Picture of the Day: The Dan Choi Demotivational Poster

Tags: Dan Choi, Don't Ask Don't Tell

• Atwork
  10:19 am on November 29th, 2010 1

  Mmm, attacking the messenger with insults…I guess we all know who's on the wrong side of the argument, then.

• Conway East
  11:25 am on November 29th, 2010 2

  If I'm not mistaken, those are uniformed USSS agents and not MPDC officers. The MPDC isn't competent enough to drag someone down the sidewalk, that takes too much coordination and effort on the part of an average MPDC officer.

• Retired GI
  11:27 am on November 29th, 2010 3

  #1 Lighten up already. That's the problem. When an individual goes out of their way to make an a$$ out of themselves, they deserve to be the butt of as many jokes as possible. Gay or Normal.

  Besides, basiclly his "message" is: Hi, I'm an idiot. Look at me. PLEASE! Look at ME!

  Being a butt-packer was more important than being a Soldier. He deserves to be made fun of.

  Total loser, and not because he's gay.

• Tom Langley
  1:29 pm on November 29th, 2010 4

  Atwork #1. I won't attack Dan Choi with personal insults. I will attack the former soldier for protesting something IN uniform. The military should stay out of politics other than voting or writing your political leaders. If you disagree then look at Burma, North Korea, numerous African countries, & formerly a lot of countries in Latin America. The message that he is saying seems to be that his need to proclaim who he is sexually attracted to is more important than anything else. I personally hope that Mr Choi IS allowed back into the military so that he then could be prosecuted for actions that he previously did while in the service. No matter what you may believe as an individual, if you chain yourself to the whitehouse gates while in uniform you have DISGRACED the uniform & have committed acts unbecoming an officer.

• Teadrinker
  2:00 pm on November 29th, 2010 5

  #2,

  I don't see the humour in that at all. It's juvenile.

  #4,

  Disgraced the uniform? Please. Are you too young to remember homeless and disabled war vets who wore their uniforms, sometimes for years without washing them, as a form of protest against how society had let them slip through the cracks? He's essentially doing the same thing. He's certainly not the first to choose to exercise his freedom of expression in such matter.

  The fact he's risking jail to protect the freedom of a minority makes him more patriotic than most people, if you ask me. Like it or not, that guy has got brass balls. The Marines should count themselves lucky if was allowed to serve again.

  Think about that. A Canadian lecturing you on how you don't get patriotism. It's sad, really. It implies I care more about your own country than you do.

• Thomas Lee
  4:00 pm on November 29th, 2010 6

  …he’s risking jail to protect the freedom of a minority…

  Oh gawd, here we go. That's part of the problem. The HOMOsexual community is trying to get "minority" status as if they're some special race. Gays are white, black, yellow, red, blah, blah, blah. They don't need to also be labeled with "minority". That frigg'n irks me when people try to put them in their own class. Face it, whatever their "race", it's a lifestyle they CHOOSE to continue even though it totally goes against anything in nature. Yeah, go ahead and call me a bigot all you want, but that's how I feel. And if Dan F'n Choi can express his opinion, so can I.

  You caught me on a bad night with this one. UGH!

• Tom Langley
  4:27 pm on November 29th, 2010 7

  Teadrinker #5. For one thing Dan Choi was in the Army not the Marines although he acts like he was in the girl scouts. I have nothing against the right to protest but my objection is to him doing it in uniform. Dan Choi joined the Army knowing the laws & regulations of the US Military and AFTER he joined he decided that the rules weren't for him. If he decided not to join but to protest the DADT rule then fine or once he was in if he got on & said he didn't agree with the rule then fine. If you look at many third world countries where the military gets involved with politics the results aren't good. Therefore I say the US Military shouldn't be involved in politics. When Dan Choi was on active duty he wore the uniform during his protest, that's what I disagree with. FORMER US Military members have gotten involved with politics such as Generals MacArthur, Singlaub, Eisenhower, Wesley Clark, LTC North, etc AFTER they left the military, not while still on active duty. I don't think he has brass balls, I think he is an attention grabbing little b!=(h. He has made it much more difficult for pro-DADT repeal folks to succeed & to that I say "Great job Dan Choi."

• Hamilton
  4:29 pm on November 29th, 2010 8

  TD, he could have risked jail time without dishonoring the uniform. It is illegal and a sign that he has no discipline and is unfit for military service something you seem to not understand. He was perfectly capable of chaining himself to the whitehouse fence in civilian cloths and the same for his many TV appearances.

• Vince
  5:16 pm on November 29th, 2010 9

  > Disgraced the uniform? Please. Are you too young to remember homeless and disabled war vets who wore their uniforms, sometimes for years without washing them, as a form of protest against how society had let them slip through the cracks? <

  You ought to talk to some of those fellows sometimes. Lots of them hanging out in woodland BDU type pieces near the Vietnam War Memorial.

  You'd be surprised how many of them were really never even IN the service.

  Choi's an attention wh0re. Nothing more…

• jimbo
  6:53 pm on November 29th, 2010 10

  double whammy,..korean and a west pointer.

• Teadrinker
  7:04 pm on November 29th, 2010 11

  "I have nothing against the right to protest but my objection is to him doing it in uniform. Dan Choi joined the Army knowing the laws & regulations of the US Military and AFTER he joined he decided that the rules weren’t for him."

  Unconstitutional laws and rules are meant to be broken.

• Teadrinker
  7:06 pm on November 29th, 2010 12

  "You ought to talk to some of those fellows sometimes. Lots of them hanging out in woodland BDU type pieces near the Vietnam War Memorial.

  You'd be surprised how many of them were really never even IN the service."

  Nice try…

  What's truly depressing is how many actually were.

• archieb
  7:36 pm on November 29th, 2010 13

  It doesn't take much to become a hero to the left.

• Vince
  8:17 pm on November 29th, 2010 14

  Yeah. Just toss on a piece of a uniform from a time outside the window of when you claim you served and grab the "I'm a Victim" brass ring.

  Stolen valor abounds.

• Teadrinker
  3:18 am on November 30th, 2010 15

  ArchieB,

  As much as on the right? In your dreams:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR_rFXXz_44&feature=related

• Tom Langley
  3:43 am on November 30th, 2010 16

  Teadrinker #11. I believe that if & when the DADT case ends up before the US Supreme Court that DADT will be ruled constitutional since according to Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution that Congress has the power to make laws & regulations governing the Military forces. Under this section of the constitution the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was enacted by Congress which is different in many aspects from civilian law. For example as a civilian I would have the right to call President Obama (or Bush) a jerk or whatever. If I did that as a servicemember I could be court martialed since the president is the commander in chief. An example of a sexual behavior that is treated differently is adultery. As a civilian there is no criminal penalty for adultery. There IS a penalty for adultery in the military, the reason being the preservation of good order in the military. If a military member goes off to war & another military member jumps into the sack with their spouse that would be prejudicial to the maintenance of good order & discipline of the force.

• Glans
  10:52 am on November 30th, 2010 17

  Is he really in uniform? The clothes look like camouflage fatigues, but is he wearing US insignia?

• Atwork
  12:04 pm on November 30th, 2010 18

  #16,

  For that law to pass, they would have to prove that it is any more disruptive than that of people being openly heterosexual (hell, gays could argue that they are offended by heterosexuals flaunting their own sexuality). Yes, you argument is a slippery slope, one that can be easily made even more slippery.

• Atwork
  12:06 pm on November 30th, 2010 19

  #17,

  Excellent point. I guess the joke is on many if he isn't.

• Tom Langley
  12:17 pm on November 30th, 2010 20

  Glans #17, Atwork #19, If you google 'dan choi whitehouse fence photo' you will clearly see that Mr Choi is IN uniform with the US Army, his name, & an American flag on his ACU's.

• Zilchy
  5:02 pm on November 30th, 2010 21

  #6 Mr. Lee – "That frigg’n irks me when people try to put them in their own class. Face it, whatever their “race”, it’s a lifestyle they CHOOSE to continue even though it totally goes against anything in nature."

  Homosexuality is anything but against nature. There are plenty of examples of this behaviour in many different animals. These animal are non-rationalizing, but the behaviour is quite apparent. This idea leads into:

  #18 Atwork – "For that law to pass, they would have to prove that it is any more disruptive than that of people being openly heterosexual (hell, gays could argue that they are offended by heterosexuals flaunting their own sexuality). Yes, you argument is a slippery slope, one that can be easily made even more slippery."

  It is indeed a slippery slope. You can't justify this type of separation based on anything other than what is condusive to the overall good of military effectiveness. Any social based justification will fall on it's own face.

• Tom Langley
  5:35 pm on November 30th, 2010 22

  Atwork #18. There is another possible 'slippery-slope' that eventually will probably happen if & when DADT is repealed, that is at some point I will bet you money that transvestites & transsexuals (or transgendered in liberal speak) will demand the 'right' to wear the opposite sexual class A uniform of what they were biologically born with. Let me see a big born biologically male wearing a female class A uniform with hairy legs, lipstick & make-up, & fake breast; OH, NO DISRUPTION THERE, lol! Homosexuals CAN already serve NOW, if they just STFU about having to tell the whole f'ing world who they are sexually attracted to. Let me see, you have a group of people who identify THEMSELVES by their sexual attraction but if you let them serve 'openly' in a line of work where people sh!+, shower, shave, & dress/undress in close proximity that there won't be any problems. That's liberal logic for you.

• Teadrinker
  8:56 pm on November 30th, 2010 23

  "It is indeed a slippery slope. You can’t justify this type of separation based on anything other than what is condusive to the overall good of military effectiveness. Any social based justification will fall on it’s own face."

  And yet the Canadian courts have ruled that banning gays from the military is a form of discrimination, and therefore anti-constitutional…and, it turns out, the lifting was beneficial according to an American study:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_a…

  How does it feel doing a face plant?

• Teadrinker
  8:58 pm on November 30th, 2010 24

  My favorite part:

  "Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline."

• Hamilton
  9:05 pm on November 30th, 2010 25

  TD,

  All this time and you still don't realize that the US is not Canada. Our health system doesn't function like yours does even though we pay more. Our educations systems are very different. Our Constituion is not written the same and the magnitude of our militaries is vastly different in size, mission and capability.

  Yet you measure everything according to what works in Canada. The US used to(still does) get ridiculed for applying its standards to other countries but it looks like everyone else gets a bye.

• Vince
  10:52 pm on November 30th, 2010 26

  What's so damn good about having homosexuals openly running around?

• ChickenHead
  11:18 pm on November 30th, 2010 27

  "What’s so damn good about having homosexuals openly running around?"

  You don't have to pay a barfine when you feel like a blowjob.

  You can use the prissy ones as human shields in case of conflict.

  Not only will you have Juicy Skanks and Battle Cattle, (c)2010 CHL, you will also have Fag Hags running around.

  You will be able to name every showtune.

  You will never be short of Crisco… even if a handfull or two are missing.

  Your pistol score will look better if they limp-wrist their M9s.

  You will never be short of fashion advice and your hair will always look faaaaabulous.

  You won't have to listen to so much of that NASCAR crap.

  You can drink juice instead of buy it.

  …that's off the top of my head. I'll think about it.

• Retired GI
  2:03 am on December 1st, 2010 28

  26 Vince, You had to ask didn't you.

  27 ChickenHead….I have no words other than

• Tom Langley
  2:07 pm on December 1st, 2010 29

  Chickenhead=The Master. Question: What's so damn good about having homosexuals openly running around? Answer: Now the mess hall will always have someone available to pack their fudge.

• ChickenHead
  2:31 pm on December 1st, 2010 30

  Plus…

  The cooks will give you as much meat as you care to eat.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Notify me of new posts by email.

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.