Sarah Rumpf
The truth about the booing at the debate
The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question…however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The HPV thing is government forced activity, which I do not approve of. Making citizens into either slaves or criminals is what I object to.
The gay thing is not about forbidding sex or even ridding the nation of gays at all. It is about whether government celebrates it through actions such as marriage rights, special privleges no one else has and so forth.
Quite a leap you make. It makes one wonder if you have any moral grounding at all.
astonerii on September 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Black males are far more likely to be criminals per statistics. Do we just lock them all up to be on the safe side? That argument is completely ignorant and offensive.
As to the STD rate being higher, yes. It is. With the exception of rape though, we’re talking about consensual adults. Do you really believe we should force asthma sufferers away from a place they would otherwise frequent because people smoke there?
Which small section of the population do you not believe should be steamrolled? So far, you’re in favor of anti-gay and anti-asthma sufferers positions. You’re also in favor of discriminating against people for belonging to a demographic with a higher rate of any negative behavior.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Let’s add a sixth branch and we’ll call it The Rainbow Corps(e).
NotCoach on September 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM
I agree, and have no idea what the answer is.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 12:40 PM
They didn’t boo the soldier but the question he asked. Santorum’s answer was spot on.
RedRobin145 on September 23, 2011 at 12:40 PM
As a member of the military, and currently in the ‘stan, there is a lot of concern not with who sleeps with whom, but all the drama that will occur when gays become a “protected” class with in the military, and are not held to the same standards.
With all of the problems we have with “he said something offensive and I demand vengence,” it will only get worse.
Of course the libs don’t care if the military is capable but worry about “social justice”.
LincolntheHun on September 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM
I was over there too, and completely agree that as long as there are no different standards, privledges or freedoms, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Hopefully, the chain will be able to squash any of the militant vengance-seekers before they go too far.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Is the military going to be allowed to proceed under their own terms and take their time intigrating? Or are they going to be forced to quota in homosexuals into every combat unit?
NotCoach on September 23, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Special privleges like, say, being able to die for your country?
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM
No one has given gays in the military any more protections than has been given to blacks, women, short people, white christian males, etc.
The only thing ending DADT did was prevent the military from discharging gays/lesbians SIMPLY for being open about their sexuality. THAT’S IT! They can now say, “I’m gay” and not get discharged for it.
That’s not “special protection,” it’s simply extending the same basic protections that other’s enjoy to them. They aren’t going to get better bunks, or cleaner uniforms, or better tasting meals, or preferential treatment in some dispute.
Gays have existed in the military for decades and everyone has known it. They’ve always been held to the same standards, and always will.
cornfedbubba on September 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM
He must have been a HotAir commenter.
Vyce on September 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Is there or is there not pressure on the military to put minorities and women in command positions?
NotCoach on September 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Would a uniformed military member been encouraged to go public about anything other problem they may have with the political process?
Cindy Munford on September 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM
+1000
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM
It’s not completely analogous, but if, generations ago, the military did not support racially integrated units, would that opinion matter?
I get the foxhole argument, but I think we should see how this plays out. But keep in mind, there have been gays in the military for years. I don’t think being out will change the dynamic that much. The only people in the military are those who want to be there.
YYZ on September 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM
WOW. do you make any clean arguments with facts and truth, or is everything based on logical fallacies?
astonerii on September 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM
That is the goofiest comparison. Racial discrimination is based on what is obviously visible, there is not a reason in the world that I need to know who someone has sex with. If we are not suppose to care who someone has sex wit, stop discussing it. Everybody!
Cindy Munford on September 23, 2011 at 1:00 PM
I don’t personally care about gays serving. I care about identity politics and the potential harm it may do our military. We promote based on sex and race and, I am sure, there will be a push to promote based on sexual orientation eventually. We only need to look at the Fort Hood shooter to see what political correctness and identity politics does to our military. A man would have been booted long ago if not for the insane measure of political correctness.
DADT at least made gay soldiers, soldiers first. But with DADT gone I am afraid some gay soldiers will identify as gay first.
NotCoach on September 23, 2011 at 1:02 PM
I was asking you to be consistent. Clearly you’re not.
And if you read up-thread, you’ll notice I’ve made quite a few arguments that stand on their own.
Combat efficiency – the only metric that matters at all – will not be affected.
There will not be a third standard (men, women and ‘homos’) for training or promotions.
Surrendering 4% of the population because you think they’re wrong is asinine. The 2008 election could have been turned with that 4%.
Overwhelmingly, those serving (the ONLY ones affected) don’t care.
Motivated men and women who couldn’t volunteer can. The crazy militant gays wouldn’t have volunteered anyway, so this is a net gain.
The talent pool for the armed forces just got bigger. The market (in this case, the service) will weed out those who can’t make it with the aforementioned single standard.
Your only argument is ‘I hate gays,’ and that’s not holding up too well.
(You never did answer my questions about whether or not you apply the beliefs you hold about gays to other populations.)
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:04 PM
Actually, it took more than just saying “I’m gay” to be discharged. And even if you were gay and admitted to that the real question was “is this person a disruption?” The first O-6 (in the Army at least) had the option of retaining the soldier if the soldier was not a disturbance to “good order and discipline.”
LincolntheHun on September 23, 2011 at 1:04 PM
Ask an honest question. I am not going to play your fallacy game. Either argue honorably, or I will not debate you.
Gays and blacks are not remotely similar groups.
I do not hate the gays. I hate the harm their activities cause to the whole of society.
I am done taling with you until you make a valid argument point back.
astonerii on September 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM
The gay advocates endgame is for gay marriage to be the law of the land. With DADT repealed, they are going to use the military to help them in their ultimate quest.
RedRobin145 on September 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM
While once again completely ignoring the six factual arguments in my last post…
And I guess the irony of ‘argue honorably’ is lost on you. There is literally nothing honorable about your position, and you’re factually wrong (which has now been proven to you at least twice, and you continue to ignore it).
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:12 PM
I don’t really care about that either. As long as the state doesn’t force any church to recognize or perform the marriage, if the state wants to issue a marriage license, so what? They can’t reproduce. If you want to use the word ‘species’ to define gays for this one sentence, they’re going to be extinct before too long.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:13 PM
There are quite a few “taboo” subjects that no one who wants to stay in brings up.
Say for example you found a lot of women at a certain base became pregnant just prior to a deployment, and thusly could not deploy.
Or a group of soldiers (some married but geographically separated from their spouse, others single)”somehow” contract STDs while under GO#1.
Embarrass the military at your own peril.
LincolntheHun on September 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM
This bears repeating. Because both of you have served, your perspectives carry a lot more weight. I’ve always thought this was more of a problem in that it opened the door to activists and the litigious ones who claim discrimination at every turn.
John the Libertarian on September 23, 2011 at 1:19 PM
The thing is, those are precisely the people who would never swear in anyway. No one is willing to go through what it takes to get in so that a few months later they can raise hell and claim discrimination. There are much easier ways. If you’re looking to drop a lawsuit on an employer, the US military is probably not a good place to start. Walmart, on the other hand, would probably just settle.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:22 PM
How about using it as a “get out of jail free” card?
They didn’t promote me because…
I’m getting this Article 15 only because…
My Squad leader picks on me because…
Or Congress holding up a promtion list (officers) because there are not enough of “X” group on the list
LincolntheHun on September 23, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Whistleblowing can be tough. I don’t know a lot about specific rules for the military but I was under the impression that promoting political stances while in uniform or acknowledging you are active military isn’t allowed.
Cindy Munford on September 23, 2011 at 1:35 PM
Do you support redefining marriage from a union between a man and a woman to a union between two people? Which side are the military brass going to take?
RedRobin145 on September 23, 2011 at 1:37 PM
I agree that’s a concern. That’s what I meant when I said that the chain has to be responsible for squashing that garbage at the lowest possible level.
Human nature can never be entirely removed, but we integrated with fewer problems than people thought, and before the rest of the country thought it was acceptable. This isn’t exactly the same (gays, after all, aren’t discriminated against the way blacks were) but the concept is similar.
I have faith in the chain of command right up until you hit O-6. Those guys are playing for stars, and politics matters. The middle and upper enlisted ranks and junior O’s – I trust them to handle this as well as it can be handled.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:37 PM
Consider this. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) and other regs, any soldier would be in violation of participating in this debate. But because this soldier is gay, nothing will happen because this soldier belongs to a protected class that trumps military discipline – as predicted. When others see this, they will be encouraged to act out and insist on the primacy of being gay over a soldier. The downfall begins here, unless we deal with this PC mindset.
AH_C on September 23, 2011 at 1:38 PM
You’re correct kinda sorta. Politicians come here all the time to “meet the trrops” and take pictures with them. Those pictures are then used to show the politicians “care” in campaign ads. That’s okay. If I were to announce that I’m for candidate “X”, or I publically disagree with the Secretary of State about policy “Y” then I might be in trouble.
Guaranteed the kid who took the picture with Senator Clinton and showed the distress sign was punished.
Rank plays a role, and each situation is unique.
LincolntheHun on September 23, 2011 at 1:46 PM
That’s what I have been trying to ask, about a possible double standard or all out different set of rules.
Cindy Munford on September 23, 2011 at 1:46 PM
I don’t think marriage should be a federal issue at all. If the state wants to vote on it (not pass it by legislative fiat – vote) and pass it, go for it. If Massachusetts has gay marriage and Mississippi doesn’t, then go to Massachusetts.
The only place that can get tricky is ‘state of residence’ for those in the military, but I still think gay servicemembers could choose to be residents of the state of their choosing. Many MANY servicemen listed Florida as their state of residence to get out of state taxes, so there is already precedent for giving different people different benefits based on where they live.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM
Cindy Munford on September 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM
He asked a question, so technically no.
Washington Nearsider on September 23, 2011 at 1:54 PM
Not a lawyer (yes mama’s so pround), but I don’t think so.
Provided a handy website -
Military members may not:
· Use his or her official authority or influence to interfere with an election
· Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions
· Make campaign contributions to another member of the military or an employee of the federal government
· Solicit or receive a campaign contributions from another member of the military
· Display a large political sign, banner, or poster on the top or side of a private vehicle
· March or ride in a partisan political parade
So it will be parsed that DADT repeal isn’t a partisan political activity (i.e. Vote for “X” or vote for the Republicans) if his command tries to punish him directly for what he did.
LincolntheHun on September 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM
As she should be!
Thanks, I just want all the rules to apply equally.
Cindy Munford on September 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Truth is units were racially integrated since the revolutionary war. Democratic progressive hero POTUS Wilson segregated them. FDR kept them segregated during the war.
Funny thing about those progressives, they were concerned about racial purity; exterminating the “lower classes” via abortion & sterilization and conducting medical experiments on minorities. Having implemented the schemes (pre-cloward/pliven) to crash the targeted socio-economic systems, Donks now keep minorities on their economic plantation by pretending to be their saviors.
AH_C on September 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Au contraire.
http://www.osc.gov/haFederalFurtherRestrisctionandActivities.htm
This document lists the permitted and forbidden activities:
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI51-902.pdf
PERMITTED
Para 3.4. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political fundraising activities, meetings, rallies, debates, conventions, or activities as a spectator when not in uniform and when no inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement can reasonably be drawn
Para 3.5 Violation is subject to Article 92 of the UCMJ
FORBIDDEN
Para 4.1. Members who engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this paragraph and subparagraphs are subject to prosecution under Article 92, UCMJ, in addition to any other applicable provision of the UCMJ or Federal law. Members shall not:
4.1.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in paragraph 3.7), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another. This prohibition applies whether the individual is in uniform or not, and regardless of whether an inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement may be drawn. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See also paragraphs 4.1.9 and 4.1.16.)
4.1.3. Allow, or cause to be published, partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicit votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions described in subparagraph 3.6.
4.1.5. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate or cause.
4.1.6. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
As intimated, the soldier’s action will be parsed to let him off the hook. Hence a double-standard. Watch for more in coming days and the next debate.
AH_C on September 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM
..you know, ernesto, I used to think that you had to work really, really hard to post comments this stupid. But now I know this comes really easy for you.
Crawl back under your rock, you festering piece of elephant afterbirth.
The War Planner on September 23, 2011 at 2:26 PM
Are you really this naive or doing your usual trolling?
Repeal of DADT is the first step.
NEW YORK — The American gay rights movement marks a milestone Tuesday — the official end of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
But one of the leaders in this battle for equal rights, Army National Guard Lt. Dan Choi, won’t be joining in any celebrations.
But Choi says the repeal alone is not enough, and holds a great deal of bitterness against the commander in chief, Obama, whom he said has betrayed the LGBT community.
He has his sights on the repeal of Defense of Marriage Act, but also passing the DREAM Act, repealing the Bush tax cuts, and environment issues like stopping the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would connect Canada’s Tar Sands with refineries in Texas.
“It’s been hard as an activist to claim this as a complete victory,” he said. “If you’d asked me two or three years ago, I’d have said, ‘Hip hip hurray, we did it! We won!’ But for some reason I feel that throughout the journey something’s been taken away from me.”
angryed on September 23, 2011 at 2:31 PM
LOL Ernie. You obviously didn’t watch it. He actually said the exact OPPOSITE. He said he would re-institute DADT but anyone who came out while it was repealed would be allowed to stay in the military.
Epic fail dude.
angryed on September 23, 2011 at 2:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2