Biggest boos in GOP debate reserved for gay soldier in Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

there were like three people that were booing... hardly representative of the entire audience.

about what Rick Santorum said about it undermining our military capability or some shit like that: what inkling does he have that it would do that? i'd like to hear it from the generals on the ground if that's the case.

---

Other than being a politician, and nothing else to do, I have no idea what Santorum is doing in this race. I'm from Pa, and he couldn't even win reelection against a ho-hum Democrat candidate in this (swing) state.

He has NO chance in the general election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

all it takes is a few bad apples to take things to another level.

the fact that politicians cater to these bad apples and the rest of the audience allows them to hate is concerning.

---

it's still not representative. OP tried to make it out like the whole plays was errupting in boos. it was the same thing the other debate when you had a few dumbasses in the crowd. the media takes it to a whole other level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

the media takes it to a whole other level.

---

welcome to politics. Keep your bad apples in check if you don't want this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Other than being a politician, and nothing else to do, I have no idea what Santorum is doing in this race. I'm from Pa, and he couldn't even win reelection against a ho-hum Democrat candidate in this (swing) state.

He has NO chance in the general election.

---

what bugs me is that on the issue of whether we should stay in Iraq, he basically said something to effect of "we should listen to the generals on ground," but on this issue, he doesn't cite what the generals think we should do. you either listen to what the generals have to say or you don't.

My opinion is that it is completely fair to say the people booing were a fringe, extreme minority of the people there.

My concern is that these kind of expressions are left unchecked and it becomes acceptable behavior. I don't mean we need to outlaw booing gays in the military, which is protected speech. But the freedom of speech also includes the freedom of your dumb ass to be ridiculed when you say some stupid shit. That "check" is missing from a lot of these examples at the Republican debates (just as its missing from examples all over the country from liberals and conservatives alike).

We probably have fringe extremists at the 10% tails of both sides, leaving the rest of the 80% of America who operate on varying degrees of reasonableness. However, maybe there is the next 10-20% next to the tails whose views aren't THAT different, and could be persuaded. That is where the unchecked message does the most damage.

The best analogy I can think of:

If no one says anything to the bully on the playground picking on the small kid, then a lot of people are going to think that bully is "cool". But if a large group of students stands up, calls out, and denounces the bully - then his actions are no longer "cool".

For better or worse (usually worse), society relies on peer pressure over an actual set of hard ethics to determine how we feel about things, and that is the danger of these sorts of things (which is why I feel a personal obligation to call out boutons and Wild Cobra at every opportunity, because they are the internet equivalent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

all it takes is a few bad apples to take things to another level.

the fact that politicians cater to these bad apples and the rest of the audience allows them to hate is concerning.

---

Apparently they were being shushed by the people around them. Additionally, there was apparently a big jump in twitter activity from the people in the crowd that were talking about despicableness of their boos.

I don't have twitter, so I can't confirm, but it was reported this way on CNN this morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

welcome to politics. Keep your bad apples in check if you don't want this.

---

i don't care whether they do it or not. the media blowing it up/distorting it, that i do care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

My opinion is that it is completely fair to say the people booing were a fringe, extreme minority of the people there.

My concern is that these kind of expressions are left unchecked and it becomes acceptable behavior. I don't mean we need to outlaw booing gays in the military, which is protected speech. But the freedom of speech also includes the freedom of your dumb ass to be ridiculed when you say some stupid shit. That "check" is missing from a lot of these examples at the Republican debates (just as its missing from examples all over the country from liberals and conservatives alike).

We probably have fringe extremists at the 10% tails of both sides, leaving the rest of the 80% of America who operate on varying degrees of reasonableness. However, maybe there is the next 10-20% next to the tails whose views aren't THAT different, and could be persuaded. That is where the unchecked message does the most damage.

The best analogy I can think of:

If no one says anything to the bully on the playground picking on the small kid, then a lot of people are going to think that bully is "cool". But if a large group of students stands up, calls out, and denounces the bully - then his actions are no longer "cool".

For better or worse (usually worse), society relies on peer pressure over an actual set of hard ethics to determine how we feel about things, and that is the danger of these sorts of things (which is why I feel a personal obligation to call out boutons and Wild Cobra at every opportunity, because they are the internet equivalent).

---

Good point.

At least ONE of the politicians on that stage ought to have the stones to say, "Some respect, THAT is a Soldier in the United States Army!" I mean, hell, they want to be his Commander in Chief, don't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

I mean, hell, they want to be his Commander in Chief, don't they?

---

You forgot (no homo), tbh :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101a

good point.

At least one of the politicians on that stage ought to have the stones to say, "some respect, that is a soldier in the united states army!" i mean, hell, they want to be his commander in chief, don't they?

---

+1000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Good point.

At least ONE of the politicians on that stage ought to have the stones to say, "Some respect, THAT is a Soldier in the United States Army!" I mean, hell, they want to be his Commander in Chief, don't they?

---

This crap happens when the left and right extremes of each party go unchecked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

i don't care whether they do it or not. the media blowing it up/distorting it, that i do care about.

---

yes blame the media :rolleyes

the display was on national tv for everyone to see. This is why latest polls show only 28% of the country views the Tea Party favorably

The surprising aspect of the Marine Major coming out on NPR was that it was the Marine Generals, of all the services, most opposed to dropping DADT.

It would be great of one or some of those Generals would do us a Ted Haggard. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

there were like three people that were booing... hardly representative of the entire audience.

about what Rick Santorum said about it undermining our military capability or some shit like that: what inkling does he have that it would do that? i'd like to hear it from the generals on the ground if that's the case.

---

Doesn't the military have rules about public displays of affection in either sex/situation?

I'm not defending Santorum, just asking.

So, according to Santorum, heterosexual members would not be able to "out" themselves either, to make it fair. So no dating, marriage, having children, etc etc...

That sounds like it would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Doesn't the military have rules about public displays of affection in either sex/situation?

I'm not defending Santorum, just asking.

---

In uniform, yes, and you are supposed to be a rep for your service at all times. But DADT covered any situation... If a supervisor saw you kissing the same sex outside work, then by the regs, they'd be obligated to report you. (I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't report though.)

What about the shower boners? Did anyone boo shower boners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

BTW, over 70% of the population of this country defines itself as "Christian". If we, as a group, REALLY didn't want something to happen, it wouldn't. All of the intolerance of, hate for and ridicule toward Christians is done specifically because of their tolerance of such things.

---

Obviously, the self-definition of "Christian" various from true to hypocritically, pharisaically false. When I put "Christian" in quote, I mean the kinds of "Christian" assholes, money grubbers, tele-preachers, Popoff's, fakes, End Time scare-mongerers, freaks who emphasize the OT way over Christ's teachings and example in the NT.

Where were all the true Christians when the Repugs were lying the country into Iraq?

Where are they now not insisting that America quit murdering people in 70 countries and not insisting that two bogus, botched wars be ended?

LOL lookup santorum in urban dictionary, funny shit:

As his happy cries subsided, the sweet sticky santorum began dribbling from his distended asshole like melted mocha frappuccino. He told me that he loved me. It was only then that I realized the man I'd sodomized in a Pittsburgh bathouse was noe other than Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). I felt dirty.

We like doing it in the bathtub so we can just wash away the santorum afterward.

Baby, we got santorum all over the sheets again....

"As she pounded her gaping asshole with the dildo, some SANTORUM leaked out, and so the director demanded a scene re-shoot."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Where were all so true Christians when the Repugs were lying the country into Iraq?

Where are they now not insisting that America quit murdering people in 70 countries and not insisting that two bogus, botched wars be ended?

---

Some are. In fact, based on the numbers, MOST of the people opposed to the wars are probably Christian.

Not sure what 70 countries you are referring to. Your software acting up again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

And you red teamers think these fools are going to win the moderates and independents?

why is it all about sex with the conservatives? sex,sex,sex...

---

Do you want someone to be a fool and lie about their ideas for votes, or do you want their true beliefs?

I think when most people take a hard look for who they vote for, those who aren't a partisan like you, vote quite a bit for integrity,

"lie about their ideas for votes"

lying is all politicians and corporations do. They'll tell any lie to hide their crimes and serve their own interests (get elected, get bribes, make profits).

You really think Jimmy Ricky really lives all this bullshit Christ-talks he spews to the bubbas and dominionist Taleban?

You Republicans must be real proud of yourself over these last 3 debates.

If only I were younger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you want someone to be a fool and lie about their ideas for votes, or do you want their true beliefs?

I think when most people take a hard look for who they vote for, those who aren't a partisan like you, vote quite a bit for integrity,

---

Stop your lying. You don't give a shit about anything other than the "R" next to their name.