Reppublican Crowd Boos U.S. Soldier

[TexTushHog]

Actually, Santorum's answer is not an outliers. It would be the same answer of every candidate on the stage except Paul (and probably Huntsman).

[CPT Savajo]

I wish they never would have brought up the question about a gay soldier to begin with. There's much bigger fish to fry and much more serious issues to tackle than worrying about someones sexuality. The question was totally insignificant and I thought it was a slap in the face to our military. A question about a gay soldier during a debate is just a distraction. I almost can't blame the crowd booing.

If people want a cock rammed up their ass there's a place and a time for that!

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

I wish they never would have brought up the question about a gay soldier to begin with. There's much bigger fish to fry and much more serious issues to tackle than worrying about someones sexuality. The question was totally insignificant. A question about a gay soldier during a debate is just a distraction. I almost can't blame the crowd booing.

If people want a cock rammed up their ass there's a place and a time for that!

Do we have to opt out or is it assumed if we don't request an appointment we choose not to have a cock inserted whether it be rammed, slid, or by any other method?

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Do we have to opt out or is it assumed if we don't request an appointment we choose not to have a cock inserted whether it be rammed, slid, or by any other method?

Look, all I'm saying is that the question presented at the debate on gays in the military was totally uncalled for. The military can't stop gays from entering the service. What those soldiers do on their time is their business. I personally don't give a crap but topics like these weaken the morale of the troops and makes this country look weak, besides the majority of the troops don't want to hear shit like this.

[matchingmole]

The Republicans will try with all their might to guarantee we're still in a recession prior to the election. Seeing their lineup so far...that's the best chance they have.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Look, all I'm saying is that the question presented at the debate on gays in the military was totally uncalled for. The military can't stop gays from entering the service. What those soldiers do on their time is their business. I personally don't give a crap but topics like these weaken the morale of the troops and makes this country look weak, besides the majority of the troops don't want to hear shit like this.

I'm not going to argue the point. It's not like the gays recruit. I saw an article saying that 20-30 (seems that was number. I'll try and find it again) translators were seeking re-instatement.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, Santorum's answer is not an outliers. It would be the same answer of every candidate on the stage except Paul (and probably Huntsman).

The former NM Gov was not for the booing , nor the answer. Now he don't stand a chinaman's chance in hell of getting the GOP nod but he wasn't for it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

I wish they never would have brought up the question about a gay soldier to begin with. There's much bigger fish to fry and much more serious issues to tackle than worrying about someones sexuality. The question was totally insignificant and I thought it was a slap in the face to our military. A question about a gay soldier during a debate is just a distraction. I almost can't blame the crowd booing.

If people want a cock rammed up their ass there's a place and a time for that!

Yes you are correct, at a GOP Presidential debate, a question about justice and equality is way outta line.

They wanna talk about the HPV virus.

[Laz]

It is a no win question for them. We all know there are the religous conservatives that believe being gay is wrong. It is nuts but over time that will change. The question I have is regardless of how the candidte belives how much effort would he or she put in to change the law back to dont as dont tell. I would not want Santorum or Bachman because they might want to do that. I don.t think they would succeed but thay are dumb enough to try. I think the rest would ignore the issue completely and leave things the way they are now.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

I wish they never would have brought up the question about a gay soldier to begin with. There's much bigger fish to fry and much more serious issues to tackle than worrying about someones sexuality. The question was totally insignificant

It's not insignificant to the 5 - 10% of the member of our military who are gay!!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

It's not insignificant to the 5 - 10% of the member of our military who are gay!!

But they're not rich. So yeah, the question was insignificant to Republican politics.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I heard about 2 or 3 people shout boo; by TTH saying "Republican Crowd" was booing is a lie in itself.....and they were booing his statement not his uniform, rank, or service...so your post "boos US Soldier" is another deceit on your part.

It is a cheap smear to try to start a thread saying otherwise.

Whirly, you can downplay this all you would like but it does present a glaring weakness of the Republican Party's overall message. In your haste to provide cover for an extraordinarily weak field of Republican candidates, you overlooked the fact that each of the candidates missed a golden opportunity. Not a single one of them would go on record as defending a soldier who put his life on the line for their freedom. I suspect it would have been a defining moment in the debate. It did not need to be a long speech or lecture but a simple statement that said something to the effect that he personally supported all of our troops, regardless of political affiliation, religious preference or sexual orientation. They could have followed that short statement with, if a soldier has the courage to fight for me, I will have the courage to fight for them!

Instead they were all afraid to upset the applecart! What a shame and yes, it was a missed opportunity!

As it relates to a "cheap smear," that is certainly a subject you have quite a bit of experience with!

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

It's not insignificant to the 5 - 10% of the member of our military who are gay!!

more like 10-15%

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

more like 10-15%

Currently there are about 2.6 million serving in the U.S. military. In 2005 (the last year with reliable numbers), 742 were discharged under DADT; that equates to about .03%. That’s no where near the 10 to 15% you suggest – even if you multiplied it by a factor of 100.

The Washington Post more recently (2010) put the figure at 2%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012603889.html

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Currently there are about 2.6 million serving in the U.S. military. In 2005 (the last year with reliable numbers), 742 were discharged under DADT; that equates to about .03%. That’s no where near the 10 to 15% you suggest – even if you multiplied it by a factor of 100.

The Washington Post more recently (2010) put the figure at 2%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012603889.html

The number discharged is irrelevant. They were battered into silence by a bigoted law. And your article is a survey. Who the fuck is going to hold theif hand up and say, "Yo!" when it's against the law, even if the survey is allegedly anonymous. The smart thing to do was to lie.

But fundamentally, what makes you think that the number is significantly different than the number of gays in society at large?