GOP Debate Audience Boos U.S. Soldier in Iraq

[Seawytch]

He didn't have to lie to join, only to his shipmates when asked "what did you do this weekend"?

He didn't make that distinction in his question. He just said "I lied". (also, he was in the Army. he doesn't have "shipmates".)

Since we don't know his exact enlistment date, we are both applying supposition. In my 20 years I never had to lie in an official capacity. I had to "lie" to my shipmates on number of occasions, but usually it was just an altering of pronouns.

But let's suppose that he enlisted prior to 1993. If that is the case, he may have had to "lie" in order to enlist...much like Audy Murphy did in order to enlist. Do you honor or find contempt in one or both? What do you think about a military policy that would REQUIRE people to lie about who they are in order to serve?

I was in the military for 11 years. I had a gay soldier in my squad, and I knew he was gay. So did my CO. Even though he was a chronic disciplinary problem, (including the one time he got into a fight at the enlisted club because he tried to play grab-ass with some guys who didn't share his lifestyle), we did not throw him out. (He eventually contracted HIV and got out on a medical.)

I also knew guys in basic, some of whom told the rest of us they weren't gay, they just wanted out, who tried to get out that way. News flash, they don't throw you out so easy after they've invested a lot of money in you. Took months to get these guys out, one guy was still waiting in the baracks while the rest of us were going off to AIT.

So, my guess is these "dozen people" you know probably got home, realized what a disgrace getting discharged was, and blamed the bad old system. How many of them have rushed back to re-enlist now that the Bamster has overturned it?

I spent 20 years in AS A GAY PERSON so I'm going to bet I knew a few more gay people than you did wouldn't you say? Did you ever read "Combat Unbecoming"? Too late for summer reading, but the long winter months are coming. Might I suggest adding it to your reading list?

Now, sorry, the military should not take polls on how it is run. I would trust the judgement of officers before a public opinion poll. A lot of them were against this, they were against DADT when Clinton proposed it. My biggest concern is that the miltiary is going to end up making a lot of concessions to keep them happy. What about the Chaplain who preaches that homosexuality is a sin? Do we put him out of the military to placate them?

Did you know that Truman polled the Armed Forces when he wanted to desegregate? Do you know what those polls showed? Should Truman have NOT desegregated because the military was overwhelmingly against it (as was public opinion as well)

The 1st Amendment isn't going to change simply because you can't kick us out of the military anymore.

I think Muslim chaplains should be able to rail against the Christian infidels during their services, don't you?

Religions are going to have to adapt to the changing attitudes of their flocks or risk losing them...without outside pressure. I'm certainly content to wait for that to happen rather than try to legislate what a military chaplain can or cannot preach against.

More to the point. If you think some guy is out there who's been unemployed for a year, and he's going to say, "Well, they're foreclosing on my house next week, but Obama let gays in the military, give that boy another term!" I think you are sadly delusional.

I realize that we aren't used to having a President that can walk and chew gum at the same time but this one can. It is just one in a list of many of his accomplishments, but still one that was supported by a majority of Americans and needed to be done long before this. Basic equality does not have to be sidelined because the economy sucks ass.

 

[Photonic]

At the Thursday night debate, they topped their own sick selves, booing an American soldier serving his country in Iraq.

Clearly those who booed are not representative of the GOP or conservatives in general – everyone has a few nitwits in the family.

As with the issue of Obama’s race, however, it is indicative that some on the right remain hostile to homosexuals and advocate their due process and equal protection rights be violated.

It’s incumbent upon the right, therefore, to examine what it is about their movement that attracts racists and homophobes.

It could be the candidates. You know, the selfish shits that didn't stand up for the soldier or at least thank him, leaving this insult to everyone in service on a pedestal for everyone to see.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It could be the candidates. You know, the selfish shits that didn't stand up for the soldier or at least thank him, leaving this insult to everyone in service on a pedestal for everyone to see.

This is going to continue to be a problem for the GOP candidates. The ‘pre-primaries’ and the primaries proper – certainly to the SC primary – are going to be a perilous journey through hard-core, extreme right-wing territory, the Orlando straw poll is evidence of that along with Perry’s obeying the Constitution with regard to undocumented students.

In order to appease many of the GOP/TPM party bosses, the candidates will be forced to at least remain silent with regard to equal protection rights for gays, both in and out of the service.

 

[Photonic]

It could be the candidates. You know, the selfish shits that didn't stand up for the soldier or at least thank him, leaving this insult to everyone in service on a pedestal for everyone to see.

This is going to continue to be a problem for the GOP candidates. The ‘pre-primaries’ and the primaries proper – certainly to the SC primary – are going to be a perilous journey through hard-core, extreme right-wing territory, the Orlando straw poll is evidence of that along with Perry’s obeying the Constitution with regard to undocumented students.

In order to appease many of the GOP/TPM party bosses, the candidates will be forced to at least remain silent with regard to equal protection rights for gays, both in and out of the service.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need a proper centrist-right candidate right now, but not at the cost of fringe right wing social reforms.

 

[bodhisattva]

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

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

 

[Photonic]

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

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

Well, you're a minority apparently. Because more people approve of the measure than disprove of it. Including those in the service I might add.

 

[JoeB131]

Since we don't know his exact enlistment date, we are both applying supposition. In my 20 years I never had to lie in an official capacity. I had to "lie" to my shipmates on number of occasions, but usually it was just an altering of pronouns.

But let's suppose that he enlisted prior to 1993. If that is the case, he may have had to "lie" in order to enlist...much like Audy Murphy did in order to enlist. Do you honor or find contempt in one or both? What do you think about a military policy that would REQUIRE people to lie about who they are in order to serve?

He didn't look like he was old enough to have enlisted in 1993. But I am going by what he said. (I also kind of doubt people in his unit don't know that he's gay.)

I think it's a poor policy. I thought it was a poor policy that said I should weigh 195 lbs or less if I wanted to re-enlist, regardless of how proficient I was at my job. But that was the policy. DADT was the equivlent of letting me never step on a scale.

I spent 20 years in AS A GAY PERSON so I'm going to bet I knew a few more gay people than you did wouldn't you say? Did you ever read "Combat Unbecoming"? Too late for summer reading, but the long winter months are coming. Might I suggest adding it to your reading list?

Well, that sort of depends. I'm guessing you are a woman (based on you screen name and icon), and frankly, a gay woman in the military is a lot different than a gay dude in the military, especially in a combat unit, which often runs on macho and testosterone. Women don't beat the hell out of lesbians to re-affirm their feminity.

I go back to my point about that guy in my squad. Everyone knew he was gay, but the minute he got stupid, they beat the snot out of him. I still feel kind of bad about that, because I felt that I spent a lot of time keeping this kid out of trouble, and the minute I turned my back on him, he got beat up.

Did you know that Truman polled the Armed Forces when he wanted to desegregate? Do you know what those polls showed? Should Truman have NOT desegregated because the military was overwhelmingly against it (as was public opinion as well)

I don't think it's quite the same thing, since blacks were already serving in segregated units. No one was going to throw them out if they found out they were black. Segregated units had distinguished themselves in both World Wars, and continuing the policy just seemed wrong.

I would make the comparison to when women were taken out of auxilleries like the WAC and integrated into the main force, not becuase the military wanted to, but because they thought after the ERA passed, they'd have no choice. (Except the ERA didn't pass, but they went ahead anyway.) So instead of making female service members adapt, they had to make the men adapt. They got their own special APFT, they got their own barracks, they had to weaken the fratrinization rules, and so on. And once in a while, you had a situation like Tailhook where careers were ruined to accomedate political correctness.

The 1st Amendment isn't going to change simply because you can't kick us out of the military anymore.

I think Muslim chaplains should be able to rail against the Christian infidels during their services, don't you?

I don't think we should be inducting ANY Muslims at this point. Any more than we should have been inducting communists during the cold war or Nazi bundists during WWII.

Religions are going to have to adapt to the changing attitudes of their flocks or risk losing them...without outside pressure. I'm certainly content to wait for that to happen rather than try to legislate what a military chaplain can or cannot preach against.

Now, keeping in mind I'm an agnostic who has no use for religion, I'm not trusting that to happen. I suspect that chaplains who actually follow what the bible says are going to find themselves the subject of complaints by people who never attend their sermons. Then they'll get bad OOR's. You don't need to legislate to make a change.

I realize that we aren't used to having a President that can walk and chew gum at the same time but this one can. It is just one in a list of many of his accomplishments, but still one that was supported by a majority of Americans and needed to be done long before this. Basic equality does not have to be sidelined because the economy sucks ass.

THis joker can't chew gum or walk. He's messed up the economy six ways to sunday. And even this isn't that great of an accomplishment. He put in a change he promised two years earlier five minutes before a court was about to impose one on him. That's hardly "Profiles in Courage".

 

[norcal21jg]

hmmm

 

[BDBoop]

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

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

Way to show your ass upon arrival. Buh-bye.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

Well, you're a minority apparently. Because more people approve of the measure than disprove of it. Including those in the service I might add.

Bull.

 

[Flopper]

At the Thursday night debate, they topped their own sick selves, booing an American soldier serving his country in Iraq.

Clearly those who booed are not representative of the GOP or conservatives in general – everyone has a few nitwits in the family.

As with the issue of Obama’s race, however, it is indicative that some on the right remain hostile to homosexuals and advocate their due process and equal protection rights be violated.

It’s incumbent upon the right, therefore, to examine what it is about their movement that attracts racists and homophobes.

Republicans have to oppose whatever Democrats support. Polarization is so strong, that any hint of agreement with the opposition is reason for rebuke. Compromise is nearly impossible so the only way the country can move forward is for one party to control government. That can not last for long because we blame all our problems on government. That leads to a change in leadership which leads to reversal of policies and the cycle continues until we learn to work with the opposition. Hopefully that will occur soon.

 

[BDBoop]

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

Well, you're a minority apparently. Because more people approve of the measure than disprove of it. Including those in the service I might add.

Bull.

You were born in '58 and you STILL don't know that you need to prove him wrong?

This is how it's done.

 

[bodhisattva]

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

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

Well, you're a minority apparently. Because more people approve of the measure than disprove of it. Including those in the service I might add.

What you stated is bullshit. You don't have the legit polls to back up your queer supporting crap.

 

[bodhisattva]

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

As I stated in another thread, the less the queers draw attention to themselves , the better for them and the country.

Normal people resent being dragged into something they don't want to be involved in. And, being accused of being homophobes simply because they don't agree with the queers.

Furthermore, the normal peoples' reaction is justifiably predictable when being put on the spot and being verbally bludgeoned into believing what they find repulsive.

Advice to the queers: Leave us normal people alone and the overwhelming majority of us will leave you alone.

Way to show your ass upon arrival. Buh-bye.

Showing my ass ? I suppose. As by the same token you do yours.

 

[bodhisattva]

Well, you're a minority apparently. Because more people approve of the measure than disprove of it. Including those in the service I might add.

Bull.

You were born in '58 and you STILL don't know that you need to prove him wrong?

This is how it's done.

According to your chart seems that it's about equal depending on who is taking the poll.And, that is the critical factor.

The essential point is that overwhelmingly states' laws reject the queers' bullshit ex: fictitious queer marriages, than support it.

 

[Photonic]

Bull.

You were born in '58 and you STILL don't know that you need to prove him wrong?

This is how it's done.

According to your chart seems that it's about equal depending on who is taking the poll.And, that is the critical factor.

The essential point is that overwhelomingly states' laws reject the queers' bullshit ex: fictitious queer marriages, than support it.

You're a wonderful character. There is a very high chance your progeny will grow up in a more open minded and free world and they will likely disagree with your bigoted ways.

 

[grunt11b]

Two people opened their holsters, and they booed the policy, not the soldier. Bunch of liberal fucks will take any opportunity to try and sway the weak minded dem base into believing such Bullshit.

 

[Dr Grump]

Two people opened their holsters, and they booed the policy, not the soldier. Bunch of liberal fucks will take any opportunity to try and sway the weak minded dem base into believing such Bullshit.

They're still ijits for booing the policy...shrug...

 

[BDBoop]

It takes a special kind of stupid to attempt to defend the indefensible.

 

[jgarden]

Did anyone bother to watch the linked video? There were a couple of boos. It was NOT 'the audience'. Just like the lie the OP tells about the audience cheering loudly about the 'let him die' comment by the previous debate moderator. There were a few people who cheered, NOT the entire audience.

The OP is an over reacting cry baby.

Dismissing the "'let him die" comments as the act of a few people may explain appropriate audience responses away once, but when it happens twice, that's becoming a pattern.

If this happened with a liberal audience, do you really think our conservative "friends" would be so generous in accepting excuses for bad behavior?