West Wing scene - Don't Ask Don't Tell debate

[JasamTnTLante]

BEAT THAT!

[kcscorpion]

Took them a while, but they've done it :)

[colinmcom14]

The unit got over it. LOL.

[areefer8217]

I'm reading a series of contradictions here. Are homosexuals a deviation from the norm? Sure, you can make that argument. Do abnormalities also exist in nature? Yes. Doesn't that make abnormalities...natural? Take that logic!

[BelieveIt1051]

@areefer8217 No, it doesn't.

[BillF1967]

The lesson, of course, is: If you want your little boy to grow up tough and be an overachiever, give him a name like "Percy."

[ideagirlconsulting]

posting with movie review of opportunity knocks 1990 film with dana carvey and milo o shea.

[Kasino80]

"it's an honour to meet You"

"I imagine it would be yes" class act come back

[bigrob981]

The military is not an instrument of social change?

people need to ctually read a book, world history and social change has always been accomplished thru show of force

[FTWEVERYONE]

A military of Open @DICK @SUCKING is reprehensible and counter productive. The

"politically correct" should NOT have THIS much Power!

[majoro4]

Why don't they just quit blowing each other. It isn't that hard.

[kmrs1959]

I find Fitz finally words interesting. "You're not going to get anywhere.....yeah"

[hitch4645]

David Wallace from the office at 1:03

[cjhickles]

That's what they said about me, fifty years ago.

[bigrob981]

Fitz was a great character....It is priceless how he asks for thier opinions, and then explains to them they are wrong and why. Although Truman desegregated the Army in 1948, it was not until 1951 and the Korean War when white soldier were killed, and the only replcements were black did the inegration actually occur...

being black and serving in an all black unit is not the same as being dis-honarbly discharged for being gay...no even close.

[tangthebang]

That's the dad on "Good Times"!

[mlc2005]

I think the danish thing was brilliant; if you notice Fitz is often shown in scenes sipping tea or talking about how good a recipe is; the writer used it as a great contrast to the macho stereotype of a high ranking military official. I love it.

[Ares99999]

Wow, the Chairman shows himself to have NO MANNERS at all. He picks up a Danish at 1:20, takes a bite - ONE SMALL BITE - and then, after his argument, PUTS IT BACK at 2:06 and walks away.

Would it have killed anybody if the Admiral had walked away with the food to finish it like he'd have done in real life?!?

[BelieveIt1051]

Who cares about that? It was messed up what he did to the other officers. He asks their opinion just to start somethin, counters them, then intimidates them into keeping quiet and not refuting him. I'd have said, "But it isn't immoral or unnatural to be black, and most of society accepted blacks when the military was desegregated. Furthermore, homosexuals are not being asked to remain separate because of a physical trait. They are being asked to keep their private lives to themselves, sir".

[Ares99999]

@BelieveIt1051 I care about that. Its just plain stupid. People just don't eat in american shows. It lacks realism.

[BelieveIt1051]

Perhaps the pastry did not satisfy his gustatory preferences. Perhaps it was a behavioral compulsion to contradict the stress derived from the confrontation in which he actively engaged with his subordinates. Perhaps it was an unconscious mannerism exhibited by one attempting to be deceptive.

[Ares99999]

@BelieveIt1051 Well, its okay to get angry at assholes like that.

[BelieveIt1051]

Well at least he's not the kind to touch it and then put it back. The bite mark shows that it someone touched it already, and thus should not be devoured. Or maybe the thing tasted awful, and he saved someone else the trouble of a bitter taste in their mouths.

[kmrs1959]

@BelieveIt1051 that's a lot of Perhaps!

[mitchellhodgemeyer]

@BelieveIt1051 So racism is wrong, but homophobia is OK? It's always refreshing to see someone treat hatred and discrimination like the pick 'n' mix at the Seven Eleven.

[BelieveIt1051]

What is homophobic about people keeping their private sexual preferences to themselves?

[clmetsfan]

@BelieveIt1051 The fact that people don't mind if heterosexuals don't keep it to themselves.

[BelieveIt1051]

@clmetsfan And the reason they don't mind is because they know that person won't lust after them or make a pass at them. Acceptance of a normal way of life does not equal homophobia. Try again.

[clmetsfan]

@BelieveIt1051 Yeah because I'm terrified of every gay guy that I meet making a pass at me. And your label of heterosexuality as "normal," thus implying that homosexuality is abnormal, is textbook homophobia.

[BelieveIt1051]

It has nothing to do with being terrified of anything. It has to do with the pass itself. Military brotherhood is about trust and friendship. You can't trust someone who you think might be eyeing you for sexual purposes, and that is what open homosexuality in the military exposes the troops to.

95% of Americans are heterosexual. 5% or less are homo/bisexual. Thus, heterosexuality is normal by definition and homosexuality is abnormal since it exists outside the norm.

[BelieveIt1051]

Also, heterosexuality is required for human existence, homosexuality is not. Thus heterosexuality is normal in relation to humanity.

Homophobia is the irrational fear, hatred, or disdain for homosexual individuals, or their group as a whole.

Stating a fact about what is normal is not irrational, nor is it fear, hatred, or disdain of any type. Try again.

[studentofsmith]

@BelieveIt1051 "And the reason they don't mind is because they know that person won't lust after them or make a pass at them."

Not if you're of the opposite gender. Try again.

[BelieveIt1051]

@studentofsmith Opposite genders don't sleep in the same barracks or use the same head. Try again.

[studentofsmith]

@BelieveIt1051 They still have to interact. Try again.

[BelieveIt1051]

@studentofsmith Only while on duty, and not in combat. For the most part males and females are segregated. Try again.

[studentofsmith]

@BelieveIt1051 A military functioning "for the most part" isn't good enough. Try again.

[BelieveIt1051]

@studentofsmith Sure it is, you just can't refute the fact that males and females are segregated for intimate situations while homosexuals will have to be well integrated even on an intimate level. So your example doesn't apply. Give it up.

[studentofsmith]

@BelieveIt1051 Maybe you're willing to accept a military that only functions in the barracks and during combat when men and women are segregated but does not function effectively during non-combat duty since you couldn't trust someone of the opposite gender who is openly heterosexual (they might lust after you or make a pass at you) but I wouldn't be.

There's nothing intimate about a barracks. It's a communal living situation.

[BelieveIt1051]

@studentofsmith Your example still doesn't apply, because first of all, a man taking interest in a woman or a woman taking interest in a man is not immoral, as is the case with two males or two females. Second, anything that crosses a line in the heterosexual world can be reported and inquired about. A homosexual pass or even talk of homosexual relationships cannot be since doing so would be considered intolerance. It is the immoral factor of homosexuality that causes the problem in the units.

[studentofsmith]

@BelieveIt1051 Now we're hearing some honesty. I'm not prepared to debate the morality of homosexuality versus heterosexuality but I would like to point out that if it crosses the line in a heterosexual context it crosses the line in a homosexual context. The standard of behavior expected is the same. We expect our soldiers to act like professionals and sexual harassment is sexual harassment regardless of the circumstances. Being "gay" doesn't get you a free pass.

[BelieveIt1051]

@studentofsmith Good, because a debate on the immorality of homosexuality is useless. The fact of the matter is that it is considered immoral.

What crosses the line with heterosexuality is NOT the same of what crosses the line with homosexuality. A man can be court marshaled for giving a woman a compliment on her appearance in the military. But a man who is propositioned by the homosexual may report it, but it will be seen as intolerance and an effort to get a homosexual discharged.

[studentofsmith]

@BelieveIt1051 I admit that might happen, though it hasn't been the case for Canada, Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Holland, ect. but surely the more often someone plays the "gay" card the more skeptical we'll become. After all, when someone plays the "race" card we reserve judgment precisely becasue it's been abused so often.

According to a 2008 Gallup poll 48% of Americans consider homosexual relations morally wrong and 48% consider them morally acceptable. An even split.

[BelieveIt1051]

@studentofsmith Right, so why repeal DADT at all? Repealing it serves no purpose. It only has the potential to cause problems.

Even if that poll were true, most of those serving in the military are from the percentage that view homosexuality as immoral. Therefore adopting a policy of open homosexuality will only hurt recruitment and morale.

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 You're right. And the fewer idiots that enter that enter the military with the innane notion that homosexuality is "immoral", based solely on their bronze age goat herder fairy tales, the better off the miltary, and the public, will be.

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 So you're for having like... a few hundred soldiers as a national defense force? That won't work so well when the Islamofascists come to cut the heads off of homosexuals and those who support homosexuality.

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Why not? We didn't have very many troops when the Japanese and Germans wanted war? But, of course, simple facts aren't considered in your idiotic, bronze age goat herder fairy tale world, eh? There can only be "those who support homosexuality" instead of those who oppose idiotic fairy tale delusions. Stuck in your delusion, you've lost all ability to think as evidenced by your silly slippery slope.

Have some more Kool Aid.

lrn2reason

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 We had a lot more than what we will be left with now that the military endorses homosexuality. Plus, the soldiers back then were better and had better training. Now it's all about making sure no one's feelings are hurt. We also had to drop atomic bombs on Japan. Something our leaders are unwilling to do now, and something that won't discourage this enemy anyway. Every other major world military allows open homosexuality, and they're all complete jokes.

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Umm... yeah... somehow I'd prefer to refrain from taking geopolitical advice from some deluded idiot who is wholly unable to write a cogent sentence let alone form a cogent argument.

Have some more Kool Aid.

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 Well that's very typical of your kind. You just insult those you can't refute and then run away claiming to be the wiser. Go on then.

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Oh well, if it's a single refutation you demand, though I seriously doubt you have the ability to understand it, you would build a military that would disallow the likes of Alexander the Great, Richard III Ceour de` Leone, and the Sacred Band of Thebes all based on your idiotic delusions. 'Nuff said. Go back to your Kool Aid, you twit.

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 Assuming all those people were homosexual (which they weren't), your argument still fails. My policy would not disallow homosexuals. It would merely require them to keep their private lives to themselves or else face dishonorable discharge. That's all.

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 They weren't? LMAO! So now you wear your historical ignorance as a mantle of pride!! Do you even know who the Sacred Band of Thebes were? Or Alexander the Great? Or Richard III?

Your final statement does nothing to refute the refutation. One more time: You would build a military that would disallow the likes of Alexander the Great, Richard III Ceour de` Leone, and the Sacred Band of Thebes based on your idiotic delusions.

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 Historical revisionism is a common practice among you homosexuals. You have no good role models, therefore you attempt to label historical figures as homosexual in order to promote yourselves. Best of all, those historical figures are long gone and are unable to defend themselves against your baseless accusations.

I refuted you completely. My military would not ban homosexuals. It would require them to keep a detail about their private lives PRIVATE. What's so bad about that?

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 And now we see the famed stupidity of the deluded. Not only am I a revisionist for pointing out well established historic facts, but I'm also a homosexual. You're an idiot.

If "your military" would ban someone for saying they are homosexual, then "your military" would ban homosexuals. I know logic is hard for you deluded types. And again, if "your military" would ban Alexander, Richard I, and the Scared Band, you're an idiot (though we've already established that)!

lrn2think

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 Why is it that you only know how to hurl meaningless insults and not refute any of my points?

It would not ban homosexuals because not all homosexuals make their private lives public knowledge. These people are usually slandered by people like you. They call them "closet cases" or one who is "in the closet".

None of those you mentioned were homosexual anyway, so your entire stance is invalid.

watch?v=-aJROW6cuEM

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Ok, this is twofold: Plutarch records that the Sacred Band was made up of male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds.

Historian Jean Flori, however, has analysed the work of contemporary historians, and reported that they quite generally accepted that Richard was homosexual

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Aelian, however, writes of Alexander's visit to Troy where "Alexander garlanded the tomb of Achilles and Hephaestion that of Patroclus, the latter riddling that he was a beloved of Alexander, in just the same way as Patroclus was of Achilles"

Now that we've settled that, the attempted Genetic Fallacy also denotes you to be an idiot. 3 strikes... you're an idiot.

lrn2reason

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Psst... we can also add Sulla to that list. Don't believe it? Unable to research it? Or too lazy? Or, possibly, too stupid to use Google. I'll bet on the latter.

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 Sure, right along with Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, and that caveman they found buried with pottery not too long ago. Really, is there anyone you won't slander?

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 Well, since Sulla himself said that Metrobius was his lifelong lover, one tends to believe it. Regarding the rest, Jesus was a fictional personae and so irrelevant. It's interesting you mention Lincoln as there's lively debate regarding this, though it's pretty well established he wasn't dominantly homosexual. As to the caveman, was there a Sulla like declaration in cavemanese on that pottery? If not, than we have no way knowing. BTW: Just to remind you, you're an idiot.

[BelieveIt1051]

@Exmech2 Okay, are you talking about Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix? The Roman General and later Dictator who had five different wives?

>_<

*Sigh* Dude... the homo thing was from some novel written by Colleen McCullough. Masters of Rome? Try not to confuse fiction with reality please.

And while you have the freedom to believe that Jesus was not the Son of God, the fact of the matter is that he did in fact walk the Earth and was crucified. Historians acknowledge this.

[Exmech2]

@BelieveIt1051 From Plutarch (look him up) "The Parralel Lives: The Life of Sulla":" and Metrobius the impersonator of women, for whom, though past his prime, he continued up to the last to be passionately fond, and made no denial of it."

Feel free to put forth any evidence that "Jesus" was anything other than a fictional character. We'll get to the crucified part later. Good luck!

[SlamDunkStudios]

The coffee guy walks past: "PAWNED!"

[kmrs1959]

@tickyul Well thought out and logical. Obviously, someone who disagree's with this logic and that the same time wants to stop your idea from spreading flagged your comment as "spam" which it is not.

[tickyul]

@kmrs1959 You know, I am not one of those people who posts crap like "fuck you" or "eat shit", so it really ticks me off when, as you said, "people disagree with you and negatively flag your post", how pathetic. As for the Dadt debate, I think Obama is going to get his way and have the policy thrown out. I was in the USMC and there were gays, it was not a big deal, this change will not go over well in some quarters. A lot of gay discharges are by non gays wanting and easy out.

[gamingsoul11]

This show kicks ass.

[jiveturkey25]

True that! True that!

[bluescommander]

Dude, Sam sounds like he's on helium.

[rinkrat19]

Yet another great scene from a great show. (But why is it playing slightly too fast and with voices slightly too high?)

[hazzamo]

It could be from a UK broadcast. Presumably the source footage is 24fps, which is sped up by 4% to hit the 25fps used by the PAL video standard. This results in the audio being slightly higher in pitch if a pitch correction isn't used.

[grumpytosnowwhite]

ULTIMATE PWNAGE!!! Sam looked as though he wasn't sure if he should applaud like crazy or kiss his hand. Fitzwallace is made of awesome. Can't think of a better guy to connect the president and the military than him.

[WillBraden]

@grumpytosnowwhite Those guys got owned so hard, it hurts the actors that portrayed them....

[jimbow8]

Thanks for posting this. I've been trying to find it. I was about to resort to figuring out how to save the scene off of DVD and upload it myself.