Posted on 09/14/2013 9:55:19 AM PDT by kevcol
Source “Guardian” is the one that employs that Bumpuncher who recruited Snowden. Agenda alert.
Indeed. A federal government that equates two homo pervs as the same as a husband-and-wife, is not a government worth serving nor saving. It’s a government that is embracing evil.
Would that be the same pandering Santorum who declared George Zimmerman to be a depraved man before he was even tried? I’ll take that bet.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) was a Trojan horse
They ‘implemented’ it, as if it was not always the policy.
If you were gay and didn’t talk about it you could serve and as long as you did your duty, that was all that mattered.
(YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT SEX AT WORK ANYWAY)
But they “passed” DADT and then “repealed” it.
Usually when you ‘repeal’ something you go back to the way things were before- NOT go forward to a whole new position.
They ‘repealed’ it as if it meant you could be openly gay.
They never would have gotten a “Fags are now allowed” resolution, so they first pass a “fags are OK if you don’t talk about it” ...then ‘repeal’ it to simply “fags are OK”
They only removed the “if you don’t talk about it” part. Which should be true in the workplace anyway.
Many on FreeRepublic have already proclaimed no child of theirs will serve this corrupt puppet government.
Did I really want to know about his sex life? No way.....
Anyhow we were talking about homos in the military and your point is?
And what does it have to do with this situation? Why do you think Santorum made the statements he did about Zimmerman? He is either a fool or he was simply pandering to potential voters since the sentiment at the time among the lemming voters of the world was that Zimmerman should be shot on site. You think the same guy who ignorantly made those comments about a free man's guilt or innocence will stand up to the homosexual lobby. I think his comments show a great flaw in his character and a man who doesn't stand on nearly the firm foundation I once thought he did.
Read his comments about an innocent man and get back to me.
Now please go away.
Did you just create a new rule on FR about who you can and can’t reply to? ...a rule which you yourself broke when you originally replied to a poster who wasn’t talking to you.
How about ‘Sensitive Little Eagle’ as a new name?
You posted to me something completely off topic that had nothing to do with the issue being discussed
Santorum said during one of the debates that he would not allow homosexuals in the military or reinstitute DADT or something to that effect. That's it, end of story.
He was more in line with many of my views than the other candidates after Bachman dropped out but I have no illusions that he is anything more than a politician.
Now please just drop this. We are both wasting our time.
I agree. I’m sorry.
Thanks. Have a good evening. I think we generally agree so best to keep on the same side. ;-)
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.