GOP Debate Audience Boos U.S. Soldier in Iraq

[bripat9643]

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

You just explained liberalism.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll be nice. You said it bares no resemblance, not it doesn't describe it exactly.

I know they aren't the same thing, but they are part of a branch of logical fallacies.

It's not a logical fallacy, turd. You may think it "resembles" a logical fallacy, but the fact is it is not a logical fallacy.

Your skull is obviously too thick for this to penetrate, so I'll quit bother trying.

 

[cootydog]

maybe he shouldnt have ask and shouldnt have told. Obama is a dumb idiot for doing away with dont ask dont tell. im sure in a real combat zone in real combat one of two things could happen. the known homosexuals take accidental friendly fire and die or they would fight side by side just like with women. personally I would rather have all the homos and women on the front lines lol they want equal rights by God lets give em to them. dont ask dont tell was good. its no ones business if you like to eat penis or take it up the poop shoot. being a homosexual is really nothing to be proud of. also for you people under the impression gay is ok and natural, why are humans the only animal stupid enough to want to stick a round peg in a square hole. being gay is not natural and soldiers have enough problems without worrying about someone looking at his ass.

 

[bripat9643]

Blah blah...here is the deal. Fuck every single one of those ..sit on their ass and complain...republicans who boo'd that soldier who is fucking fighting in a war.

Fuck you.

If the soldier said it should be legal to molest children, would you still be attacking the people who booed what he said?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

 

[jgarden]

Blah blah...here is the deal. Fuck every single one of those ..sit on their ass and complain...republicans who boo'd that soldier who is fucking fighting in a war.

Fuck you.

If the soldier said it should be legal to molest children, would you still be attacking the people who booed what he said?

This is a classic example of "bait and switch" - a typical conservative ploy.

Since "bripat" can't present a convincing argument based on the facts, he's forced to substitute another one involving "molest(ing) children" as a diversion.

As "bripat" well knows, it wasn't "molest(ing) children" that the people booed, but the soldier's sexual orientation.

 

[Sallow]

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.

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

 

[Avatar4321]

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...

Yes because keeping politics out of the military is such a bad idea...

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

On what grounds? DADT doesnt take away anyone's rights.

 

[Article 15]

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

On what grounds? DADT doesnt take away anyone's rights.

Shut the fuck up.

DADT forces homosexuals in the military to live a secret life for fear of discharge.

 

[bodhisattva]

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.

The first lesson anyone, including progeny, must learn is to tell the truth and not to distort reality.

 

[Sallow]

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

On what grounds? DADT doesnt take away anyone's rights.

Sure it does.

 

[Seawytch]

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

On what grounds? DADT doesnt take away anyone's rights.

A Federal Judge has already ruled DADT unconstitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

So if he didn't enlist prior to 1993, he didn't have to lie to join...only to his coworkers.

It's also pretty presumptuous to assume that they knew he was gay. I can tell you from personal experience that people are pretty clueless. If your front story is good enough, few people look any deeper.

We agree that DADT was a bad policy. I wish it had ended before I retired.

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.

You had an experience with ONE person and you think that is representative of all?

Hundreds of gays and lesbians serve in combat units and don't get beat up...many of them with the full knowledge of their unit members.

You must remember that the people joining the military today probably already KNOW someone who is gay or lesbian. They went to High Schools with gay/straight alliances. They might have a family member they know is gay. They showered in HS gyms with gays. It's not a big deal these days and the likelihood of someone being "beaten up" for it is minimal...and if there are still raging homophobes that think it will be fun to "roll the queer", will find their careers ending.

This is a quote from the DADT survey:

“We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys​

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.

You are shifting the goal posts, Joe. The military was overwhelmingly opposed to blacks serving alongside whites. They even wanted, by a large majority, separate movies, PX times, etc. It was done anyway because it was the right thing to do.

The repeal of DADT is far less unpopular than desegregating the military was and still we had to have studies and training and blah, blah, blah. It should have just been lifted, period.

Careers were ruined during Tailhook because of horrible behavior, not political correctness. Sorry that the "boys" can't be "boys" and have to be professionals...no, no I'm not sorry that they have to be professionals and not act like adolescent boys at the Chicken Ranch. That's a good thing.

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.

We aren't at war with Muslims and your statement is offensive.

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.

Smells like speculation. Have the 25 other countries that have lifted their bans had this problem?

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".

This President has done nothing of the sort. The economy was already messed and things he has done, policies he put in place actually SAVED what was left of it. That we haven't recovered to the extent that we would all like, is not because of anything he has done or not done.

DADT was ended the way it began, through Congressional action. We'll keep those court cases in the pocket...just in case.

Stories From the Front Lines

 

[bripat9643]

Blah blah...here is the deal. Fuck every single one of those ..sit on their ass and complain...republicans who boo'd that soldier who is fucking fighting in a war.

Fuck you.

If the soldier said it should be legal to molest children, would you still be attacking the people who booed what he said?

This is a classic example of "bait and switch" - a typical conservative ploy.

Since "bripat" can't present a convincing argument based on the facts, he's forced to substitute another one involving "molest(ing) children" as a diversion.

As "bripat" well knows, it wasn't "molest(ing) children" that the people booed, but the soldier's sexual orientation.

Wrong, it's not an example of "bait and switch." It's a test to see if you actually believe in the things you say. The claim was made that any criticism of a soldier "WHO FOUGHT IN AFGHANISTAN" is automatically wrong. I'm just trying to understand how far this principle extends.

Obviously, you realized how idiotic it was and now you're dodging.

 

[bripat9643]

DATD has nothing to do with due process. the Supreme Court has never ruled it to be unconstitutional.

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

There is no right to serve in the military.

 

[bripat9643]

On what grounds? DADT doesnt take away anyone's rights.

Shut the fuck up.

DADT forces homosexuals in the military to live a secret life for fear of discharge.

No one has a right to be in the military, so no rights were taken away.

 

[bripat9643]

has already ruled DADT unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court never has.

End of story.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They should have.

The Constitution doesn't take rights away from people.

On what grounds? DADT doesnt take away anyone's rights.

Shut the fuck up.

DADT forces homosexuals in the military to live a secret life for fear of discharge.

It does force them to lead a secret life while hetero's are free to discuss sexual conquests.

Other than that it does not infringe at all, it doesn't dissallow gays from serving just dissallows them from stating their sexual preference.

If the military passed a rule that no one was allowed to discuss sex whether straight or gay then DADT would not be an issue, but the military doesn't have that.

Either way the rule is over so it is what it is.

 

[BDBoop]

Dear Defenders of the Indefensible;

If the audience did nothing wrong, then why are Huntsman and Johnson sounding off now?

Huntsman, Johnson say booing of gay soldier not appropriate | Iowa Independent

“It was unfortunate,” Jon Huntsman told Talking Points Memo. “You know, we’re all Americans, and the fact that he is an American who put on the uniform says something good about him.”

Gary Johnson said, “In my opinion, when you have booing this is not indicative of Republicans,” he said. “This is not the Republican Party that I belong to.