life, was given to the U.S. military.
The military doesn't "treat people well", it toughens them to prepare them for battle and hopefully win their battles and survive.
So then you don't think that
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:33pm.
So then you don't think that we should treat people well in every way allowed by the nature of their dangerous job? Fascinating. I honestly didn't expect to get this response from people here.
Here's a question: if all we value our troops for is their utility, if we don't think they should have any rights if the military doesn't want them to have them, why do we bother to take care of them after they return from combat? We could take the money we spend on their care and buy more tanks, right? Doesn't that indicate that we feel, as a society, that we owe an obligation to them to treat them well, with dignity and respect, because of their service?
Maybe you guys don't feel that way, but I do! I think part of treating troops with dignity and respect involves not punishing them for or restricting their family life unless necessary for their mission. It is necessary that they leave their families for long, hard periods of time-- I see no compelling reason why it is necessary to tell some of them that they can't have families at all. It is necessary that they not engage in their personal sexual life while on duty-- I do not see why it is necessary to tell some of them that they can have a sex life off duty, and others that they can't.
My contention is that
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:42pm.
My contention is that allowing gays to openly serve in the military is at odds with having the best military possible. From what I've read from military people here, and those I know, it would interfere with the unit. The job of protecting the U.S. comes first. When you joing up, you know the rules and the consequences for breaking them.
But hey, I'm not thrilled that women are allowed to serve with different physical requirements.
Well then.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:50pm.
Why don't you capture the smell, copyright it, put it in a perfume, bottle it, label it Hippiebears homoloveness and sell it in the military exchanges so we can all know the pleasure you get from the homosexual culture.
Loser
I know arguing with
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:00pm.
grizzly bear is useless but I have to comment on this:
"that we owe an obligation to them to treat them well, with dignity and respect, because of their service". Then, we can expect you to initiate a lawsuit against Illinois, New York and other states, for denying service members the right to vote, correct? You'll be right out there, leading the way?I have no idea what you are
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:07am.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you link some stories about what's going on, I'll absolutely write to my congresspeople about it. I'm not in the habit of starting lawsuits, even against things I disagree with.
Thanks!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:59pm.
Thank you, hippiebear, for once again demonstrating how little you know, or want to know, about the military.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I asked to know, so you can
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:19am.
I asked to know, so you can hardly claim I don't want to know. If the issue is so important, why is sneering at me a higher priority than explaining it?
hippiebear...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:36pm.
Sneering at those who constantly look at others with sneering condescension is always good payback.
I have explained it repeatedly; at this point you are demonstrating your inability to read what disagrees with you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The Bear
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:54pm.
grossly ignorant about basic biology
Man's p***s goes into woman's v****a.
human sexuality
Man's p***s goes into woman's v****a.
and homosexual culture
People goof around with other sexual fetishes.
Let me know where I'm ignorant on any of this.
- Shy Grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Man's p***s goes into woman's
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:11pm.
Man's p***s goes into woman's v****a.
Do you really want to go on record with that encompassing your understanding of the intricacies of human sexuality? No offense, but these days girls have slightly higher expectations!
~.....
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:20pm.
Are there no lengths you won't go to in order to talk down to people? His statement was in response to your "basic biology" remark.
It seems to me it sums up "basic biology" quite succinctly.
And what do these higher expectations involve, pray tell?
I was referring to the
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:23pm.
I was referring to the statement as filed under "human sexuality." I realize he used the same phrase for "basic biology," where it is more reasonable.
As for higher expectations-- foreplay?
I was referring
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:29pm.
Duh
foreplay? Google it yourself
~What does foreplay
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:29pm.
Invariably (unless the baby wakes up) end in?
And by the way, it isn't called foreplay anymore, it's called a private patdown.
Oh come on, it was a silly
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:36pm.
Oh come on, it was a silly joke! You didn't see "P!#!$ goes into v@&!#@" as a summary of human sexuality and want to make a crack?
It was too much of a set up to pass on, that's all.
~It was a joke?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:22pm.
You talk down to people even when you're just trying to be funny?
That's the opposite of funny, it's sad.
So, considering the "same-sex patdown" regulations, what is your theory regarding the lack of sexual harassment concerns from the gay community?
So, considering the "same-sex
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:43pm.
So, considering the "same-sex patdown" regulations, what is your theory regarding the lack of sexual harassment concerns from the gay community?Um... that gay people are more reasonable than feminists? I really don't know.
~Really?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:05pm.
Only feminists have a problem with being publicly groped by a stranger? The average woman is fine with it, and gays are too?
Sorry, that was a joke. I
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:09am.
Sorry, that was a joke. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Do you think gay people should be objecting to same-sex pat downs? Why? The chance that anyone is being searched by a gay TSA employee is pretty small. It is much more likely, isn't it, that if gay people requested a pat down from someone of the opposite sex they would get a straight employee who might do something inappropriate?
Seriously, you're going to have to help me out here. What are you talking about?
~You know exactly what I'm getting at
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:49am.
Which is why you're avoiding it like the plague. Awwwwww, Ms. Professor got a sudden case of the dumbs; how convenient!
Do you really mean to imply that gay men are only attracted to other gay men? How ignorant of you! Concentrate really hard and try to think about what the deafening silence from the gay community might indicate.
Do you really mean to imply
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:29pm.
Do you really mean to imply that gay men are only attracted to other gay men? How ignorant of you! Concentrate really hard and try to think about what the deafening silence from the gay community might indicate.... Since you won't answer my question, I will have to assume that I know what you are talking about. I hate doing that, when a simple answer would make sure we're both on the same page, but clearly being snide is your primary goal here. When people worry about sexual harrassment, I don't think the usual concern is whether the person in a vulnerable position is attracted to the person in the position of power. Seriously, if a man patted you down and did something inappropriate, would you be cool with it because men are the kind of people you are attracted to?!
~Excuse me
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:10pm.
But "Patting me down" and "doing something inappropriate" are the same damn thing.
And you just made my point. Gays are apparently cool with being patted down by people of their preferred gender.
I'm not sure how else to
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 7:47pm.
I'm not sure how else to explain this. The issue isn't what gender they prefer, it is what gender the pat-downer prefers. It is not automatically inappropriate for someone I could conceivably be attracted to to touch me. I go to male doctors, and as long as they are behaving professionally, they aren't sexually harrassing me, The instant someone is getting more out of the experience than fulfillment of a job duty, they are sexually harrassing me. My feeings about their gender are kind of irrelevant. If I don't know you, I don't care what gender you are, I want our contact to be professional and non-sexual regardless.
~I'm going to type this slowly
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:14pm.
There is nothing "non-sexual" about being groped by a stranger.
Before you use doctors (like a typical liberal false equivalence idiot), people seek out the care of a doctor. They are never forced to submit to anything. No one is allowed to have a choice about being touched intimately by a government lackey.
Get it now? I'm not sure how I can explain this differently so you can understand it.....
"There is nothing non-sexual
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:00pm.
"There is nothing non-sexual about being groped by a stranger."
Sorry, but this sounds like a personal issue! You seem to be saying that it is sexual no matter who's doing it or what their intentions are. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter who's doing it, right?
I think general complaints about airport searches that turn out not to have anything to do with sexual orientation because you think they are ALWAYS not okay probably belong in another thread. One about airport searches.
~Someone touching
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 6:21pm.
Your genitals (aka sex organs) is sexual. If someone walked up to you on the street and did that it would be called sexual assault, yes?
I'll talk about it wherever I please, thank you.
The point is that gays have made no protest over being groped by same-sex officers. This indicates they have no problem with it. They're obviously quite a bit more lascivious than the general propulation, a fact which you shy away from. Think that could make for some problems in the barracks?
That's a ridiculous
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:34am.
That's a ridiculous stereotype that you can only maintain by completely ignoring my point that whether or not it is sexual harrassment depends on the context and the intentions of the person doing the harrassing.
If that person who accosts me on a street is a police officer and I'm drunk and waving a pistol around in the air, that isn't sexual harrassment. If that person who accosts me on a street is a random guy in a trenchcoat with a creepy smile on his face or a woman in a high powered business suit who slaps my @$$ as we pass on the street, that's sexual harrassment.
Whether I like guys or girls in my relationships HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
it's called a private patdown.
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:37pm.
And still, there is no smoking at the airport : )
BTW I just told my boss today, that I will no longer fly. That extra 13 months of unemployment gave me all the courage I needed.
Geez Bru, no more playing
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:04pm.
Geez Bru, no more playing stewardess, now it'll be TSA and passenger. Gotta remember for the hubby.
~Rad
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:18pm.
We have a whole new set of euphemisms around here nowadays.
When the in-laws called on Thanksgiving night we were too busy "checking each other for explosives" to pick up the phone. *grin*
#5 #5!!!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:21pm.
#5 #5!!!
"Intricacies"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:25pm.
I prefer mid-70s Buick tailpipes and/or not-yet-weaned spider monkeys with one blue eye.
And please, no displays of ignorance.
See? I'm not the only one
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:36pm.
See? I'm not the only one who felt the need to make a joke here.
That wasn't a joke.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:42pm.
I'm currently banned from the Bronx Zoo World Of Apes and my local Walmart parking lot.
SoL, Wonderful Bru, Teh Vet, Rad, all 'cept Bear
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:44pm.
I knew the "p***s-into-v****a" bit would open the can that The Bear really doesn't want to open, but just wants to extol on all of us the fantastic virtues of that "p***s/v****a-into/onto-other things/parts/p's/v's" gang... oh, and not to forget the fuzzy transgender-ites, too.
- Clever Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Please, Shy...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:44pm.
Can we avoid any "can-opening" references at least on this thread?
I kind of like the vet's
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:46pm.
I kind of like the vet's reference to homosexuality and poo. It's gross, but true.
Why do conservatives only
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:49pm.
Why do conservatives only ever refer to men when talking about "homosexuality?" You know there are female homosexuals too, right? I thought you had a BS in biology, damnit!
Was that a joke? Am I
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:01pm.
Was that a joke? Am I supposed to be laughing now?
Actually, my daughter recently informed me that "gay" only applied to men, I'm not always sure of the PC terminology anymore.
Don't forget, Rad,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:04pm.
"gay" also applies to a Prius.
That was a joke, but you
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:47pm.
That was a joke, but you don't have to laugh if you don't feel like it.
~What does biology have to do
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:24pm.
with lesbians?
You do know that lesbians are biologically identical to hetero women, don't you?
Sure, except for their
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:45pm.
Sure, except for their otoacoustic emissions. And their brains. And their ring fingers. Everything else, though, is totally identical.
~Uh huh
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:00pm.
Cuz lesbians have more hair in their ears, thus more hair cells.
It's a huge difference, I mean, it's not like they can even have babies like heterosexual women!
You said "biologically
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:11am.
You said "biologically identical." I take my science pretty seriously. If you don't mean it, and you don't want to get called on it, don't say it!
mamabear you were called on
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:48am.
mamabear you were called on this "science" by Dr. Sam several months ago. There are to many flaws in your studies for them to be considered legitimate.
We discussed ring fingers,
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:31pm.
We discussed ring fingers, not otoacoustics. The brain chemistry stuff is quite new, we didn't discuss that either.
~Oh, I mean it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 11:08am.
Women are women, regardless of their hair color, finger length, breast size, height, weight, and attraction or aversion to men. Are you going to pretend that by biologically identical I meant all women look exactly alike? Careful, your inner pseudo-intellectual hack is showing.
A doctor performing an autopsy would not be able to definitively determine sexual orientation based on biological differences. I'm sorry to inform you that there is no such thing as Homo sapiens homo.
We are talking about
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:37pm.
We are talking about populations, and aggregated you can find statistically significant differences. If you tell me "women are all biologically identical," I expect you to mean that you can't tell the groups apart, and that isn't the case. That doesn't mean that any one person can have traits that definitively define them as gay-- which is one of the reasons homosexuality is no longer considered a disease or disorder of any sort. However, if you compare groups of gay and straight women, there are absolutely differences. Put them in an fMRI and waft pheromones under their noses, and their brains respond differently. I don't believe that because it is politically expedient-- plenty of gay rights activists are very uncomfortable with a biological justification for those rights and the potential for stigmatization-- I believe it because every year more and more studies are coming out that confirm that though the differences are subtle and often contrary to what we expect, they are there.
~You did not
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 10:07pm.
refute my point.
A doctor performing an autopsy...
Yes I did, by explaining why
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:29am.
Yes I did, by explaining why your point doesn't matter. If you have two biological spectra that overlap considerably you may not be able to definitively determine which one a person falls into, but that doesn't mean that there aren't real differences.
As an example, take height. In the absence of other cues, could you definitevely determine whether someone was male or female based on their height? No, you'd be wrong a lot. But if you look at men and women as a group there is a difference in the average height. You are trying to make the point that unless the variation between the two groups is completely discontinuous, it doesn't exist. And frankly, that's silly.
Go back
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:17pm.
dummybear, brunette pointed out that there is no difference between women, regardless of their sexual orientation. A woman may find men abhorrent but that doesn't mean that they lack the organs that in fact make them a woman.
Go back and read her post extremely carefully.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~There's no such thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:37pm.
as the "absence of other cues". You ignore reality in order to posit impossible hypotheticals because that's the only way you can support your contention.
"Let's just pretend that everything we know to be true, isn't, and explore what might possibly occur if the sun orbited the earth, gravity worked as a repellant force, and water wasn't wet!"
Gender can be determined solely by bone structure with 100% accuracy. How about homosexuality? Gender is a highly differentiated, biologically distinct characteristic which performs an indispensable role in the continuation of life. Homosexuality is not any of those things. Tell me what biological purpose it serves.
Fine, ket's try this a
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:01pm.
Fine, ket's try this a different way.
Female brains work slightly differently from males. We are better at some things, but worse at others. But there is no functional divide between men and women-- there are women as good at spatial perception as any man, and men as good at multitasking. That doesn't mean the differences aren't real. Orientation is a behavioral trait, just like intelligence. It is probably the result of both nature and nurture. But we don't claim that people "choose" to be smart or stupid, despite the fact that if I cut open your head after you die I can't tell if you were a genius or an imbecile. I could find some structural changes that would give me clues, but again, those traits are not litmus tests-- they are a difference in averages correlated with intelligence.
We are incredibly complicated organisms. It shouldn't be so surprising that not everything in our behavioral lives is a strict dichotomy!
~Translation
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:06pm.
"I can't prove a damn thing."
Translation:
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:25am.
"I didn't understand a word of that."
Otherwise you might get that my point was that you can't prove someone is one way or another, but that doesn't mean there aren't real differences. So how is not being able to prove something a problem for my argument?
~Ooh, now you're trying to needle me!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 1:10pm.
Fun.
You just admitted you can't prove a damn thing. You're speculating. I can back up what I say, and you've got nothing.
Only a liberal can use "I can't actually prove anything" as evidence of the force of their argument. Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Would you like links?
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:01pm.
Would you like links?
More weird science...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:18pm.
More weird science...
hippiebear loves homosexual culture.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:00pm.
What is not to love about a culture where you cannot have sex without smelling poo?
Knock it off with the constant harassment of those that respect the military hippiebear.
By the way, I have a B.S. in
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:05pm.
By the way, I have a B.S. in Biology, so watch who you call "grossly ignorant about basic biology, human sexuality".
I don't think I addressed
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:12pm.
I don't think I addressed that comment to you, actually.
Hard to tell on these forums,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:29pm.
Hard to tell on these forums, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
Right, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:58pm.
your comment was generically addressed, to those on these threads who don't know anything about certain subjects.
Read: Those who disagree with your incessant chatter about the wondrous joy of homosexuality, and your weltzschmerz at how dastardly the treatment of anyone a member of GLAAD, or who is a GLBT individual.
Your pushy, feather merchant diatribes against the Military, in which you never served, and their position/outlook, DADT, which you want repealed, and your unrelenting jibber-jabber about why everyone else, namely conservatives, are off track with their beliefs, never ceases to amaze.
In between the bouts of laughter caused by you exhibiting your liberal mania, that is.
MD
As a veteran I could care less what you think about the military
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:55pm.
Absolutely you are entitled to your opinions about the military. But compared to me, who actually served and protected legions of whiny ingrates like you, and am a veteran, and have the DD-214 to prove it, I read your opinions on the military and take them with a megaton of salt, as opposed to a mere grain.
What it boils down to is that your opinions on the military to me are just one hair above totally worthless.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Did combat troops
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 3:02pm.
answer differently"? Yes, grizzly, they did. 2/3 of combat Marines said repeal of DADT would, repeating just for you, would have a bad effect on morale and unit cohesion. 60% of the combat arms of the Army said the same thing. These are the people out there, dodging bullets, not the clerks, paper pushers and other REMF's, or in today's jargon, Fobbits.
As for being "tagged" in a Facebook photo, kissing their significant other, would that not fall under "Don't Tell"? Or, is repeal of DADT really about being able to post pics of their kiss and tells? You mean all this time many thought this was about denial of their basic human rights, and it's only that they can't post FB pics of kissing their SO's?
Wrong. Based on these
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:01pm.
Wrong. Based on these numbers the percentages you are citing refer to combat troops who think the results of repeal would be negative or mixed. The question is whether repealing would hurt our military effectiveness and readiness-- not if it would be kinda good and kinda bad. We don't deny people rights and privileges based on "Eh." If the results will be mixed, there is no compelling reason to keep the ban in place.
That article doesn't give the numbers that ACTUALLY think having gays serve openly would hurt the military, but the full report does. Numbers who think repeal would be bad:
30% in general
43% for the Marines
48% for Army combat units
58% for Marine combat units.
Those are definitely higher than the general active military population. But there is only one part of one branch of the US military in which a majority of people responding think that repealing DADT would have a negative effect on our military.
29%
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:37pm.
What hippiebear of course will not say, and wisely so, is this nasty little fact I read in The Economist: only 29% of those surveyed responded AT ALL.
So this blows your argument of percentages straight to hell. When only 29% of those who got the survey responded, you can cease with your claims.
And sorry, hippiebear, as much as you think every single damned thing is a "right", NO ONE has the right to join the military. If that is the case, no employer in America can turn down any job applicant for any reason. The military can and does turn away people all the time for all sorts of reasons. (But then, I don't expect someone like you who believes group rights trump individual rights and one who believes that gays and lesbians are entitled to more rights and privileges than anyone else in society to get this very basic fact.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
If that is the case, no
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:45pm.
If that is the case, no employer in America can turn down any job applicant for any reason.What a ridiculous leap! So because employers aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, they have to employ everyone who asks for a job! Sh!t, I want to be a brain surgeon!
Read your own damn writing
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:05pm.
Strawman, hippiebear. YOU, not me, has claimed up above that people have the right to join the military. Therefore, if people have the RIGHT to join the military - and as my uncle can tell you, they most assuredly do not - the way I see it, you can be a brain surgeon just for showing up.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, YOU read YOUR
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:52pm.
No, YOU read YOUR writing!
If you don't want to argue against a strawman, don't throw one out there. You made a ridiculous statement, and I called you on it. I know no one has the right to join the military, but no one has a right to any particular job, either. They have a right to do jobs they are qualified for, and I think the military should work the same way. Whether or not the military has more stringent requirements than your average desk job is beside the point. The requirements should be based on ability, and they should be fairly enforced across the board.
We only have one military, it isn't like gay people who love their country can choose to go work for the gay-friendly branch. And yet even though people DO have choices about which architecture firm or construction company they work for, we still have laws to try and make sure that employers give people a fair shake. Why can't our military do the same?
wrong hippie bear
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:27pm.
You do not have a "right to a job" period.
They have a right to do jobs they are qualified for, and I think the military should work the same way. I am qualified to be (fill in the blank) it doesn't mean I have a right to that job. I have the right to pursue that job.We Are The 53%
dummybear
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:02pm.
No, YOU read YOUR writing! You said, dummy, that "we don't deny people rights and privileges to people" or words to that effect (I can only see so much when responding to your stupidity). This is a discussion on whether or not the military can admit who it wants and turn down who that don't want. THEREFORE, DUMMY, YOU, not me, are saying that joining the military is a RIGHT.
If you don't mean that, STFU, and actually be CLEAR and CONCISE with your writing, and quit blaming me for reading your posts.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
NO YOU... Heh :) If you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:14am.
NO YOU... Heh :)
If you are going to pretend that I only said "rights," then you probably shouldn't quote me saying "rights and privileges." Just a little friendly debate advice-- when you are planning on misrepresenting someone else's words, don't repeat them!
Joining the military is a privilege. And what people have a right to is fair evaluation for the qualifications of a job, not to get any job they want. I think I made that pretty clear. I tink the military should also give people fair evaluation of their qualifications and should not deny anyone the privilege of serving their country unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
Weak
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:41pm.
OK, so you said "rights and privileges". It doesn't change a thing. I know plenty of people who would love to serve or have served in the military but were turned away for what I thought were silly reasons. But turned away, they were.
In my mind, this makes being in the military an even greater privilege. They were under no obligation to accept me. But they did.
You still need to wrap your mind around that concept. Just as a private employer can turn you down for a job, the military can turn people away for all sorts of reasons.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So do you disagree with all
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:31am.
So do you disagree with all laws that try to promote fairness in those hiring practices? Is it okay for someone to lose a job specifically because they are Jewish, or black, or a woman, even though they are qualified and would otherwise have been hired?
Strawman alert
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:23pm.
This is a strawman and once again you post a monument to your intellectual dishonesty.
dummybear, read below: my uncle was turned away from military service because he was missing part of his big toe. How many civilian employers can you name remotely care about whether or not you are missing a big toe?
In order to be a military officer, you have to be of sound mind and of high moral character. How many civilian employers care about that? I know of civilian employers that offer legal insurance for its employees.
The military turns people away for all sorts of reasons civilian employers don't care about.
Need I go on?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, you need to go on
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:03pm.
Yes, you need to go on because you still haven't explained why you think that those standards, whatever they may be-- moral character, number of toes-- should not be applied fairly to everyone who meets them.
Now that Dr. Seuss is no longer with us...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:46pm.
You know, since Dr. Seuss won the death pool 19 years ago, he has needed a successor. Maybe I need to start illustrating and writing kiddie lit, not for kids, but for obtuse people like YOU!!!
If you have any physical flaws, you aren't entering the military (ask my uncle). Period.
If you have a problem with your moral character, you will not be put in charge of other troops as a commissioned officer.
Please point out where I qualified those comments.
Hmmm, sounds pretty freaking fair to me!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
dummybear II
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:06pm.
People in architecture firms and construction companies, dummybear, do NOT, on a daily basis, prepare for (and occasionally do) breaking thinks and killing people.
People in architecture firms and construction companies do not go to work everyday knowing there is a risk that they may go home in a coffin.
People in architecture firms and construction companies can make mistakes and thus get themselves a smaller bonus. When you make mistakes in the military, people DIE. And not only do people DIE, but the United States of America and its Constitution can be drastically effected by the outcome.
Why does this very simple concept vex you???
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I expected you would respond
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:18am.
I expected you would respond with something along these lines, which is why I tried to head you off by saying that my point is that whatever the standards of the job are, they should be enforced fairly. If anyone off the street can do an office job, then everyone qualified should be given an equal opportunity to prove themselves ccapable of the job and to comete for that job against other capable people. If the job is so damnably difficult that only one in a million people can successfully do it, those few people who are qualified should each be given a equal opportunity to compete for that job.
You can't just hide behind "but it's hard!" That has nothing to do with it.
Stupidity
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:56pm.
dummybear, the standards of the job drastically change in the military due to the nature of the business. That you cannot grasp that does not surprise me. So you CAN'T "head me off".
it's not that it is necessarily "hard". It's that you have to deal with a bit more than you do in the civilian world. You can blow off or ignore company policies and get written up. Try disobeying an order in the military. The consequences are more severe, and the conditions you work under can and do frequently suck.
I'd love to see you put in a week in a place like Qatar; you wouldn't hack it. Most people wouldn't. In your case you wouldn't because you are incredibly spoiled and naive. That's to say nothing about places like Iraq, where the moment you hear the sirens go off may possibly mark your last ten seconds on earth if the rounds head your way.
Once again you are just being obtuse and redundant.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You still aren't getting it.
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:36am.
You still aren't getting it. It doesn't matter what the standards are. Whatever they are, they should be applied fairly. Literally, if only five people in the world are capable of doing the most difficult job under the most demanding of circumstances. Capable of doing what needs to be done no matter what happens. Capable of subsuming every aspect of their lives to the job and then give up those lives in order to accomplish it-- if the job is as impossible as you describe it, how on earth can you be okay with the possibility that some people capable of doing it well might be turned away?
I mean, if the job is that godawfully impossible to fill with qualified people, don't you want all the qualified people you can get in there competing for the job? Why would you do anything to cut down your tiny pool of high quality applicants?
Ad nauseum
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:27pm.
dummybear, again, I will reference my uncle: he was missing a part of his big toe. I can't imagine for the life of me how that would even keep him out of the infantry. But in an era when the United States military had a draft, he was turned down for military service on the sole basis that he was missing part of his big toe.
It is YOU who refuse to get it, not I. If you cannot wrap your mind around the simple concept that the military turns away people all the time that the civilian world would hire in an instant, for all sorts of different reasons, many of which ultimately tie in to the #1 mission of the military (which is to AGGRESSIVELY break things and kill people), just shut up and leave me alone. Because right about now the only thing you are being is obtuse and redundant.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
See above. You could come
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:29am.
See above.
You could come up with the most bizarre set of requirements possible-- must have six fingers, read 12 languages, be able to wiggle one's ears, have never tasted fish, free climb skyscrapers, be capable of building an electric car from scratch and know all the lyrics to every Elton John song-- and I would still argue that you should apply those standards fairly, and everyone who meets them should have a chance to compete for available slots. The best people should get those slots.
It really isn't confusing.
"Capable of subsuming every
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:00am.
"Capable of subsuming every aspect of their lives to the job and then give up those lives"
There is a requirement of military service the gay activists can't/won't do. Every member of the military gives up aspects of their lives. Straight member just don't have advocacy groups bitching.
Actually, currently gay
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:02pm.
Actually, currently gay servicemembers do that to a greater extent than anyone else in the military, don't they?
Actually
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:59pm.
That depends on the individual since that's all relative isn't it?
For the love of the Shahinshah
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:49pm.
Where have I stated that standards for entering the military should not be applied to all?
How thick, exactly, are your membranes and cranium?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Right. F the Marines in active combat. Who cares what they think
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:38pm.
They're just one part of one branch.
Apparently they're just ignorant about the intricacies of human sexuality. On the battlefield.
I do care what they think.
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:48pm.
I do care what they think. Based on that survey, I would support a plan that integrated gays into the military slowly, starting with the parts of the branches that show the most support. I would be fine with giving the new policies time to be worked out before moving to combat troops of any kind, and I would resurvey the marines after they had an opportunity to work alongside more gay soldiers and see other branches functioning, too see if the integration could be completed.
Oops! Didn't think I was going to say that, did you!
Spare me. Like it would change in 5 or 10 years.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:00pm.
Running PSAs 24/7 or instituting forced "Understanding The Homosexual Lifestyle" workshops in the military is not going to change anything one bit. 1789, 1889, 1989 or 2089 - same result.
FYI, this is why there are no flamboyant, openly gay construction workers. This is what you people refuse to understand. Keep whining, but it ain't ever gonna happen.
"Marines"
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:00pm.
begins with a capital "M" -in every case.
And before you break your arm patting yourself on the back- your lastest argument is like saying "Okay, lets allow Olympic swimmers to wear a smaller suit, and once they get used to it, we'll introduce it to the downhill snow skiers."
There's a reason the Marines overwhelmingly regard repeal as a negative; unfortunately, you'll never comprehend it.
I agree with hippie bear
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:26am.
lets put a squadron of gay soldiers in charge of protecting Obama's transcripts, College thesis, and Whitehouse/Union cables until Jan 19th 2012. Then we can talk about it again.
We Are The 53%
OK, you want to talk about
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:53pm.
numbers? How about, if you want to talk about how repeal is viewed by the combat arms of the Army and combat arms of the Marines, only 13.2% of Army combat arms, and 8.7% of Marine combat arms say Repeal would "positively affect" how unit members would work together to get the job done.
As has been said, leave the military out of your half-a$$ed social experiments. If gays want to serve, the mechanism is there so they can serve. It would seem that you're more interested in letting them hold hands, post pics of themselves kissing their significant others on FB, and be given access to on-base housing than in their service.
The whole liberal angst military/gay problem solved---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:08pm.
in ten words:
"---leave the military out of your half-assed social experiments."
(h/t UpNorth)
Amen to that.
MD
Same point as before-- we
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:55pm.
Same point as before-- we don't deny people rights and privileges based on the fact that they aren't dramatically improving everyone else's lives. If gays will hurt the military, you have an argument against repeal. Everything else is a lack of a compelling argument against repeal, in which case repeal should be considered.
Oh, the liberal fall-back?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:13pm.
You cited the study, now it doesn't matter? Less than 14% of the Army combat arms sees the gays as improving the chances of the job getting done, less than 9% of the Marine combat arms. Or, an average of 10.45% of both services' combat arms. And, officers were allowed to respond to this survey. Perhaps they should not have been allowed to. Maybe, just the enlisted ranks should have been surveyed?
And, kindly point out where it says anyone has a "right" to serve in the military. As has been repeated ad nauseum to you, there is a mechanism in place for gays to serve, if service is their motivation.
Man, why can't you guys read
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:23am.
Man, why can't you guys read the words in front of you on the screen? I said "rights and privileges" for a reason. I know I'm wordy, but I don't actually throw random hypotenuse words into my otoacoustic posts for syndactyly no reason!
The study does matter. If a majority of military service members thought that gays would harm the military, that would be a problem for repeal. But why would we require them to make it a substantially better place? We need qualified people in the military, and we should let qualified gay people serve even if their very "gay-ness" does not have a magically positive effect on their units' readiness or effectiveness.
"Majority of military
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 6:09pm.
service members"? Again, go upthread, only 29% of military members responded to the survey. Among those respondents were officers, most of whom won't be affected, because they don't live in the barracks, don't eat in the common mess and don't live with the enlisted in the same areas when married.
And again, if you insist on cherry-picking your stats, anyone else can too. If less than 10% of combat Marines don't feel that having gays serving openly will enhance their ability to get the job done, i.e, break things and kill people, why foist openly gay Marines on them and give them something else to distract them from the mission.
But, I forgot, you have no military experience. This is all just about unicorns, Skittles and social experimentation. But, thanks for at last owning up to the fact that "their very gayness" won't have a good effect on readiness or effectiveness.
Oh, and just a reminder, "gay" people can serve in the military. So, it would seem your objective has been reached, correct? Or is this really more about the social acceptance than it is about military service?
Try some intellectual honesty
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 8:39pm.
I am going to re-iterate what UpNorth said: grab the latest edition of The Economist, and it reveals only 29% of military members who got the survey responded!
So, as he points out, you have NO CASE for saying a majority of military members want either-or based on that survey.
Be intellectually honest for once in your life.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unless you have some evidence
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:53pm.
Unless you have some evidence that the sample was biased, 29% of the total population is a HUGE sample. It is the biggest survey of the military ever conducted. Maybe I myself am biased by a background in biology, but the idea of sampling 29% of the total population of something you are studying is a dream come true. Do you know what percentage of voters our political polls are based on? (Rasmussen polls survey 500 likely voters out of about 87 million US voters) Nielsen ratings? (.02%) Every public health study ever conducted? (...okay, I don't have that number).
So, what eactly is wrong with the sample that makes it non-representative?
Not even one-third
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 10:01pm.
dummybear, 29% isn't even ONE-THIRD. Therefore, even if a majority of those survey with you that the military needs to be turned into your own personal social experimentation lab, that majority is TINY. (Please tell me you are not teaching math in school.)
And last I checked, 71% is a whole hell of a lot larger than 29%. The little alligator mouth will eat the 71, not the 29, no matter how the numbers are ordered.
But don't let that get in the way of your being intellectually dishonest.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
A survey is designed to be a
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:44am.
A survey is designed to be a "representative sample." Unless there is some reason to think that the sample is non-representative, I'm telling you it's a big sample. You have to have some reason to think that the 71% of people who didn't respond would resond significantly differently that the 29% who did, otherwise there's no reason to discount it.
Doing some quick rounded math, if 70% of your 30% sample think that repeal wouldn't hurt the military, in order for it to be wrong, and a majority of actual service members to think that repeal would hurt the military, 60% of your remaining 70% would have to say it would.
So essentially, in order for this survey to substantially misrepresent the issue, you'd have to have some darn good reason to think that people who didn't answer would be almost 180 degrees opposite from the people who did. That's a lot of rounding, but I hope it demonstrates why you need a good reason to throw out a sample this big.
So, do you have a reason?
The arrogant dummybear
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:32pm.
So you are a mind reader now? YOU HAVE NO IDEA how those 71% of non-respondents would have responded! You have got to be the most arrogant poster on NB to post the crap you just published.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER. Therefore, deal with your 29% of respondents. Don't assume anything, don't extrapolate, and stick with what you know. (But then, you never have been one to let the facts get in the way of your #1 mission: the guarantee of iron-clad group rights for gays and lesbians that trump individual rights and liberties at all times, and making sure that gays and lesbians have more rights than anyone else in society.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, I don't know how they
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:08pm.
No, I don't know how they would respond. That's why we use a sample to represent them. If you have a reason to think they would respond differently, put it out there!
If you think we have to hear from every single servicemember in order to know, why not force them to answer? After all, you guys have been going on and on about how military servicemembers have no rights, they have to be willing to anything they are told to do, everything they do is in service to their mission of killing people-- well, we need to know the answer to this question, so make people answer it.
Personally, I don't like the idea, because I think military people should have some rights to privacy. But conservatives don't even think civilians have a constitutional right to privacy, so you shouldn't mind at all!
What?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:09pm.
Wait wait wait wait wait...this survey went out to every member of the military - Active Duty, Guard, Reserve. Every single solitary one. This is not, by definition, a "sample" of anything.
So therefore we don't get to turn this into a poll where you "sample" the participants like a poll. Especially when you want to turn it into a poll when you don't like the results of the survey and are angry that they aren't reflecting your world view. And we all know how polls turn out. Aren't polls how we got the Dewey administration in the late 1940s?
Tell me - where is there a right to privacy in the Constitution? I mean, a literal, no kidding, right to privacy in the Constitution?
You further betray your lack of knowledge about the military. How? You would realize, if you bothered to look into it any, that privacy in many cases is a PITA for military members. I did not have a whole lot of privacy when deployed.
In fact, when I was deployed, I had to share a living space with a fellow officer. We had no expectation of privacy; we got to spend four months finding out about our living habits. The one think that freaked him out the most was the fact that I didn't, and still do not, watch television on a regular basis. Anyways, privacy is something soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines can indulge in when at home - almost never on the road.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Then by your logic,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:24pm.
with the overwhelming numbers of the combat arms who responded negatively to this social engineering experiment, the idea should be consigned to the ashbin of history? Because, no matter how you try to cook the books and justify ruining the military with this idea, those who do the actual fighting don't see this as helping them accomplish their mission, in any way.
But, now that the fallacy of your thinking, that 70% of the military thinks this is just peachy, has been pointed out, you fall back on, oh this survey is so, so significant, because 29% of the military responded. Again, the apologists for the homosexual lobby who ran this survey could not come up with a skewed question that would allow them to bend what those in combat arms said, 85% of the Army and 9% of the Marine combat arms said that this will not, repeating, WILL NOT, enhance their ability to accomplish that mission.
Again, as I asked upthread, is this about fielding the most effective, efficient military, or is it about just advancing someone's agenda, when it comes to the military?
Overwhelming numbers who
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:13pm.
Overwhelming numbers who responded negatively? Let me remind you:
30% in general
43% for the Marines
48% for Army combat units
58% for Marine combat units.
Only a majority of Marine combat troops responded negatively. The rest are less than 50% negative. I don't think that counts as "overwhelming numbers".
I'm still okay with restricting open service to branches that are most comfortable with it to begin with, so I'm not in any way suggesting that we ignore these opinions. I'm just pointing out how you are misrepresenting them!
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 8:37pm.
I posted this link on the other page of this thread (which, btw, is extremely difficult to follow given the number of comments and the inability of the website to link directly to the latest or newest comments; I'm considering starting a forum on this topic to ease the pain...) which sytemeatically destroys your argument that this survey is any representative of the majority of service members.
To begin with, here's the breakdown of active duty respondants:
Army - 19%
Marines - 29%
Navy - 28%
Air Force - 39%
Coast Guard - 54%
The author surmises the difficulty in getting surveys to, or in return from physical locations such as combat positions in Afghanistan for the Army and Marine Corps or at-sea locations for the Navy and Marine Corps. He also surmises that the majority of returns were from non-combat troops for similar reasons. A survey of DADT skewed toward non-combat and Air Force and Coast Guard members will certainly be more liberal.
The piece concludes with part of a Washington Times editorial which makes the following observations based upon the facts of the survey:
It's difficult to accept a poll that was geared to bring about a particular result. Gates has been saying since this issue died in the Senate that it's now subject to the courts and thus more dangerous to implement assuming they rule it unconstitutional. That alone tells you two things: One- Gates is a spineless piece of garbage that I wouldn't salute with my left hand, and Two- that it's a very dicey proposition (putting it mildly) especially during wartime. The second reason is enough for a reasonable person to conclude repeal by Congressional fiat or court order is wrong for our military.
First of all, thank you!
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:55am.
First of all, thank you! Over and over I've been asking someone to give me a REASON why the survey results might be invalid. Apparently, you are the first person to understand what that means!
There's a reason why the Pentagon didn't ask if soldiers wanted the repeal, and instead asked how it would affect them if it happened. This isn't about their preference or prejudice. You could very easily have a significant number of people who think that gay people are perfectly capable of serving in the military openly without harming effectiveness, but who also don't like gay people and don't want to know they are there. But prejudice is irrelevant to the issue-- plenty of people in the armed services might be prejudiced against groups they have to serve with, blacks, jews, catholics-- we don't give them the option of saying no. I also don't see how asking the question that way biases the answers about how it would affect moral and readiness.
I've been reading the executive summary of the actual report, in an attempt to cut through the politics. They do actually break down combat vs. non-combat units in each branch, which your article claims they don't, which makes me slightly suspicious. For instance, army and army combat are broken out, and the report deals specifically with the fact that combat troops responded more negatively than non-combat. However, it is still only a majority among Marine combat troops. Here's the actual report:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINA...
Your issue that combat troops are less well respresented in the sample and respond overall more negatively is a concern. If their response levels were higher, would the overall response have been more negative? Arguing with Unsane would be a lot easier if he understood math! The report does address this, though I can't really determine based on the info provided if they do it well. If you scroll down to pages 63-64, they indicate that they weighted the final results to reflect overall makeup of the force. That means that if combat troops are 25% of the overall force, but only 17% of the respondents, you weight their responses more strongly in the final analysis. Unless they did a poor job of it, that should take care of the problem and ensure that the sample is still representative desite different response rates. Obviously, having actual responses is better.
Once again, you failed
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:52pm.
reading comprehension, I said the "overwhelming numbers in combat arms".
"Only a majority of Marine combat troops responded negatively". B as in Bovine, S as in Scatology. Go back and read the percentages who responded, in both the USMC and USA combat arms, who said that gays would not enhance their ability to accomplish their mission. Namely breaking things, killing people, and coming home alive.
And, has been pointed out to you, the survey was skewed. If you want a survey to tell you what you want to hear, leave out, or make it almost impossible for those directly affected to respond. And that's what was done.
Again, answer the question. Is this about making the military better, or just letting service members hold hands publicly and post their photos on FB. Because, if you say it's about making the military better, that's a lie, imho.
You are still using the wrong
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 5:04pm.
You are still using the wrong numbers. It isn't about whether gays openly in the military would make things better, it is about whether gays openly in the military would or would not make things worse.
Only in combat Marine units did the percentage of people thinking that rise above 50%.
Are you dense?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:58pm.
hippiebear, if my uncle can be denied military service because he was missing part of his big toe, just about anyone can be truned away.
Joining the military IS NOT A RIGHT.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Why, now that
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 1:16am.
mention it, Unsane, yes she is. Very much so.
DADT Forum
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:58pm.
I followed through on my threat and started a forum on the DADT topic if anyone's interested. Please read the summary and if possible, answer the question posed. But beyond that, all comments are welcome and hopefully an easier to follow thread will result.