GOP Debate Audience Boos U.S. Soldier in Iraq

It is a sign that Americans do not approve of gays in the military. I agree.

Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke
Homosexuality is immoral and it is a sin. The bible says it. We don't need it in the military.

Do not base your morality on a work of fiction.
 
well then girl friend. now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

It's not a new thing. I have consistently said, on DADT, the military should make the call. No one else. Not politicians. Not the public. No one. Just the military. It is a unique environment and we ask them to do things that the rest of us cannot or will not do.

As far as I am concerned, it is their call and their's alone.

So, what you're saying is that Truman should not have desegregated the military when he did, right?

Your inability to comprehend basic English is not my problem.
 
Umm gays do not have any children. And their rights to property is protected they get to keep their own stuff.

Gays don't have children? How will I ever tell my kids?

Ohh they can get children from other sources or bring them into the relationship with them but gays cannot have children together as a couple by the standard biological method since they are by definition the same sex.

surely you know about the birds and the bees?

From the CDC:

  • Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to have children): 7.3 million
  • Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 11.8%
  • Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant for at least 12 consecutive months): 2.1 million
  • Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 7.4%
  • Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.3 million

Millions of people utilize assisted reproductive technologies in order to create their families. Does that make them any less of a family?

I am legally married to my partner in the State of California. She and I are the legal parents of our children that we planned together. (There was no "oops" in the back seat of a Buick requiring our shotgun wedding.)

Why should my family not be afforded the same legal protections, the same equal treatment under the law? Why shouldn't MY spouse be able to shop at the commissary?
 
It's not a new thing. I have consistently said, on DADT, the military should make the call. No one else. Not politicians. Not the public. No one. Just the military. It is a unique environment and we ask them to do things that the rest of us cannot or will not do.

As far as I am concerned, it is their call and their's alone.

So, what you're saying is that Truman should not have desegregated the military when he did, right?

Your inability to comprehend basic English is not my problem.

You can't argue the point so you go for the cowardly neg rep?

I have bolded your statement in which you said that the military should make the call. Should the military have been allowed to "make the call" when it was desegregated or when women were allowed to serve? Did the military support the politicians or the public making THOSE decisions? Heck, when the military was desegregated, the PUBLIC was against it and it was ALL politicians. Simple yes or no question...

Should it have been the military's decision to desegregate or to allow women to serve?
 
It is a sign that Americans do not approve of gays in the military. I agree.

Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

No one forced him to join the service, retard. If he doesn't like the terms of the deal, then he can get the hell out.
 
Killing is a sin. The Bible says it. We don't need killers in the military.

What kind of freedom do you defend? The freedom to conform? The freedom of the 'folkish state'?

"We don't need killers in the military?"

You get the award for the idiocy of the week.
 
It is a sign that Americans do not approve of gays in the military. I agree.

Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

No one forced him to join the service, retard. If he doesn't like the terms of the deal, then he can get the hell out.

Just like americans that are dissatisfied with the staus quo. Rather then work for change, leave. Is this really your position?
 
It is a sign that Americans do not approve of gays in the military. I agree.

Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke


They booed the question, not the person. Furthermore, the guy was obviously a leftwing plant. He obviously wasn't a Republican.

The media is obviously using this incident to paint Republicans as bigots. It's a smear campaign.
 
Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke
Homosexuality is immoral and it is a sin. The bible says it. We don't need it in the military.

Killing is a sin. The Bible says it. We don't need killers in the military.

What kind of freedom do you defend? The freedom to conform? The freedom of the 'folkish state'?
Wrong answer son. The Bible states thou shalt not murder. There is a distinction.
 
Killing is a sin. The Bible says it. We don't need killers in the military.

What kind of freedom do you defend? The freedom to conform? The freedom of the 'folkish state'?

"We don't need killers in the military?"

You get the award for the idiocy of the week.

We don't need killers in the military. Maybe Charles Manson should sign up?

And we DON'T need killers and rapists in the military...

The Mahmudiyah killings and gang-rape of a 14-year-old girl by U.S. troops occurred on March 12, 2006, in a house to the southwest of Yusufiyah, a village to the west of the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment were charged with the crimes: (i) Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, (ii) Spc. James P. Barker, (iii) Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, (iv) Pfc. Brian L. Howard and (v) Pfc. Steven D. Green (whom the army discharged before the crime's discovery). Abeer Qasim Hamza was raped and murdered, after her family was murdered: her mother, Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34; father, Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45; and six-year-old sister Hadeel Qasim Hamza.[1] As of September 2009, Spielman and Green have been convicted and three others have pled guilty.
 
Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

No one forced him to join the service, retard. If he doesn't like the terms of the deal, then he can get the hell out.

Just like americans that are dissatisfied with the staus quo. Rather then work for change, leave. Is this really your position?

No one was asked if they want to be born an American. However, joining the service is entirely voluntary. People who join knowing the terms of the deal and then whine about it are disgusting weasels.
 
No one forced him to join the service, retard. If he doesn't like the terms of the deal, then he can get the hell out.

Just like americans that are dissatisfied with the staus quo. Rather then work for change, leave. Is this really your position?

No one was asked if they want to be born an American. However, joining the service is entirely voluntary. People who join knowing the terms of the deal and then whine about it are disgusting weasels.

I understand the point. However disagreement and working for change is very American.
 
Killing is a sin. The Bible says it. We don't need killers in the military.

What kind of freedom do you defend? The freedom to conform? The freedom of the 'folkish state'?

"We don't need killers in the military?"

You get the award for the idiocy of the week.

We don't need killers in the military. Maybe Charles Manson should sign up?

And we DON'T need killers and rapists in the military...

The Mahmudiyah killings and gang-rape of a 14-year-old girl by U.S. troops occurred on March 12, 2006, in a house to the southwest of Yusufiyah, a village to the west of the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment were charged with the crimes: (i) Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, (ii) Spc. James P. Barker, (iii) Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, (iv) Pfc. Brian L. Howard and (v) Pfc. Steven D. Green (whom the army discharged before the crime's discovery). Abeer Qasim Hamza was raped and murdered, after her family was murdered: her mother, Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34; father, Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45; and six-year-old sister Hadeel Qasim Hamza.[1] As of September 2009, Spielman and Green have been convicted and three others have pled guilty.

since they were prosecuted and tried, it appears the military agrees that we don't need rapists in the military. However, killing is what the military does. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than saying we don't need killers in the military. Perhaps we should quit giving them guns and have them all sing Kum Bay Yah in boot camp.
 
"We don't need killers in the military?"

You get the award for the idiocy of the week.

We don't need killers in the military. Maybe Charles Manson should sign up?

And we DON'T need killers and rapists in the military...

The Mahmudiyah killings and gang-rape of a 14-year-old girl by U.S. troops occurred on March 12, 2006, in a house to the southwest of Yusufiyah, a village to the west of the town of Al-Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment were charged with the crimes: (i) Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, (ii) Spc. James P. Barker, (iii) Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, (iv) Pfc. Brian L. Howard and (v) Pfc. Steven D. Green (whom the army discharged before the crime's discovery). Abeer Qasim Hamza was raped and murdered, after her family was murdered: her mother, Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34; father, Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45; and six-year-old sister Hadeel Qasim Hamza.[1] As of September 2009, Spielman and Green have been convicted and three others have pled guilty.

since they were prosecuted and tried, it appears the military agrees that we don't need rapists in the military. However, killing is what the military does. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than saying we don't need killers in the military. Perhaps we should quit giving them guns and have them all sing Kum Bay Yah in boot camp.

SO...you condemn the rape, but not the killings by those 'killers'?
 
It is a sign that Americans do not approve of gays in the military. I agree.

Yea, a young American can risk his life defending this country, just as long as WE can decide who they are allowed to love.

USArmyRetired, you are a disgrace to the uniform and a traitor to this nation.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

No one forced him to join the service, retard. If he doesn't like the terms of the deal, then he can get the hell out.

Doesn't have to now. "He" worked for change and it was accomplished. From this point on, no gay or lesbian service member HAS TO hide their sexual orientation for fear of discharge.

Now...if someone doesn't like having all military members serving under the same exact rules and regulations, that individual doesn't have to re-enlist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top