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
click here to read article
That moment and the dog poop joke were the best parts.
He’s not being booed for being a soldier, he is being booed for his behavior. Being a soldier does not indemnify one against their other actions being judged.
“Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military”
This can’t be repeated enough. Gays out. Women waaaaay in the back / homefront. Soldiers in.
Keep that stuff at home, off base, or on shore-leave.
worth noting that gay men have bravely served the United States in every war since the Revolutionary War. However, they kept their personal life private and that is how it should be when serving your country in the serious role of serving in the military.
Who cares about a few scattered boos. Santorum hit that question out of the park. I believe few up on stage would have taken it head on like Rick without hedging and being overly PC. Santorum is a solid guy.
He asked a question--he didn't perform any "actions". And I suspect if a soldier was booed at a Dem event, you wouldn't be defending the action because "he wasn't being booed for being a soldier" (which NO ONE has suggested).
As a soldier, he deserves the respect of those whose lives he is defending with his own. Has nothing to do with condoning his point of view.
Man, we can't even show simple respect to our soldiers anymore unless they're "our" kind of soldiers? What the heck is going on here?
Frankly the audiences at these debates may just lose this election for the Repubs.
For conduct that SHOULD get him dishonorably discharged. The disruption caused by Obama's pandering to the homosexual lobby will likely have terrible repercussions.
Rick Santorum gave an excellent answer, by the way.
The soldier’s question illuminates a point: the UCMJ section banning homosexual acts is (as far as I know) unchanged. President Obama’s ‘ending’ the ban could be reversed by another Executive Order, by the next President, or even by himself, if it should prove to be necessary for good order and discipline. So, for a serviceman or woman of homophilliac tendancies, knowing what the candidates’ position would be on the question is essential. If one is such a person, and if one has made the mistake of going public with one’s preferences, and if a candidate who would reinstitute the ban looks likely to win the next election , it would be a good time to consider a change in careers.
The knife is firmly embedded in the back of our military.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Got a child to donate??
I agree. From another thread, slightly corrected:
I wish people wouldnt 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 from the audience—while the curious viewer should be thinking about what the candidate says, and should be thinking about that without the emotion, he’s suddenly blasted with boos and instinctively backs off.
Most people don’t hate gays—they just want them to leave the rest of us alone. So when a serving soldier in Iraq asks this question, to suddenly hear boos from the crowd has the potential to make a wavering viewer back off just when the candidates gave good responses that reasonable people can agree with.
No, Im not talking about preventing freedom of expression. Im just recalling how when I wasnt as conservative as I am now, listening to the answers at presidential debates given by Reagan, for example, and then later hearing the MSM flip out over certain things, Id think Thats not how I received that answer.
The cheering and such makes it so much more like a lib emotion-charged event, instead of an opportunity to hear responses. And I dont care if someones gay or whatever, if theyre a soldier they deserve to say what they have to say, even if its stupid.
Knowing the candidates’ policy on rendition of dual citizenship terrorists in the military is also important to the terrorists in question. Shall we refrain from booing them also?
I think there are a hell of a lot more people who feel that way than the media lets on. And people are also tired of gays being in the debate at all with so many serious issues that need to be discussed. People have had enough of the bull coming from interest group advocacy.
Why? Have you already donated all of yours?
If you say you will put DADT back—you will get the military vote.
The privacy of the ballot protects from being arrested by the PC MPs for the new military thought crime of “homophobia.”
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. It wasnt always cut and dry blatent or intended to be an intentional symbol of hatred, but it looks terrible on television.
the only difference is that the media was not against the Dems in those days. they are against us
The economy is collapsing in unsustainable debt and this is the most important issue........MY A**!
(No Pun Intended)
I don’t think people are thinking strategery... ;) ...but they should.
I hope people enjoyed that boo, cuz you can be sure we’re going to be seeing it over and over and over in the coming months leading up to the election. And it won’t be our side repeating it.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks the gay rights agenda is worth a place in the national conversation has way different priorities than the average person.
How do we know that some of the booers at these debates weren’’t agents-provocateurs planted by the other side? (Inquiring minds want to know).
Santorum got it dead on.
That soldier wanted to out himself as gay and people didn’t approve—just like that gay military magazine said—GET OVER IT.
The Germans heckled 0bidi0t on his 08 Euro tour. He cancelled France the next day.
Ever stop to think they were booing the question? The fact that he exposes himself (no pun intended)opens him up for reactions such as this. His service is respected; his lifestyle is not.
We have had to grant special status to homosexuals and told to shut up. Just as this soldier exercises his free speech and freedom of association, so too did the audience.
There is a difference between booing a question asked, which was a “gotcha” question and the person asking it for his personal beliefs, actions, etc.
This author is doing what all liberals do in pulling the race card on anyone who asks a similar question of OZERO or criticizes him in any way.
With gays, it is Hi, Im GAY first and foremost. That they are soldiers, or teachers (or whatever) appears to be secondary to their gay agenda. This is an indicator of the narcissism that permeates their me first thinking. It is they who cant seem to get over it (being gay). In essence, they are proclaiming their special status and expectations to be coddled like babies.
The vice that dare not speak its name has become the vice that won’t shut up.
The unbridled narcissism of gays is the reason people dislike them. It’s ALWAYS about them and their precious sexuality - world wide, 24/7/365.
Economy tanking? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Country overrun by illegals? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
War in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Somalia/etc a disastrous embarrassment? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Government schools turning out indoctrinated morons? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Government trying to disarm the citizens through Fast & Furious? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Terrorist cells forming throughout the land? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Feral gangs taking over large swaths of our country? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
EPA ruining our energy and industrial and agricultural competitiveness? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Dollar worthless? Earthquakes and tsunamis? Corruption and graft? Public union thuggery? Iran getting nukes? People don’t like where I like to put my penis.
Aren’t you people listening??? I said, people don’t like where I like to put my penis!!! I’m gonna get the government to FORCE you to like where I like to put my penis. My PENIS! My precious PENIS!!! You understand? MY PENIS!!! It’s a Gay Penis! It’s ALL I care about, and I’m gonna force you to care about it and love it like I do. You hear?!! MY PENIS!!!!!
I agree in principle, but in both these cases (the previous debate) I saw it as more booing the policy, not the individuals involved.
That said, don’t go there!
Santorum gained a lot of ground tonight, IMHO.
I think once Perry fades (and he will), Santorum will emerge as the candidate best-suited to take on Romney and win.
And I’m not a person who has paid the least bit of attention to Santorum in this race. But in the last two debates he has spoken with authenticity, not in canned soundbites. He also seems quite relaxed and simply focused on making points that are meaningful to the country’s problems.
Faggot soldiers who want to push the radical homosexual agenda on the US military make me throw up in my mouth a little.
Speaking of that, has Obama ever gotten around to getting the UCMJ changed or is he expecting homosexuals to be celibate so as to be compliant with the Code?
That’s a little over-dramatic, don’t you think?
Most people understand that boorish behavior is representative of the individuals engaging in it.
We can all do our part to stop this “I’m special” treatment by refusing to use PC jargon. These people are NOT gay; they are homosexuals. Just as the terrorists are Mohammedans, not Muslims.
I am sure that there are many other instances where we have been forced t accept an increasingly “words mean what I say they mean” environment. STOP IT NOW!
I didn’t think he was being booed for his behavior. I thought the policy was being booed and then the booing stopped as soon as it became clear that the soldier was FOR homosexuals in the military.
IOW, at first, I thought, and perhaps the audience did as well, that the soldier was in the process of saying “what are you going to do about this atrocious politicalization of the military that was the repeal of DADT?”
Anyway, clearly people should be more measured in their responses.
It wouldn't surprise me.
I understood the "cheers" for the death penalty in the context of the debate behind held in a state with just 17 executions in 30 years with over 713 awaiting death, with more dead by natural cause or suicide than by actual application of the sentence. Further there's been a judge-imposed moratorium for years. The cheer was for a place where a jury's verdict matters.
I laughed at the so-called "dying man" question because the way Wolf Blitzer presented it was outlandish.
I was not impressed by the booing of a man serving his nation and asking potential commanders-in-chief about a timely policy change directly effecting the services. It was a serious question and entirely expected. I even suspected Santorum would get it because the press want to go to the "extreme" on any question. Bachmann, an evangelical, gets a question about Church-and-State. The "anti-gay" Santorum gets the question on DADT.
Did we learn anything about Santorum on that? NO. We knew where he'd be just by searching his name online. What about Romney, who got a deferment? Or Cain, who worked for the Navy? Or Perry, who served in the Air Force? Or another candidate?
You’re not wrong.
My neighbor flies a flag over his house by which he intends to let the world know what sex acts he engages in and with whom.
I agree. Your exactly right about the not allowing viewers to hear answers and make up their own minds.
Your right. I don’t have that kind of hate in me. I just don’t want certain things thrown in my face.
but I don’t care who it is. If they are going to die for this Country, the very least they deseerve is a little respect. The booing of an Army member in Afganistan turned my stomach.
The whole thing was off putting to me - and I am a political junky. I disliked the cheering AND the booing. I disliked the quick cuts for breathless reports on Google stuff.
That the candidates signed off on the format is again evidence that The Stupid Party marches on.
Exactly. And for his politically view which does have a place in the debate. It's interesting how the MSM can spin this by saying Republicans were booing a soldier.
Open Gays in the military is the WORST thing that has happened to this country.
What if he said he’s a PEDOPHILE???? What would be the difference??? He ONLY wants to think about SEX, ANAL SEX!!! They were RIGHT in BOOING! It’s DISGUSTING!
I think the audience was booing the stupidity of the topic and/or question, when there are much more important things to think about.
I think it was Paul or Santorum who was answering, and it was dead-on
SEX HAS NO PLACE IN THE MILITARY
You can be whatever you want, just KEEP IT TO YOURSELF
Don’t ask, don’t tell was a perfectly fine policy. If someone talked about sex in my workplace they would be fired (hetero or gay) for discussing innapropriate topics.
And the bosses here made it clear- you’re here to do your job- not to talk about your sex life. Period.
Why wasn’t “Stephen” identified by his rank?
I didn’t hear the booing, because as soon as the video was over I wondered aloud to my wife why the service member’s rank was not given.
In every case I can think of where a service member is on the news media, they are identified by their rank, even after their ETS.
This stood out to me.
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.