I found last night's debate to be most entertaining. Seeing Romney and Perry go at it reminded me of this.
Posted on 10/19/2011 1:54:41 PM PDT by katiedidit1
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that he should not have stayed silent after the audience at a GOP debate booed a gay soldier serving in Iraq.
The Georgia businessman told ABC's "This Week" that it would have been "appropriate" for him to have defended the soldier. None of the candidates on stage at the Sept. 22 forum responded to the boos.
"In retrospect, because of the controversy it has created and because of the different interpretations that it could have had, yes, that probably -- that would have been appropriate," Cain said, when asked if he should have asked the audience to respect the soldier.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/02/cain-shouldve-defended-gay-soldier-from-boos-at-debate/#ixzz1bGMXVDiU
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And Cain's answer, while less than muscular, wasn't as bad as the title implies.
They were not “booing the soldier”. They were booing the question. Idiots.....
These “debates’ have been a series of farcical spectacles.
Count down until he says he was ‘joking’, ‘misspoke’, ‘doesn’t recall saying it’ or says he was ‘misquoted’ starting now!
I started out as a Cain fan but now every time he opens his mouth I like him less and less.
Faggot lib types are ADVOCATES of their behavior. I would not defend those activists.
Isn’t this story two weeks old, already?
They were not “booing the soldier”. They were booing the question. Idiots.....
///
exactly. another “invented” narrative by the lib media.
(and frankly, i don’t see any great merit in joining the military and basically lying about who you are, to your comrades, as that guy did.)
They were not “booing the soldier”. They were booing the question. Idiots.....
Exactly. Hope Cain isn’t trying to make the MSM like him. They never will.
I’m backing Cain but lately statements like this make me wonder about his judgement.
Presidential election is at stake and it bears repeating. I read it for the first time today and do want to know everything about the candidates
Cain is treading softly on the homosexual mafia subjects. They will take him down if they can, for they know he abhors the idea of “homosexual” marriage—as he stated over six months ago and has been attacked on that issue ever since. He is traditional.
Homosexual “marriage” is such a silly concept, since it is only about validating urges of putting one’s body parts or other objects into cavities that only produce disease and nihilism. For homosexuals demanding the ability to redefine thousands of years of tradition by calling their sick relationships—”marriage” to validate vile, demeaning acts and urges perpetrated on a human being and call it “love” is beyond rational thinking and should be discouraged through the legal system.
You have numerous cases of real “love” which doesn’t demand defiling bodies for ones lust—such as the love of a mother for her child. There need not be any laws demanding they be allowed to get “married”.
Forcing others to validate such sick, demeaning behaviors is unconstitutional and destroys the concept of our Constitution—that there are laws of nature and nature’s God—where our Natural Rights are given. We can not allow an atheist, Satanic view of the human body to destroy the concepts of the Constitution.
The stupidity of the left is beyond belief....all their ideas are bankrupt and if debate is allowed (political correctness is Marxism) they would be in the ash heap of history.
he has to be veted before my decision is final..if it offends the Cain backers..so be it. I still question why the Rainbow Push Coalition in Georgia backed a “conservative” for senate because we all know what Rainbow Push is about and would they have backed any other conservatives for any race? such as Palin, Bachmann? why Cain? also, I am no fan of the 9% national sales tax or of defending a gay that was more than likely a “plant” for Obama...btw Obama hosted this guy at the Whitehouse
Then don’t watch them. Some of us like them and find them useful.
You know why he didn’t? You know why nobody did?
Because they boo’d the question and everyone there knew it.
This article is from two weeks ago and was already discussed here.
From the article:
Cain said, “I happen to think that maybe they were booing the whole ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal more so than booing that soldier.”
When asked if he should have asked the audience to respect the soldier, Cain said, “In retrospect, because of the controversy it has created and because of the different interpretations that it could have had, yes, that probably — that would have been appropriate”
_______
So which part do you all disagree with that Cain said he didn’t think they WERE booing the soldier? Or the part that he should have asked the audience to respect a soldier?
The “debates” are a good indication of what we will end up with if we were electing someone to be head of our debate class if that class used these same silly debate forums you see on TV. But we are not doing that. To me the so-called debates are just part of the picture.
In the scheme of things this is old news. From October 2. I saw the questions and heard some boos during the debate. So what? What we are really dealing with here is the media setting the standard for how humans see homoesexuals and how we are “supposed” to react to them. As usual, the media wants everyone involved to say being queer is A-OK and let’s not look at what the gays do with each other physically. In this case they get the benefit of adding that the sicko was a member of the military. As if that changes things. It does not to me. I say being in the US armed forces is great. Being a homo is not.
Never has such a small part of the population received so much damn attention just because they eat poo-poo....
This article is from two weeks ago and was already discussed here.
From the article:
Cain said, “I happen to think that maybe they were booing the whole ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal more so than booing that soldier.”
When asked if he should have asked the audience to respect the soldier, Cain said, “In retrospect, because of the controversy it has created and because of the different interpretations that it could have had, yes, that probably — that would have been appropriate”
_______
So which part do you all disagree with that Cain said he didn’t think they WERE booing the soldier? Or the part that he should have asked the audience to respect a soldier?
I found last night's debate to be most entertaining. Seeing Romney and Perry go at it reminded me of this.
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.