GOP Debate Audience Boos U.S. Soldier in Iraq

[Dr Grump]

We've already established the fact that you can't name one.

There's nothing stopping gays from talking after their enlistment is over.

We all knew you couldn't name one.

Thanks for confirming the fact.

Let me help you understand something bripat. Under DODT and prior if a gay troop saved someone and mentioned he was a gay troop, they were bound by law to remove him from the military. Why do you think they would come out under the light of saving someone to get discharged? Explain why they should risk their military service for a slip up like that?

I really love these morons with the word "patriot" or part thereof in their names. They're supposed to somehow let the rest of us know they are more "patriotic" and how they are the "true" custodians of the Constitution yada, yada, yada. They're the frist to bleat and whine and moan and whinge about "freedoms" being curtailed or breached. Except when it comes to somebody's sexuality. Then it appears their motivations and politics equal those practised by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or any radical Muslim....

Always thought the above and neocon whackjobs had a little in common with each other....

 

[Seawytch]

We've already established the fact that you can't name one.

Except that isn't true. One has been named.

RIGHT HERE

Not only that, if it wasn't for gays in the military, there wouldn't be much of a medical corp. (and your YN would suck )

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

The military should be the ones to make the call because the military is a completely different environment, and way of life, from the public sector. I totally agree with California Girl on this. It was, after all POLITICIANS that wrote and passed DADT, did they not? Politicians tried to impose rules on the military, and now you are saying that the military (yet again) should bow to the whims of whatever the POLITICIANS decide. Are the politicians on the front lines? Are the politicians in harms way? So how can anyone other than the military, decide what's best for them?

Also desegregation is not comparable in this case, black people didn't have the ability to hide and were incapable of outwardly changing the appearance of who they are. They were forced to face the issue head on, without the means and ability to blend themselves in society FROM it. The struggles faced here are apples to oranges in this case.

 

[Zona]

bodisattva, won't you take me by the hand.

NoNuker,

I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a therapist.

I deal primarily with the liberal psychos (there are no other kind), and Islamofascist freaks.

Queers, when they annoy me.

My wife is a psychiatrist, but she doesn't specialize in queers unless it's by chance.

Go away bigot.... your views regarding "queers" are embarrassing to say the least.

every once in a while, you surprise me. How liberal of you...

 

[Zona]

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?

The military should be the ones to make the call because the military is a completely different environment, and way of life, from the public sector. I totally agree with California Girl on this. It was, after all POLITICIANS that wrote and passed DADT, did they not? Politicians tried to impose rules on the military, and now you are saying that the military (yet again) should bow to the whims of whatever the POLITICIANS decide. Are the politicians on the front lines? Are the politicians in harms way? So how can anyone other than the military, decide what's best for them?

Also desegregation is not comparable in this case, black people didn't have the ability to hide and were incapable of outwardly changing the appearance of who they are. They were forced to face the issue head on, without the means and ability to blend themselves in society FROM it. The struggles faced here are apples to oranges in this case.

This may be true, but didnt they do extensive internal reviews on this and the troops were good with it. If so, you are saying civilians knows whats best for the troops?

By the way, I did 20 years and before you ask, during my time, we talked about this of course and no one cared, as long as the worker was good. What the hell did we care what they did on their off time. Seriously, why would we care? We didnt.

 

[Zona]

We've already established the fact that you can't name one.

Except that isn't true. One has been named.

RIGHT HERE

Not only that, if it wasn't for gays in the military, there wouldn't be much of a medical corp. (and your YN would suck )

(Dont forget dental techs...lol)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Unfortunately there are people who whine and haven't really discovered the "REVELATION" that the military OWNS them. They are no longer have the "privilege" of looking at a military situation and making their own decisions: "naaaa I don't think I'm going to do that today". I recall witnessing those who served, taking a political stand, by stating they would not return for another tour into Iraq. Those who'd rather stand up to make their own independent decisions, don't deserve a place in the military.

 

[Dr Grump]

. Those who'd rather stand up to make their own independent decisions, don't deserve a place in the military.

Yeah, how dare they be masters of their own destiny..

I bet you're one of those "small govt', 'leave my guns alone', 'taxation is stealing', 'give me freedom or give me death' types - except when it comes to the military....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

According to the Old Testament it is...the same OT that religious extremists like to bludgeon gays and lesbians with.

Actually when you look to the fact that shellfish has been discovered to contain high levels of mercury when compared to fresh water fish, there's some useful purpose in some of the Bibles "standards" (being it was written 2000 years ago before this medical fact was known, makes it even more interesting).

Are you really trying to claim that the men that wrote the bible knew that MAN was going to poison water to the extent that fish would contain mercury in the future? Don't bogart that joint, my friend...

You may call it coincidence, however some of the views expressed in the Bible can be found to be beneficial to those of today. Had you never eaten shell fish, mercury wouldn't become an issue that would concern you now would it? Any less that someone who follows a vegetarian diet based upon THEIR "beliefs", that later is found to benefit THEIR health. You are after all, not afraid to express your personal views and "beliefs" based upon your own life experiences . . . . did THEY stem from a few puffs of a joint? Don't be too quick to judge what you don't understand.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

. Those who'd rather stand up to make their own independent decisions, don't deserve a place in the military.

Yeah, how dare they be masters of their own destiny..

I bet you're one of those "small govt', 'leave my guns alone', 'taxation is stealing', 'give me freedom or give me death' types - except when it comes to the military....

I bet you never served in the military, now did you? The chain of command is there for a reason, you are part of a "system" that OWNS you. The military (and the lives of those who serve on the front lines with you) depends on everyone "following orders" in order to operate together as a WHOLE . . . and not disorder. However, perhaps this may be as foreign to you as the words "accepting personal responsibility" and "accountability" when it comes to establishing and building your OWN success in life (rather than looking to a pacifier BIG Government to support your every whim, because you are too afraid to cut the umbilical cord to make it out on your own).

 

[bodhisattva]

NoNuker,

I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a therapist.

I deal primarily with the liberal psychos (there are no other kind), and Islamofascist freaks.

Queers, when they annoy me.

My wife is a psychiatrist, but she doesn't specialize in queers unless it's by chance.

Go away bigot.... your views regarding "queers" are embarrassing to say the least.

every once in a while, you surprise me. How liberal of you...

Zonya Bologna,

You can't even get that right: NoNuker is not a liberal, he/she/it is a repressed queer defending the practice of faggotry.

 

[Article 15]

We've already established the fact that you can't name one.

There's nothing stopping gays from talking after their enlistment is over.

We all knew you couldn't name one.

Thanks for confirming the fact.

Let me help you understand something bripat. Under DODT and prior if a gay troop saved someone and mentioned he was a gay troop, they were bound by law to remove him from the military. Why do you think they would come out under the light of saving someone to get discharged? Explain why they should risk their military service for a slip up like that?

Unsurprisingly Crypat tucked his tail and refused to answer the question.

Also unsurprisingly Crypat completely ignored World Watchers post and has continued to pretend "one" hasn't been named.

Here, I will repost it for him to ignore:

I wonder how those fellow soldiers and civilians who have been saved by gay service men and women feel about your churlish comments....

Name one.

Major Alan G. Rogers.

"Major Alan G. Rogers (September 21, 1967 – January 27, 2008) was killed in Iraq by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in Baghdad. Rogers was the first known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to his commanders, he shielded two others from the blast, sacrificing his own life for theirs."​

Remembering Gay Soldier Alan G. Rogers


>>>>

Crawl back into your hole, you piece of shit.

 

[NoNukes]

Go away bigot.... your views regarding "queers" are embarrassing to say the least.

every once in a while, you surprise me. How liberal of you...

Zonya Bologna,

You can't even get that right: NoNuker is not a liberal, he/she/it is a repressed queer defending the practice of faggotry.

And you are far from enlightenment. Do you even know what bodisattva means?

 

[NoNukes]

Bfgrn is just another queer spewing his crap to suppress justifiable normal people's reaction by demonizing them as supposedly fellow queers in disguise.

Yep, these queers are pathetic creatures.

bodisattva, won't you take me by the hand.

NoNuker,

I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a therapist.

I deal primarily with the liberal psychos (there are no other kind), and Islamofascist freaks.

Queers, when they annoy me.

My wife is a psychiatrist, but she doesn't specialize in queers unless it's by chance.

My quote was taken from the Steely Dan song. Why are you portraying yourself as a bodisattva?

 

[bodhisattva]

every once in a while, you surprise me. How liberal of you...

Zonya Bologna,

You can't even get that right: NoNuker is not a liberal, he/she/it is a repressed queer defending the practice of faggotry.

And you are far from enlightenment. Do you even know what bodisattva means?

Of course I do.

Apparently, your knowledge is flimsy at best since you can't even spell that name correctly.

 

[bodhisattva]

bodisattva, won't you take me by the hand.

NoNuker,

I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a therapist.

I deal primarily with the liberal psychos (there are no other kind), and Islamofascist freaks.

Queers, when they annoy me.

My wife is a psychiatrist, but she doesn't specialize in queers unless it's by chance.

My quote was taken from the Steely Dan song. Why are you portraying yourself as a bodisattva?

Couldn't care less where your inane comment came from.

As to my choice of Bodhisattva, it's none of your fucking business.

 

[Unkotare]

There is not much more annoying than some pretentuous dope on the internet playing, "do you know...?" usually followed in the same post with, "ha! I knew you didn't know!"

 

[bodhisattva]

We've already established the fact that you can't name one.

There's nothing stopping gays from talking after their enlistment is over.

Let me help you understand something bripat. Under DODT and prior if a gay troop saved someone and mentioned he was a gay troop, they were bound by law to remove him from the military. Why do you think they would come out under the light of saving someone to get discharged? Explain why they should risk their military service for a slip up like that?

Unsurprisingly Crypat tucked his tail and refused to answer the question.

Also unsurprisingly Crypat completely ignored World Watchers post and has continued to pretend "one" hasn't been named.

Here, I will repost it for him to ignore:

Name one.

Major Alan G. Rogers.

"Major Alan G. Rogers (September 21, 1967 – January 27, 2008) was killed in Iraq by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in Baghdad. Rogers was the first known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to his commanders, he shielded two others from the blast, sacrificing his own life for theirs."​

Remembering Gay Soldier Alan G. Rogers


>>>>

Crawl back into your hole, you piece of shit.

Just sayin:

Does anyone know some social rule that doesn't have a couple of exceptions ...... generally speaking.

 

[Photonic]

. Those who'd rather stand up to make their own independent decisions, don't deserve a place in the military.

Yeah, how dare they be masters of their own destiny..

I bet you're one of those "small govt', 'leave my guns alone', 'taxation is stealing', 'give me freedom or give me death' types - except when it comes to the military....

I bet you never served in the military, now did you? The chain of command is there for a reason, you are part of a "system" that OWNS you. The military (and the lives of those who serve on the front lines with you) depends on everyone "following orders" in order to operate together as a WHOLE . . . and not disorder. However, perhaps this may be as foreign to you as the words "accepting personal responsibility" and "accountability" when it comes to establishing and building your OWN success in life (rather than looking to a pacifier BIG Government to support your every whim, because you are too afraid to cut the umbilical cord to make it out on your own).

*sigh*

All these people claiming that an order is the absolute authority at the same time as telling others they have served.

You are a liar. The Service does not work in such an old fashioned way anymore. Telling me otherwise is the same thing as telling me you have no real idea of how the US Military is run.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually when you look to the fact that shellfish has been discovered to contain high levels of mercury when compared to fresh water fish, there's some useful purpose in some of the Bibles "standards" (being it was written 2000 years ago before this medical fact was known, makes it even more interesting).

Are you really trying to claim that the men that wrote the bible knew that MAN was going to poison water to the extent that fish would contain mercury in the future? Don't bogart that joint, my friend...

You may call it coincidence, however some of the views expressed in the Bible can be found to be beneficial to those of today. Had you never eaten shell fish, mercury wouldn't become an issue that would concern you now would it? Any less that someone who follows a vegetarian diet based upon THEIR "beliefs", that later is found to benefit THEIR health. You are after all, not afraid to express your personal views and "beliefs" based upon your own life experiences . . . . did THEY stem from a few puffs of a joint? Don't be too quick to judge what you don't understand.

Shellfish has less mercury than other fish so your entire premise is ludicrous.

Shellfish isn't the only restriction in Leviticus. Clothing of mixed cloth? Not allowed. "Contact" with woman who is on her period? Not allowed. Cutting hair? Not allowed. Know what IS allowed in Leviticus? Owning slaves.