Republican Boo Armed Services man in Debate..

[pocketfullofshells]

how nice of them...you know supporting the troops....while there idiot Santorum takled about how they where getting special privilages by endeding DADT...the special privilege of being able to be who they are and serve this nation while chickhawks and mindless retards attack them while never serving themselves. Sex should have nothing to do with it...he is right..it should not.. thats why it should be ended not why it should go back...

Republicans are years behind the times, as always. You know blacks asked for special privileges to to serve...lets bad then..and woman....and hispanics....ahhh back to the good old days of a White male Christian Aryan Race military....sorry did I say that outloud?

 

[Pandora]

how nice of them...you know supporting the troops....while there idiot Santorum takled about how they where getting special privilages by endeding DADT...the special privilege of being able to be who they are and serve this nation while chickhawks and mindless retards attack them while never serving themselves. Sex should have nothing to do with it...he is right..it should not.. thats why it should be ended not why it should go back...

Republicans are years behind the times, as always. You know blacks asked for special privileges to to serve...lets bad then..and woman....and hispanics....ahhh back to the good old days of a White male Christian Aryan Race military....sorry did I say that outloud?

I didn't see that part in the debate, I missed parts of it but I taped it so I can go back and watch

lets say you are accurate about what you said, and that republicans are behind the times in this issue


could you agree that democrats are behind the times when it comes to baby slaughter? its the democrat group (at least the freak left fringe) who advocate for partial birth abortion for any reason into the 9th month and some like obama and barbara boxer who actually go as far as defending infanticide

 

[Gipper]

how nice of them...you know supporting the troops....while there idiot Santorum takled about how they where getting special privilages by endeding DADT...the special privilege of being able to be who they are and serve this nation while chickhawks and mindless retards attack them while never serving themselves. Sex should have nothing to do with it...he is right..it should not.. thats why it should be ended not why it should go back...

Republicans are years behind the times, as always. You know blacks asked for special privileges to to serve...lets bad then..and woman....and hispanics....ahhh back to the good old days of a White male Christian Aryan Race military....sorry did I say that outloud?

WTF....man....don't you know ALL Rs and cons HATE GAYS just like your beloved Muslims do????

What's wrong with you?

 

[dogtowner]

Its against the law. why are you for breaking the law ?

 

[Dr.Who]

how nice of them...you know supporting the troops....?

I missed the debate. So genuinely I ask how is booing one man an example of not supporting the troops?

[edit] Ok, I just looked I up.

They booed his stance on dadt.
they supported the reinstatement of dadt.
they failed to cheer his service to his country.

And from this it is concluded that they booed him.

And maybe (probably) they did. Which in no way means that they do not support the troops.

And of course "they" refers to "several" people in the audience. I don't think it is accurate to start a thread with the title saying and implying that republicans don't support the troops when in fact several republicans booed one man who has an agenda they don't support. It is probably accurate to say that most republicans don't support the gay agenda. (though a quick google search indicates that I am wrong. It is actually a minority of pubs who do not support gay marriage for example.)

If homofascism were not so rampant maybe there would be less booing.

That being said it is time for service men to grow up and realize that they are going to be fighting along side able bodied gay men and to set aside any personal feeling they may have on the subject. War is about combat not agreeing with the people on your side fighting to keep you alive.

 

[Gipper]

The truth is one or two fools booed out of a huge crowd. Of course, the lib partisans like pocketrocket jump on this and try to make it an issue.

I did think the R candidates failed to properly handle that situation. They should have condemned the one or two that booed and said we Americans need to honor all our fighting men and women. That would have received a huge ovation.

 

[Openmind]

I missed the debate. So genuinely I ask how is booing one man an example of not supporting the troops?

[edit] Ok, I just looked I up.

They booed his stance on dadt.
they supported the reinstatement of dadt.
they failed to cheer his service to his country.

And from this it is concluded that they booed him.

And maybe (probably) they did. Which in no way means that they do not support the troops.

And of course "they" refers to "several" people in the audience. I don't think it is accurate to start a thread with the title saying and implying that republicans don't support the troops when in fact several republicans booed one man who has an agenda they don't support. It is probably accurate to say that most republicans don't support the gay agenda. (though a quick google search indicates that I am wrong. It is actually a minority of pubs who do not support gay marriage for example.)

If homofascism were not so rampant maybe there would be less booing.

That being said it is time for service men to grow up and realize that they are going to be fighting along side able bodied gay men and to set aside any personal feeling they may have on the subject. War is about combat not agreeing with the people on your side fighting to keep you alive.

I agree with this part: "they are going to be fighting along side able bodied gay men and to set aside any personal feeling they may have on the subject. War is about combat not agreeing with the people on your side fighting to keep you alive" although you forget to mention that. . .they have been fighting side by side with gay people all along. . .the hypocrisy alone has now stopped, thank God!

This is the third very public example of very poor taste and stupidity from "a few" tea party members in the last 2 debates (the cheering of Perry's record of putting people to death, the cheering at the suggestion that an hypotetical 30 year old man without insurance should be left to die, and the booing of a military presently in active duty because he expressed his opinion on the end of DADT and acknowledge publicly that he is gay).

ALL THREE of those incidents have been handle totally wrong by the candidates, ALL the candidates, and this doesn't vouch well for their having any balls or any conscience! They are all too afraid of "displeasing" their main basis. . .and demonstrated that they rather give up on their integrity than go against the most vocal (and the most stupid) among their supporters!

So sad!

 

[clarkatticus]

An anchor on MSNBC wondered if they would have booed him in person given his physical appearance. My guess is thay they may have kept their mealy mouths shut being that they are as gutless as the candidates on stage. The man asked a serious question in a polite and non condemning manner, better than I would have given my propensity to sarcasm. Yet the GOP doubles down and says they did the right thing. What a shock.

 

[Gipper]

It is not surprising that the liberal press assumed and reported that the one or two people who booed, booed gays. This again is proof of the liberal bias so evident in the media.

How could they know the motives of those who booed? Could it be they booed the question and not the gay soldier? Of course, it could. But, the liberal media being the ardent partisans they are, immediately jumped to conclusions. And, they apparently have fooled many...as always....Proof is posted above.