Skip to comments.The Worst Fox News-Google Debate Moment: Audience Boos a Gay Soldier
Posted on 09/23/2011 12:19:04 AM PDT by lbryce
The last three GOP presidential primary debates have been nearly as notable for the actions of audience-members as for the candidates who appeared before them.
In California at the MSNBC-Politico debate at the Reagan library, the audience applauded mention of the high number of executions in Texas and Rick Perry's defense of the death penalty. "If you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is that you will be executed," the Texas governor said to hoots, whistles, and applause.
In Tampa, Fla., at the CNN-Tea Party Express debate, the audience cheered the idea of letting an uninsured 30-year-old man die (video) without care, greeting the idea with applause and shouts of "Yeah!"
And last night, at the Fox News-Google debate in Orlando, Fla., some audience-members booed a recently-out gay soldier stationed in Iraq who submitted a question through Google's YouTube video-sharing site. His offense? Asking the candidates if they would circumvent the progress made for gays and lesbians in the military.
Watch the interaction with Stephen Hill:
"Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military," former senator Rick Santorum told Hill, saying that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on out service constituted "special privileges" and "social experimentation."
The audience response led former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to tweet, "Booing a soldier serving our nation is uncalled for. If I were on stage, I would make that point."
But he wasn't on the stage, and none standing there spoke up on Hill's behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
I saw an E-9 get busted to E-1 because he was screwing his own daughter. Seems that her new boyfriend wanted to know why she was so sexually experienced and she stated her dad had taught her everything she knew. The cops asked him and he concurred. He used to come into the chow hall escorted by the secuirty pukes.
My Father-in Law who was on the Admirals staff actually took care of it for me. Needless to say he was out of the Navy by weeks end.
First off it is you who are making the accusations of hatred here. I hate no one. Homosexuality is a behavior and not a person as you imply, so to not respect a behavior in no ways assumes hatred for a human being as you seem to think it does.
Second I am very sorry to hear of the assault of your daughter. That is tragic and I would very well hope that you would have no respect for any type of deviant perverted behavior.
But you have been defending perversion in this thread. You seem to think that if someone is against such behavior that they are being hateful of a human being. That is total BS.
You also have avoided answering my question for you. If this soldier was openly a pedophile would you then call people booing him hateful or do you only feel that way in regards to homosexuality? I simply want to know if you have a preference for treating homosexuality differently then another perversion. Please simply answer the question.
You sir are WAY out of line. I have NEVER defended perversion.
You still don’t get it. They are already talking about reinstating the draft. (which will end the issue).
If members of the military refused to serve with homosexuals, then the policy fails.
Well see in coming years what the re-up rate is.
This was a political event and some soldier who self identifies by his sexuality asked a political question. So what if that question got booed. Hell, I booed soldiers when I was in the Army and even punched a couple in the face. They got over it.
It is you who are out of line. You absolutely have defended perversion. You are lying to say otherwise.
You need a time out in the quiet room.
You do not like my behavior? Why are you being so hateful? Or is it just homosexual behavior that you feel it is hateful to be against?
and stuff lie that will start to happen more and more now these queers, cross dressers etc have their special protective laws.
It really is sick and just shows how bad society has become.
+1 - spot on
“The Democratic party of John F. Kennedy (before the commies took control) had to deal with this kind of thing in the 60s when some Strom Thurmond Dixiecrat goons stood up and went wacko with a cheer or a boo from time to time. “
And you know this how, exactly?
It’s always interesting to see who people regard as devil-figures from the past. Strom Thurmond incidentally became a Republican in 1964 to support Goldwater. In 1942, although exempt from service due to his age, Thurmond resigned a judgeship to join the Army. On D-Day he landed in a glider operation. He was awarded 18 decorations for his service, including the Purple Heart, Combat Infantry Badge, and a Bronze Star for Valor. But alas he doesn’t measure up to your standards.
Muslim is THEIR term used to prevent them from saying their “beloved prophet’s” name. All other religions use their creator’s name - CHRISTianity, HINDUism, CONFUSISism, JUDEAism, etc. The correct term is then MOHAMMEDism and its adherents, MOHAMMEDans.
BTW, why are Mohammedans so adverse to mentioning the name of their “beloved prophet” when so many of them have the name Mohammed? But consistency and common sense are not traits normally found among them.
Muslims avoid the term Mohammedan not because they attempt to avoid saying the name of their prophet. They avoid doing that because it might lead some to believe that they worship Mohammed as a god. In their own teachings he is no god. He's merely the last in a long line of prophets and Muslim simply means one who submits before the will of god.
I'm not trying to be difficult here. I am just not sure what we are supposed to gain by calling them Mohammadans rather then Muslims. .
I accept your criticisms, as I was TECHNICALLY incorrect in equating religions with a person.
>>I’m not trying to be difficult here. I am just not sure what we are supposed to gain by calling them Mohammadans rather then Muslims.<<
You may or may not be a Mohammedan; however, you state that “Muslim means one who submits nefore the will of god”. My point exactly; it is the Mohammedans term for themselves. And it is factually incorrect. No diety could possibly approve of mutilation, bombing, forced conversions and wholesale slaughter. If that is your chosen faith, so be it. Don’t impose it on me.
Muslim is also a PC term and I am opposed to any and all PC terminology.
I’m not a Muslim. I just don’t understand what we gain or what idea is advanced by not calling them Muslims or by calling it a PC word. You must think there is some advantage to using one over the other or you wouldn’t make that choice...
The word Muslim predates modern concepts of political correctness being as it’s almost 1,500 years old. Popes, Saints, Protestant reformers, and Western law courts have used it since not long after they encountered the religion.
I know that wikipedia is not the best source. That said, I offer this article in support of my position. According to the article, Muslim has beeen in use only since the 1960s.
There IS an advantage in that I REFUSE to speak in THEIR terms. Mohammedans and Mohammedism is the correct term.
BTW, you did not respond to what kind of diety approves of the bombings, torture, etc. I leave it there and we can agree to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.