Skip to comments.At GOP debate, crowd boos gay soldier's question on 'don't ask, don't tell' (Barf Alert)
Posted on 09/22/2011 11:29:45 PM PDT by SideoutFred
click here to read article
Did the soldier get booed immediately? I recall Santorum being cheered for his answer. Now I have to watch that section again.
I don’t think he got booed at all, it was the policy that was being booed. Nevertheless, the media and liberals will run wild with this stuff. It’s all they have at this point.
Pretty sad and ironic to say the least. The vast majority of military support the GOP over the Dems by huge margins, but many of these liberals are too stupid to understand this. The comments section in that LA Times article needs a little conservative love!!
I wish people wouldn’t boo or cheer at these things. Let the answers come, and let viewers sit there and think for themselves.
We are right on so many issues, but those we hope to sway back off at such displays.
No, I’m not talking about preventing freedom of expression. I’m just recalling how when I wasn’t as conservative as I am now, listening to the answers, and then later then the MSM flipped out over certain things, I’d think “That’s not how I received that answer.”
The cheering and such makes it so much more like a lib feel-good event, instead of an opportunity to hear responses. And I don’t care if someone’s gay or whatever, if they’re a soldier they deserve to say what they have to say, even if it’s stupid.
I’ll try to translate the homo speak...”can I, as a gay person, prance around in tight pink shirts, while marching with my partner and a gun and those who oppose my fabulous lifestyle should be punished?”
Dang Max, You translated that a little TOOOO well..
Anything you wanna share with us? ;)
The social issues haven’t been discussed enough in the debates.
The two Ricks will tear Romney to pieces if they ever remember to mention the taxpayer-funded abortion coverage in RomneyCare.
And of course much of the progress toward Mass gay marriage was made under Mitt’s watch.
it won’t be long before the left pushes for affirmative action for having a certain number of homos in the military .. having homo marriages at the base chapel with the newly married couple walking together under the sword arch and then all the homos partying all night at the officer’s club.. it’s coming soon to a military base near you
Very true, but Romney is dead right on immigration and Perry is completely loco on it.
None of these candidates is going to be perfect, just the way it is.
>> Did the soldier get booed immediately?
The audience was notably quiet except for a couple of boos once the video of the self-described homosexual soldier ended.
And Issa just jumped the gun by endorsing Mitt. That is a political distraction from his principal duty, which is to investigate the Demorat-nest in D.C.
McCain was just like Dole...”next in line”. The GOP does this every so often and then realizes typically by the next election that they better nominate someone who can actually win.
This has been shoved down our throats so much it is hard not to let out some remark!! When I was in the military it was not tolerated you were drummed out. Unfit to serve! When your in boot camp and have to take showers with other guys you sure don’t want some gay guy scoping you out!!!
Lie about who he was? What is it about being gay that REQUIRES him to mention "who he is?" What is it about the military that REQUIRES him to lie?
You seem to be suggesting I support his point of view. I’ve done no such thing. I just think those who are serving have the right to ask a question of a candidate—yep, even gay ones.
Doesn’t mean I support the point of view. But I don’t get this “shoving down our throats” thing. Nothing any supporter of this crap has ever done has been about that. (VOTING for pols who support such positions is something else entirely.)
I don’t see what is achieved by the crowd responses in these situations. Much better, to me, to let them have their say, and then let the candidates articulate their positions. If they make sense, then those we need to draw to our side will not be put off by boos that hit people on the emotional level. Let the intellectual argument carry the day, not momentarily satisfying boos.
Yup. The same idiot party that’s about to honor Rangel the crook.
If I were Frankenstein I’d take Newt’s brain, Santorum’s courage, Perry’s heart, Cain’s business acumen, and Romney’s debating skills, sew everything together, and presto, there’s your candidate. (For effect I’d also dress up Bachmann as Dorothy, and add Gary Johnson’s dog.)
That’s part of the probem. He thinks it’s just a job.
IMO - He was free to ask whatever he wanted and people were free to boo him. And I say this with a Daughter and Son in law both in the USAF and having done tours in the sandbox.
They did not boo his service, they booed his demand for invented sexual rights that are now being forced on the military. He’s a soldier and I respect that and his service totally. I have nothing but disdain for him putting his sex practices over that service. What of the straight soldiers? They will be drummed out if they say anything against homosexuality publicly? Is it not up to us to defend THEM?
As to what is achieved, I would submit that such a forum is the only way the public will ever see just how disgusted we are with the gay agenda because the news censors all opposition. In that live situation, it was all but impossible without such censorship being noted and discussed further.
And Bush wasn't saying "Mission Accomplished" regarding Iraq but about one ship, and Reagan wasn't laying a wreath to honor Nazism, and Star Wars wasn't about Reagan bringing weapons into space.
FIghting this straw man of "they did not boo his service" may make you feel good, but it has nothing to do with perception and reality.
People don't like to see American soldiers booed. Period.
What of the straight soldiers? They will be drummed out if they say anything against homosexuality publicly? Is it not up to us to defend THEM?
What does that have to do with anything? Are straight soldiers now being drummed out for saying they're straight?
Straight soldiers can take care of themselves. Gay soldiers can, too. I guess I just feel that putting their lives on the line for my benefit--yes, gay people are defending your life, just as straight people are--means I owe them more than can ever be repaid. Letting them have their say and then letting the candidates reply (I don't recall any of them defending gays in their responses) with respect for all involved doesn't seem like something that's hurting straight soldiers.
The point, as opposed to all this smoke and mirrors, is that I don't support American soldiers only if they express the same opinions as I hold.
As the son of a veteran and someone who has a relative over in Iraq for his third go-round, I guess I'm overly sensitive to letting these brave and sometimes gay people have the floor without my booing them for expressing an opinion I don't share. I think it's called "manners".
Just watched it again. He finished asking and one maybe two people booed. It certainly wasn’t a crowd.
I guess we just disagree. I don’t like having American soldiers on TV promoting the gay agenda as if it’s a good thing whether Obama calls it legal or not.
What I think it has to with is everything. Had a straight soldier got up there and said “I am against the DADT repeal” they would quickly find themselves pushing a broom on a flightline until they made a mistake that got them courtmartialed or ‘pressured’ by the brass to ‘move on’ from military service.
But they know better. So we civvies have to defend those who defend us - in whatever small ways we can. It disgusts me that our soldiers are put in such a position to begin with. As I said earlier, just my opinion.
I didn`t watch it, so my question is, was it the soldier or the open homosexuality issue that was booed? There is a huge difference.
That said, these audience reactions could be costly to the GOP.
>>homosexuality issue that was booed?
The audience didn’t agree to the fact that one’s sexual interests should be made open /it should be a private issue for each person serving/as DADT was in place for years.
I think it was the question that was booed, not the soldier.
it wont be long before the left pushes for affirmative action for having a certain number of homos in the military
I think they already have somewhat, can’t recall the details but the Marine Corp has said they would recruit the most.
I don’t see what asking the question has to do with promoting an agenda. I don’t understand the fear and whining victimization about being straight—straights can handle ourselves and don’t fear the weirdos (sorry) somehow perverting us just by existing. I don’t see any evidence of straights in the military or anywhere else being victimized just because the media are full of gays.
Somehow heterosexuality has managed to survive a long, long time without all this boo hooing about how we’re being ‘victimized.’
I respect soldiers. Asking a question as this one did wasn’t pushing an agenda.
Conservatives used to be about “you do your thing, just don’t stop me from doing mine” and “I don’t agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it.”
Now? It’s all about how we can portray ourselves as victims the way we have always hated the libs for doing.
I’m no victim of the gay agenda, and neither are any straights I know. A lot of this comes from this fear that gays are somehow plotting against the rest of us on a personal level, which makes me think some people have unresolved stuff they have to deal with.
This has nothing to do with imposing the gay agenda in schools or giving gays special rights, which of course we can all agree is vile and must be fought. But a soldier asking a simple questions?
Nope. That doesn’t ‘victimize’ anyone, and I must have missed where mainstream Americans aren’t allowed to express themselves.
But the gays are probably dancing in the streets over those boos tonight. To those who booed, I’d actually question whose side they’re on, because they just gave the gays ammo money can’t buy, and what did they gain for us with their childish TV-audience behavior? Absolutely nothing.
Well, that despicable political hack, Adm. Mullen, did say that having open homosexuality in the military made the military stronger.
The booing stopped abruptly. The way I took it was that at first it seemed the soldier was going to COMPLAIN about the repeal of DADT and the boos were, in effect, to support his complaint.
When it became clear that he was on the other side of the issue, the audience became quiet.
If a soldier had said, “I’m concerned about the repeal of DADT” and the audience booed the repeal, and then the soldier wnet on to say “This is one of the worst policies for combat readiness, will you reinstate DADT?,” the booing would have been considered fine.
That said, people should keep fairly quiet at these things because it’s hard to tell how reactions will be interpreted and what will develop in a question or answer.
From what I saw tonight, it seems to me that Perry is going to fade fast and that, surprizingly, Santorum will be the one who will best be able to take on Mitt and beat him.
Gingrich will help, but he’ll have to settle for being Santorum’s VP in this scenario. His experience would be great, but no one wants Calista as First Lady. :)
Not only that, the policy was called “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
I’m not interested in a homosexual’s love life. Not at all. Having them push their sexuality on me is open sexual harassment and invites an appropriate response.
“Don’t ask don’t tell” was one of Clinton’s notions, and Santorum wants re-instate it.
All this suggests the so called soldier—and his question were a set up. I have no doubts “they Know” all this and are still trying to drive wedges — the old divide and conquer tactic.
The “soldier” was telling a LIE when he /she/it said they “had to lie” or they would lose their job. He/she/it had to lie ,as instructed, to advance the “cause” the queering of America.
theirs is a lifestyle/ orientation that springs from LIES told.
A question for anyone with up to date knowledge on UCMJ laws, are these laws still on the books?
I won’t cherry picks specific articles, so I’ve supplied the link to all articles for opinions.
Maybe it is just I never watched all of the old MASH tv series enough times but I don’t recall Klinger EVER being
homosexual— he was just a guy who thought he had found a really good ruse to get out of Korea. I seem to recall one episode where he clearly said “you know I’m not like that. I just wear the dresses to get out of here.”Or something along those lines.
The news media shoving down our throats on this subject. Not you. This whole issue with the News media gay this gay that transgender this that! That is what I’m talking about. Why did Fox put this video on at the debates.. This is not a major issue with me or I’m sure with a lot of Americans!!!
I would have to disagree with you on this one. I like the audience responses because it shows that there is life and energy in the Republican Party as opposed to the old stereotype of the staid, boring GOP. Also, the American public has been bashed by the liberal media all of their lives. They are made to feel that they are the only ones who have conservative views. Everything from the news to the entertainment programs are slanted to promote the liberal message. When people call out from the audience it shows a show of strength that the American people have been waiting for for a long time. At last they see a room full of a HUGE crowd that agrees with them. This is empowering.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” was a compromise which was worked out by Colin Powell and Clinton. When Clinton came into office one of the first things he did was to openly admit gays into the military. Don’t ask, don’t tell was only a compromise. As you can see, the gays were not satisfied with that just as they were not satisfied with civil unions.
Santorum wants to go back to a position of compromise, yes.