Republican Debate

[Guest]

At the last Republican debate the crowd cheered the answer to allow a 30 year old to die because he didn't have insurance. Last night these "Patriotic Americans" booed a soldier currently serving in Iraq.....

Shame........:cus::cus:

[Guest]

I will vote for a Republican candidate, any one of them, in order to carry out my responsibility of voting for the best candidate. I am convinced that since the crucial issue at hand is the economy, Paul Ryan would serve the country well. He is the best man for the job intelligent, well reasoned, articulate, sincere, well balanced and ethical

It is clear Team Obama has no idea on how to effect a recovery.

It is clear the Fed's actions are only exacerbating an already poor situation.

As the economy recovers so too will other deficiencies in our country return to balance. I again will make my choice known to the Republican party.

[Guest]

SANTORUM: I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell. I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing: to defend our country...

After a short video of a homosexual asking a question, only a couple of people in audience reacted. Big do about nothing. Liberals really picking at straws now.

[Guest]

I will vote for a Republican candidate, any one of them, in order to carry out my responsibility of voting for the best candidate. I am convinced that since the crucial issue at hand is the economy, Paul Ryan would serve the country well. He is the best man for the job intelligent, well reasoned, articulate, sincere, well balanced and ethical

It is clear Team Obama has no idea on how to effect a recovery.

It is clear the Fed's actions are only exacerbating an already poor situation.

As the economy recovers so too will other deficiencies in our country return to balance. I again will make my choice known to the Republican party.

This post wasn't about who you were going to vote for....it is about booing an American Soldier serving in Iraq. If you agree with that then shame I you.

I certainly hope that no one would show my 3 nephews faithfully serving this country that type of treatment.

[Guest]

After a short video of a homosexual asking a question, only a couple of people in audience reacted. Big do about nothing. Liberals really picking at straws now.

If you agree with this action then SHAME ON YOU. He is in Iraq serving our country putting his life on the line for you.

[Guest]

If you agree with this action then SHAME ON YOU. He is in Iraq serving our country putting his life on the line for you.

Please do not lecture me. I did not give my opinion one way or the other. All I said was a couple of people in the audience reacted and the left side of the media is making their statement about it. That's all.

[Guest]

This post wasn't about who you were going to vote for....it is about booing an American Soldier serving in Iraq. If you agree with that then shame I you.

I certainly hope that no one would show my 3 nephews faithfully serving this country that type of treatment.

The soldier serving in Iraq asked as question concerning the changing "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of the U.S. Military.

I don't believe the few people in that vast audience who reacted to the question were booing the serviceman, but rather the question.

The U.S. military's transformational policy concerning homosexual servicemen is a volatile and divisive issue that is in the forefront of the news as we speak.

It was uncouth to publicly voice that displeasure over this question being asked, but it is not the travesty you would make it out to be and not.

[Guest]

The soldier serving in Iraq asked as question concerning the changing "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of the U.S. Military.

I don't believe the few people in that vast audience who reacted to the question were booing the serviceman, but rather the question.

The U.S. military's transformational policy concerning homosexual servicemen is a volatile and divisive issue that is in the forefront of the news as we speak.

It was uncouth to publicly voice that displeasure over this question being asked, but it is not the travesty you would make it out to be and not.

Richie....I am sorry but on this we are going have to disagree. I think it is terribly wrong to boo an American soldier serving our country in Iraq. That to me is plain and simple.... Whether the soldier is gay, straight, white, black, man or women....they deserve our respect. This soldier was NOT respected.

No amount of spin can change that....

[Guest]

Please do not lecture me. I did not give my opinion one way or the other. All I said was a couple of people in the audience reacted and the left side of the media is making their statement about it. That's all.

Your silence on the matter at hand is deafening....

[Guest]

Richie....I am sorry but on this we are going have to disagree. I think it is terribly wrong to boo an American soldier serving our country in Iraq. That to me is plain and simple.... Whether the soldier is gay, straight, white, black, man or women....they deserve our respect. This soldier was NOT respected.

No amount of spin can change that....

You are absolutely correct that the booing of this soldier's question was disrespectful, and for many reasons. I just think in the venue it was done, which was a debate, that the question itself displeased those who reacted, and not that the question came from this soldier. The reaction was a gut one, and probably there are those who wished they could have controlled their emotions in hindsight.

[Guest]

Exactly, it was a debate and everyone was wound up. It wasn't like they were booing them as they debarked a plane or bus. Besides, our constitution gives everybody the right to burn our flag, right? If people want to boo that is their right and I have fought to protect that right. I may not like it, but that is the law.

[Guest]

You are absolutely correct that the booing of this soldier's question was disrespectful, and for many reasons. I just think in the venue it was done, which was a debate, that the question itself displeased those who reacted, and not that the question came from this soldier. The reaction was a gut one, and probably there are those who wished they could have controlled their emotions in hindsight.

A homophobe is a homophobe is a homophobe. There always have been gays in the military. No, you can't tell by looking at them, as some seem to think. (Not saying you believe this.)

[Guest]

Here is what bothered me the most. Not one of the candidates or for that matter anyone from the audience had the courage to tell the boo birds to shut up and have some respect for the guy. To me that would have shown true leadership not the cowtowing to the ignorant fools who booed.

[Guest]

Here is what bothered me the most. Not one of the candidates or for that matter anyone from the audience had the courage to tell the boo birds to shut up and have some respect for the guy. To me that would have shown true leadership not the cowtowing to the ignorant fools who booed.

They never do. :cus:

[Guest]

Here is what bothered me the most. Not one of the candidates or for that matter anyone from the audience had the courage to tell the boo birds to shut up and have some respect for the guy. To me that would have shown true leadership not the cowtowing to the ignorant fools who booed.

Watching the video, it seems like it only last a couple of seconds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/republican-debate-dadt-repeal-rick-santorum_n_977105.html

[Guest]

Once again the painting or condeming of an entire group for the sake of a very few who did wrong.... is not right....it never is...but is unfortunately all to common a practice. If one must target, then in fairness to the majority, it should be specific i.e. the few in the audience that......etc....

btk

[Guest]

"[Originally Posted by waynet
Here is what bothered me the most. Not one of the candidates or for that matter anyone from the audience had the courage to tell the boo birds to shut up and have some respect for the guy. To me that would have shown true leadership not the cowtowing to the ignorant fools who booed."

"They never do."


And what short memories. Old Newtie was hit by a busload of ethic violations and Bob Dole had to help him pay for it. Remember his African hunting analogy? Or how about opening all those orphanages, but give each kid a computer? Been married how many times? Not sure what in this post made me think of Newtie (gag).

And before you start harping on Clinton....yes, he is a sleazeball, but he was a good president. Reformed welfare. Left office with the US in the black. Now what happened under the next president? Let me think here a second...oh yeah...put us way in the red. That's it.

[Guest]

At the last Republican debate the crowd cheered the answer to allow a 30 year old to die because he didn't have insurance. Last night these "Patriotic Americans" booed a soldier currently serving in Iraq.....

Shame........:cus::cus:

Explain the crowd cheered. You make it sound like the whole crowd cheered when only it was only very few.

[Guest]

So...some are racially bigoted,not the majority though....some are sexually bigoted, not the majority though....Anyone see a pattern here? Just though I'd clear that up and all of the folks on the stage are approved by the tea party...Oops

[Guest]

"[Originally Posted by waynet
Here is what bothered me the most. Not one of the candidates or for that matter anyone from the audience had the courage to tell the boo birds to shut up and have some respect for the guy. To me that would have shown true leadership not the cowtowing to the ignorant fools who booed."

"They never do."


And what short memories. Old Newtie was hit by a busload of ethic violations and Bob Dole had to help him pay for it. Remember his African hunting analogy? Or how about opening all those orphanages, but give each kid a computer? Been married how many times? Not sure what in this post made me think of Newtie (gag).

And before you start harping on Clinton....yes, he is a sleazeball, but he was a good president. Reformed welfare. Left office with the US in the black. Now what happened under the next president? Let me think here a second...oh yeah...put us way in the red. That's it.

And all this was at the debate last night????????????

[Guest]

Village Golfer - You should be proud that you were drafted and went to Vietnam as you were ordered. Hats off to you for that.

However, you say in your post that you fought to protect the right for people to boo? How was your service in Vietnam connected to the Bill of Rights? The USA was not in danger of attack from Vietnam. Any fighting you did was to help stabalize the South Vietnam government. It had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

But, thanks for serving your country when asked to do so.

[Guest]

Jay Leno had a good joke regarding the Republican debate. He said it was irony that the debate was being sponsored by Google when the candidates are all a bunch of Yahoos.

By the way, the audience went wild with laughter on that joke.

[Guest]

if just one of the candidates had the courage to tell the boobirds to shut up I think I would feel much better with their candidacy but they didn't. Why? Votes? Showing that much lack of conviction and backbone tells me alot. And to VG I do remember getting booed and it hurts to this day.

[Guest]

This post wasn't about who you were going to vote for....it is about booing an American Soldier serving in Iraq. If you agree with that then shame I you.

I certainly hope that no one would show my 3 nephews faithfully serving this country that type of treatment.

cologal: Based on the posts that followed the original post by you and me, do you see why I didn't address the issue about the solider......

These instances are side shows and meant to distract from the main issue (s)
The debates are about determinimg who is the best to run, that is who you will back in the presidential election.

Issues such abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, etc are issues that need to be addressed but subordinated to the issues of our economy, continued defense, etc. Personally I feel quite strongly about the subordinated issues but first I want to see which candidate can reverse our current economic situation . We are in deep dodo and we need a good leader
and not one that pushes populist ideas about social issues.

Its all about the economy, resuming our leadership role in the world and frankly gaining back the respect we have lost in world affairs.

[Guest]

if just one of the candidates had the courage to tell the boobirds to shut up I think I would feel much better with their candidacy but they didn't. Why? Votes? Showing that much lack of conviction and backbone tells me alot. And to VG I do remember getting booed and it hurts to this day.

Didn't you watch the video link I posted? It only last a couple of seconds.

[Guest]

You are absolutely correct that the booing of this soldier's question was disrespectful, and for many reasons. I just think in the venue it was done, which was a debate, that the question itself displeased those who reacted, and not that the question came from this soldier. The reaction was a gut one, and probably there are those who wished they could have controlled their emotions in hindsight.

Thank you.....

[Guest]

Exactly, it was a debate and everyone was wound up. It wasn't like they were booing them as they debarked a plane or bus. Besides, our constitution gives everybody the right to burn our flag, right? If people want to boo that is their right and I have fought to protect that right. I may not like it, but that is the law.


Keep spinning....

[Guest]

Keep spinning....

Spinning the truth, you mean?:ohdear:

[Guest]

Explain the crowd cheered. You make it sound like the whole crowd cheered when only it was only very few.

Does the size of the cheer matter? A number of people in the crowd cheered and as last night the candidates did nothing.....Santourim said "He didn't hear the boos".

So what do you think of the this.....HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS

The other night the 2 hockey teams were playing Detroit and Philly twice during the game a fan threw a banana at the only African American player. This was clearly a racist act.

The fact that perhaps a single indivdual did this doesn't change the nature of the act.

The Soldier should NOT have been booed.

[Guest]

Amazing how the uber-conservatives just want to say things like "it was only a few people and it lasted only a few seconds."

And yet their "leadership" did absolutely nothing to express their disgust with the booing. Well, maybe the "candidates (Yahoos)" were not disgusted with booing and agreed with it.

[Guest]

It's a dark, rainy day in the northeast. We'll be headed home to TV soon. A long anticipated round of golf as a guest at a private club was a washout today, so, I fired up TOTV. I saw a thread that looked interesting by suggesting an opportunity for a dialog on the debate last night. I watched the debate and savored the possibility of an intelligent exchange of views for cerebral exercise. I was disappointed to see the thread quickly focus with myopic, narrow minded, agenda driven, predictable partisan cheap shots on a greatly distorted and exaggerated booing incident. My recollection of the crowd estimate was at 3,000 but could have been more.

The first thing I did was view the video of the "boo" several times. I then listened several times to the audio with some very high end equipment. My conclusion was that there was one loud boo bird and possibly one accomplice. I did a lot of google work and found a blogger who alleged she was in the vicinity and that she observed but one idiot and contrary to the unsupported accusations of the usual self and agenda serving partisans, she said several people close to the "idiot", her word, hissed him, and otherwise silenced him. Of course unlike the "bashers" in this thread, I admit I wasn't there for first hand confirmation but, my experience with the audio, confirms to my satisfaction that the blogger was being truthful. One poster used the word "homophobe" three times as if the more it was used, the more it would identify the character of the conservative crowd. I've got a news flash for you....from professional experience... I can assure you with conviction, homophobia transcends party affiliations, religions and nationalities. To attempt to identify it as a trend or disposition....directly or by insidious inference.... of one entity is wrong, wrong, wrong. I can't believe I just did the three in row thing.

If you read the headlines from the elite liberal media, you would swear the entire crowd of 3,000 booed the soldier. Any fair minded person who listens to the audio, if they were honest, I know cologal is, what have to admit the boo did not come from a chorus. It was a solo or at best a duet.

What I'm disappointed in is the failure of the thread to identify what I believe are the interesting and broadly diverse views represented by the candidates. The views expressed for the world to witness clearly show the candidates are not in lock step with any agenda driven by narrow party lines.

I heard different views on the Immigration issue. I saw a conservative candidate support tuition for illegal immigrants. I saw him challenged.

Who would of the thought the right wing would have a black candidate on the stage. An articulate and extremely immpressive candidate at that.

I heard vigorous debate on foreign affairs including divided and contentious positions on withdrawal of troops from the Mideast.

I saw a candidate who instituted Obama like health care in his home state. I saw fireworks and debate as he defended his position.

I saw several different and wildly divergent approaches on the Economy issue. Personally, I like Herman Cain's approach and hope some component of it is incorporated in the platform.

The point is, it wasn't a love fest. It was a healthy exchange of ideas. For certain, there was not a one size fits all candidate. The voters will have to pick a candidate who "most" fits their ideal. That, IMO, is a good thing. The diversity and choices offered, must be frightening enough for some to draw attention away from essence of the debate with a contrived, exaggerated and agenda driven diversion via a "boo" bird.

For balance, my main criticism about the incident was that no one acknowledged the soldiers service. That should have been the opening thought in the response. I thank him and appreciate his service.

[Guest]

cologal: Based on the posts that followed the original post by you and me, do you see why I didn't address the issue about the solider......

These instances are side shows and meant to distract from the main issue (s)
The debates are about determinimg who is the best to run, that is who you will back in the presidential election.

Issues such abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, etc are issues that need to be addressed but subordinated to the issues of our economy, continued defense, etc. Personally I feel quite strongly about the subordinated issues but first I want to see which candidate can reverse our current economic situation . We are in deep dodo and we need a good leader
and not one that pushes populist ideas about social issues.

Its all about the economy, resuming our leadership role in the world and frankly gaining back the respect we have lost in world affairs.

Seriously, my point did not have a larger agenda. I am very protective of my nephews. The booing of the soldier in Iraq was shocking.

We can agree on one thing here....we are in deep dodo and we do need strong and effective leadership.

[Guest]

Spinning the truth, you mean?:ohdear:

Ok I get it you think it was ok for them to boo.....

[Guest]

I will vote for a Republican candidate, any one of them, in order to carry out my responsibility of voting for the best candidate. I am convinced that since the crucial issue at hand is the economy, Paul Ryan would serve the country well. He is the best man for the job intelligent, well reasoned, articulate, sincere, well balanced and ethical

It is clear Team Obama has no idea on how to effect a recovery.

It is clear the Fed's actions are only exacerbating an already poor situation.

As the economy recovers so too will other deficiencies in our country return to balance. I again will make my choice known to the Republican party.

You are wise.:icon_wink:

[Guest]

Village Golfer - You should be proud that you were drafted and went to Vietnam as you were ordered. Hats off to you for that.

However, you say in your post that you fought to protect the right for people to boo? How was your service in Vietnam connected to the Bill of Rights? The USA was not in danger of attack from Vietnam. Any fighting you did was to help stabalize the South Vietnam government. It had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

But, thanks for serving your country when asked to do so.

I am sorry but I cannot take you seriously. You can complain to ADMIN but you addressed me first. In the future, please try not to post directly to me. I would put you on my ignore list, but sometimes you make me giggle.:laugh:

[Guest]

Here is what bothered me the most. Not one of the candidates or for that matter anyone from the audience had the courage to tell the boo birds to shut up and have some respect for the guy. To me that would have shown true leadership not the cowtowing to the ignorant fools who booed.

And you know this how? Were you sitting in that audience. You are making an assumption, and you know it.

[Guest]

Ok I get it you think it was ok for them to boo.....

No, I said there was only a couple of people who booed. The media and you have spinned this for personal agendas, In MY Humble Opinion. I do not even think there was an issue except to try and label the candidates.

[Guest]

This post wasn't about who you were going to vote for....it is about booing an American Soldier serving in Iraq. If you agree with that then shame I you..

I agree with Cologal on two points:

It is wrong and shameful to disrespect the military. How can anyone argue about whether it was two people or twenty people.

We are in deep doodoo and need strong and effective leadership.

[Guest]

I agree with Cologal on two points:

It is wrong and shameful to disrespect the military. How can anyone argue about whether it was two people or twenty people.

We are in deep doodoo and need strong and effective leadership.

It's unfortunate that this soldier was the seeming recipient of boos from a minority of the audience in Orlando over the question of what a candidate thought about the service of openly gay men in the military.

Those booing were disrespecting the question, and that's really all there is to this. The subject of the integrating of openly homosexual men into the close quarter lives of the majority heterosexual military is a volatile social issue that the military needs to address, and not the social engineering elitists.

Personally I think that if you believe that heterosexual men should graciously accept openly homosexual men into their group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters, then you should also accept heterosexual men into the group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters of heterosexual women. We should just mix everyone up if your sexuality is no longer a barrier to the privacy lacking living arrangements of our military.

Just a thought.

[Guest]

Man, I'm glad I did my service time years ago. I sure would not want to have to share quarters with someone who might have sexual inclinations toward me.
Gives new meaning to some old expressions we used to have.
Seriously, how in the name of Elton John are they going to accomplish this. Are they going to have separate barracks for different sexual preferences? I can see where the military is moving real slow on this.
Please, I'm trying to keep this light and inject a little humor and dialogue into this delicate subject. I am not bashing anybody but I really would like to know how this plays out.

PS. Unless you were in the service and do not understand the humor, please do not complain to ADMIN.

[Guest]

Personally I think that if you believe that heterosexual men should graciously accept openly homosexual men into their group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters, then you should also accept heterosexual men into the group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters of heterosexual women. We should just mix everyone up if your sexuality is no longer a barrier to the privacy lacking living arrangements of our military.

I thought a lot of college dorms were now "unisex". But I'm probably wrong.
My husband is a firefighter. They now have female firefighters who share 24 hour shifts at the firehall with men. I'm sure there are some homosexual men there as well. Seems to work out for everyone.

[Guest]

Man, I'm glad I did my service time years ago. I sure would not want to have to share quarters with someone who might have sexual inclinations toward me.
Gives new meaning to some old expressions we used to have.
Seriously, how in the name of Elton John are they going to accomplish this. Are they going to have separate barracks for different sexual preferences? I can see where the military is moving real slow on this.
Please, I'm trying to keep this light and inject a little humor and dialogue into this delicate subject. I am not bashing anybody but I really would like to know how this plays out.

PS. Unless you were in the service and do not understand the humor, please do not complain to ADMIN.

Your can bet your last dollar that you shared your bunkhouse, your group shower and your group bathroom with a homosexual soldier, but that you didn't know it or look for it. That's just the way it was. It's the "open service" which is going to agitate the system......or not. We shall see, I guess, as our elitist liberal know better than anyone else social engineers continue to tinker with our fighting forces.

[Guest]

It's unfortunate that this soldier was the seeming recipient of boos from a minority of the audience in Orlando over the question of what a candidate thought about the service of openly gay men in the military.

Those booing were disrespecting the question, and that's really all there is to this. The subject of the integrating of openly homosexual men into the close quarter lives of the majority heterosexual military is a volatile social issue that the military needs to address, and not the social engineering elitists.

Personally I think that if you believe that heterosexual men should graciously accept openly homosexual men into their group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters, then you should also accept heterosexual men into the group bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters of heterosexual women. We should just mix everyone up if your sexuality is no longer a barrier to the privacy lacking living arrangements of our military.

Just a thought.

Now Richie, that is not much of a thought. A gay man in the military is not analagous to a heterosexual man in a woman's bathroom. Really now.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military and somehow they managed to control themselves around the straight guys. Being facetious there. They have fought and died besides their comrades. In this day and age to even have this as an issue is ridiculous. I guess now I get to be a social engineering elitist! You know, just cause you throw a little phrase at something does not make it true or make those of us who REALLY believe in equality bad. When Eisenhower intergrated the troops he made it happen...just did it. It was an order. And the military did not curl up and die.

[Guest]

I thought a lot of college dorms were now "unisex". But I'm probably wrong.
My husband is a firefighter. They now have female firefighters who share 24 hour shifts at the firehall with men. I'm sure there are some homosexual men there as well. Seems to work out for everyone.

Do these firemen and women share the same group bathrooms, group showers and group bunk space? In college co-ed dorms they generally don't. They do share a building, but that's about the extent of it.

When I was in basic training the bathroom was one big room with no partitions and no walls. The showers, toilets, urinals and sinks were just there. You went in to do whatever "chore" you came to do and were in full view of everyone else who was doing anything else.

The bunkhouse was an open room where you slept a couple of feet below or above someone and a couple of feet next to someone else. This is where you dressed and undressed.

This is the situation I'm speaking about.

[Guest]

Now Richie, that is not much of a thought. A gay man in the military is not analagous to a heterosexual man in a woman's bathroom. Really now.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military and somehow they managed to control themselves around the straight guys. Being facetious there. They have fought and died besides their comrades. In this day and age to even have this as an issue is ridiculous. I guess now I get to be a social engineering elitist! You know, just cause you throw a little phrase at something does not make it true or make those of us who REALLY believe in equality bad. When Eisenhower intergrated the troops he made it happen...just did it. It was an order. And the military did not curl up and die.

Homosexual men had to control their actions in the military because of the rules that applied. With the law changed so that they can live "openly", don't doubt that they will. It's a new ballgame.

What's the difference in just lumping all the people together if the issue isn't the sexuality of the soldier? My query is not ridiculous. It's only your unwillingness to consider all angles that is.

[Guest]

Of course, tonight, NBC played a clip of the marine video last night and the "boo" that followed.
The statement of the thread origin was:

"Last night these "Patriotic Americans" booed a soldier currently serving in Iraq....."

Addressing the thread as presented, there should be no booing. And after watching and listening to the NBC clip one would be hard pressed to determine if there were anymore than one or two...make it three or four. As some have said it is not the number it was the act. However, to state "...these 'Patriotic
Americans' booed a soldier..." asserts a much broader intent....which it definitely was not. Said more accurately on this subject at last nights Republican debate, Patriotic Americans in attendance were disturbed by a handful of disrespectfuls in the audience. This was in fact the reality of the incident!

As far as the criticism of those who did not jab back at the "handful" of those who booed...I learned a long time ago in public speaking to not be swayed from the intent by isolated jeers or commentary. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and not give any recognition/distinction to the isolated three or four.

And given the super microscope and listening devices on every word, in this case not said....if they would have said something then we no doubt would be debating/arguing/wrangling over the Republicans who were stomping on the audiences first amendment rights.....I betcha!!!

No matter how it is painted/presented, the booing did in no way have anything to do with the character of the audience or the debate participants.

Too bad more time was not spent here on the merits/demerits of the content of the debate.

btk

[Guest]

Of course, tonight, NBC played a clip of the marine video last night and the "boo" that followed.
The statement of the thread origin was:

"Last night these "Patriotic Americans" booed a soldier currently serving in Iraq....."

Addressing the thread as presented, there should be no booing. And after watching and listening to the NBC clip one would be hard pressed to determine if there were anymore than one or two...make it three or four. As some have said it is not the number it was the act. However, to state "...these 'Patriotic
Americans' booed a soldier..." asserts a much broader intent....which it definitely was not. Said more accurately on this subject at last nights Republican debate, Patriotic Americans in attendance were disturbed by a handful of disrespectfuls in the audience. This was in fact the reality of the incident!

As far as the criticism of those who did not jab back at the "handful" of those who booed...I learned a long time ago in public speaking to not be swayed from the intent by isolated jeers or commentary. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and not give any recognition/distinction to the isolated three or four.

And given the super microscope and listening devices on every word, in this case not said....if they would have said something then we no doubt would be debating/arguing/wrangling over the Republicans who were stomping on the audiences first amendment rights.....I betcha!!!

No matter how it is painted/presented, the booing did in no way have anything to do with the character of the audience or the debate participants.

Too bad more time was not spent here on the merits/demerits of the content of the debate.

btk

Sorry....

The character of the debate participants was noted when they remained in silence. Now some of them have said they didn't hear the boos or the debate was moving on.

But the character of the people that booed cannot be denied or spun.

Don't you have a grandaughter in the Marines....what if that was your grandaughter who asked some question?

[Guest]

Man, I'm glad I did my service time years ago. I sure would not want to have to share quarters with someone who might have sexual inclinations toward me.
Gives new meaning to some old expressions we used to have.
Seriously, how in the name of Elton John are they going to accomplish this. Are they going to have separate barracks for different sexual preferences? I can see where the military is moving real slow on this.
Please, I'm trying to keep this light and inject a little humor and dialogue into this delicate subject. I am not bashing anybody but I really would like to know how this plays out.

PS. Unless you were in the service and do not understand the humor, please do not complain to ADMIN.

It might be easier than you think....as said before they are already there. Now to be fair I can give you the family military vote on DADT. USMC-Not Happy Navy So What Army Who Cares. Just an FYI

[Guest]

Any homosexual in the Army will most likely be discreet about it. There are still plenty of guys who would be giving the GI Shower or the Blanket Party if any gay soldier tried grabbing at their privates (no pun) or gays had sex in the barracks.

Chances are, I believe, that just as when we were in the Army, there were gays but we did not know for sure, it will mostly the same. Of course, there will be some showing off just to make trouble as with any group.

It has worked for a long time in other countries - it will work here.

[Guest]

On the surface the change in policy seems okay...except that I thought the problem would be one of a sexual relationship going on in the same unit, causing a lot of distraction.

Are male/female lovers allowed to openly display their physical attraction for each other when working together in the same unit??

Is a heterosexual couple, consisting of an officer and a soldier, allowed to display their attraction for each other in the workplace??

If not, why would a homosexual couple be given that opportunity? I don't see why anybody's sex life has to be known in the workplace.

[Guest]

Homosexual men had to control their actions in the military because of the rules that applied. With the law changed so that they can live "openly", don't doubt that they will. It's a new ballgame.

What's the difference in just lumping all the people together if the issue isn't the sexuality of the soldier? My query is not ridiculous. It's only your unwillingness to consider all angles that is.

That is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion, that openly gay men will no longer control their actions. They aren't there to pick up men...they are there to defend their country, just like everyone else. I have considered all the angles but I have reached different conclusions then you....just because I don't agree with you does not mean have I not considered them all....

[Guest]

That is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion, that openly gay men will no longer control their actions. They aren't there to pick up men...they are there to defend their country, just like everyone else. I have considered all the angles but I have reached different conclusions then you....just because I don't agree with you does not mean have I not considered them all....
Let me see if I have this right.I am a heterosexual person and if if I took a shower with a bunch of naked women, I would really get excited. Now if a homosexual person took a shower with the same sex, would not he/she get excited?

I am lost, how is this going to play out?

[Guest]

Let me see if I have this right.I am a heterosexual person and if if I took a shower with a bunch of naked women, I would really get excited. Now if a homosexual person took a shower with the same sex, would not he/she get excited?

I am lost, how is this going to play out?

The point I'm trying to make is not the acting out and/or controlling of their actions. Why is everybody go full out crazy on me. If someone is going to live "openly" they're going to live openly, right? If not, whats all this about?

If they're living "openly", it's to be able to live "openly" as the homosexual that they are. Correct?

Now the "homosexual that they are" is going to live in my communal world of complete lack of privacy and I'm supposed to be OK with that.

Why is this okay, but men and women sharing the same lack of privacy is not. I won't accept another "oh, that's just ridiculous" nonsense answer, because that's not an answer.

[Guest]

Now Richie, that is not much of a thought. A gay man in the military is not analagous to a heterosexual man in a woman's bathroom. Really now.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military and somehow they managed to control themselves around the straight guys. Being facetious there. They have fought and died besides their comrades. In this day and age to even have this as an issue is ridiculous. I guess now I get to be a social engineering elitist! You know, just cause you throw a little phrase at something does not make it true or make those of us who REALLY believe in equality bad. When Eisenhower intergrated the troops he made it happen...just did it. It was an order. And the military did not curl up and die.

Well said LadyDoc.

[Guest]

Well said LadyDoc.

OK, so you two women agree. Why? The answer isn't obvious.

[Guest]

"I don't see why anybody's sex life has to be known in the workplace."

Some just need to puff up and have something to show or brag about. And some will take up a cause just because it is a cause.

Again the need to display, show, play what the sexual bent is, again represents only the few....the majority are quite happy to remain not telling and or being discreet.

This is another minority subject with political implications....VOTES!!! If there were no political gain it would not even make the lawmakers list of considerations.

Not mixing the men and women just shows the inconsistency of the application.
Very typical...because it will not affect the women's vote!!!

btk

[Guest]

That is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion, that openly gay men will no longer control their actions. They aren't there to pick up men...they are there to defend their country, just like everyone else. I have considered all the angles but I have reached different conclusions then you....just because I don't agree with you does not mean have I not considered them all....

How do you know that some aren't there to pick up men?

[Guest]

Originally Posted by ladydoc
That is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion, that openly gay men will no longer control their actions. They aren't there to pick up men...they are there to defend their country, just like everyone else. I have considered all the angles but I have reached different conclusions then you....just because I don't agree with you does not mean have I not considered them all....
How do you know that some aren't there to pick up men?

Originally Posted by villagegolfer
How do you know that some aren't there to pick up men?

Aren't they there mainly to have a JOB and possibly a CAREER?? And their workplace happens to be a military base/installation??

In any other workplace, open displays of sexual attraction and intimacy are prohibited in the workplace and often, there is outright prohibition of such relationships between co-workers.

Why should open displays and talk of homosexuals' sex lives be appropriate in the military workplace???

Sex lives should not be talked about or shown in ANY workplace!! Is there no such thing as PRIVACY anymore?

And why should other military co-workers have this thrown in their face at work?

Oh. I forgot. The matter is a POLITICAL platform of a bloc of voters.

[Guest]

Aren't they there mainly to have a JOB and possibly a CAREER?? And their workplace happens to be a military base/installation??

In any other workplace, open displays of sexual attraction and intimacy are prohibited in the workplace and often, there is outright prohibition of such relationships between co-workers.

Why should open displays and talk of homosexuals' sex lives be appropriate in the military workplace???

Sex lives should not be talked about or shown in ANY workplace!! Is there no such thing as PRIVACY anymore?

And why should other military co-workers have this thrown in their face at work?

Oh. I forgot. The matter is a POLITICAL platform of a bloc of voters.

I am not being factious here but have you ever been to basic training? Have you been in the service? I still say social experiments do not belong in the military and civilians are wrong to assume anything unless they have been there.

[Guest]

I appears that the issue of homosexuals in the service definitely needs to be ironed out prior to the draft being reinstated...

[Guest]

I appears that the issue of homosexuals in the service definitely needs to be ironed out prior to the draft being reinstated...

It appears the military has already given into the liberal social engineers, and will force acceptance of the integration of openly homosexual people into the confining communal living arrangement that is the military experience.

In our civilian world it's not really an issue as everyone is able to live their private lives as they see fit. The military life is a whole other issue.

I was only attempting to provoke a dialogue to see how others might view this, but it so far has descended into the baser aspects of what people fear, and not the social and privacy issues relevant to military life that I was hoping would be addressed.

[Guest]

Amen...if you haven't been there (military quarters) YOU are NOT ABLE to comment...you can imagine or wish or speculate but you do not know the environment. And for seniors who haven't been there to try to even imagine what the galloping hormones of a bunch of teens and lower 20 somethings is even more ridiculous.

Keep it simple, not political, not bleeding heart, not permissive this or that......there is a reason why they won't let the men and women cohabitate in the military....and the same holds for those of the same sex preference ilk...it is that simple.

There was nothing wrong with the way it was for 100's of years. And when the media and the special interest groups let this subject die it's own natural depth, life in the military will go back to some norm.

You cannot intellectualize something as complex as the sex drives of different types of people and you certainly can't comment with any accuracy whatso ever if you have never been there. Opinions? Have all you want but most are not knowledge or any other foundation based.

And those are my opinions on the matter.

btk

[Guest]

It appears the military has already given into the liberal social engineers, and will force acceptance of the integration of openly homosexual people into the confining communal living arrangement that is the military experience.

In our civilian world it's not really an issue as everyone is able to live their private lives as they see fit. The military life is a whole other issue.

I was only attempting to provoke a dialogue to see how others might view this, but it so far has descended into the baser aspects of what people fear, and not the social and privacy issues relevant to military life that I was hoping would be addressed.

Don't you think the military will care more about if he/she can shoot straight then what their sexual orientation is? Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. They are not stupid. Overcoming prejudice requires some action, not just verbalization. As I said, Eisenhower intergrated the troops on an order and that worked pretty well. Male military sexual predatory behavior against female military is much worse. Is there any progressive idea that you don't label "liberal social engineering?" Change is a good thing...There is no "expectation of privacy" in the military...this according to my hubby who was career military.

[Guest]

Amen...if you haven't been there (military quarters) YOU are NOT ABLE to comment...you can imagine or wish or speculate but you do not know the environment. And for seniors who haven't been there to try to even imagine what the galloping hormones of a bunch of teens and lower 20 somethings is even more ridiculous.

Keep it simple, not political, not bleeding heart, not permissive this or that......there is a reason why they won't let the men and women cohabitate in the military....and the same holds for those of the same sex preference ilk...it is that simple.

There was nothing wrong with the way it was for 100's of years. And when the media and the special interest groups let this subject die it's own natural depth, life in the military will go back to some norm.

You cannot intellectualize something as complex as the sex drives of different types of people and you certainly can't comment with any accuracy whatso ever if you have never been there. Opinions? Have all you want but most are not knowledge or any other foundation based.

And those are my opinions on the matter.

btk

Social engineering does not belong in military, Period. I still associate with a circle of military people including an a couple of officers and and an ex POW and I can tell you for certain that most in the military do not want to change DADT. And contrary to popular beliefs the military had to lower the standards as the women could not pass basic training.

[Guest]

There has been homosexuals in the military since the military started, maybe even before there was a formal military. Privacy in the military. You have to be joking unless you happen to wear stars. In a few years this will be as common as an intergrated military is today. I personally believe that every US citizen should be required to give at least 2 years in service of their country, that includes, handicapped, homosexuals, straights, transgengered, females, males and those that are still confused about what they are.

The all volunteer military is a joke as only the "poor" are serving. Don't get me wrong, the all vol force is awesome and the US has the best fighting force in the world, but an all vol force is NOT the way to go. Get those senator's kids and the representative's kids in uniform and watch how we, IE., the US, stops sending our youth off to foreign counties to make the Industrial-Military Complex rich.

Then pass a law that if you want to be in public service, from local to federal, you have to have serviced in the military.

[Guest]

Now Rick Santorum claims he would have said something to defend gay soldiers service to their country if he had only heard the crowd reaction. Ya right!!!...So where was he that he couldn't hear the boos? :cus:

[Guest]

Now Rick Santorum claims he would have said something to defend gay soldiers service to their country if he had only heard the crowd reaction. Ya right!!!...So where was he that he couldn't hear the boos? :cus:

Wow, was there that much hype when Obama made fun of Special Olympic people?

[Guest]

figmo...both are excellent posts..I agree 100 percent...that will bring you trouble on this forum though..

[Guest]

hrp01, as someone else one said "Bring it on." Folks have to start looking at the truth of the matter and stop do what is not good for our country or we will not have a country much longer.

Just look at the current criminal activity of the senate. No budget for almost 3 years now and now they are saying the current bill to keep the government running is DOA, according to Knight Harry Reid. There needs to be another line on the ballot form "None of the Above, Start Over."

[Guest]

My feeling is that we ought to install term limits...Without legislation..All it would take is everyone to vote the incumbents out in the next three elections. I'd give up the senate,and white house, and take the house (tea party out)..Imagine the message that would send..Way too much partisan and non comprimising politics..a poster (vg) here said,the rep is their to fight for his district only,no room for comprimise...So a few can take over and stop the majority..Something basically wrong with that concept..we are a diverse people and no one among us is entitled to his view only, and at any cost,and with questionable rationale( read bigotry).

[Guest]

If I vote for someone who said he will never vote for a tax increase, I should think that he will hold his end of the bargain and vote no on tax increases. I think it is very prudent of him to vote for what his constituents voted for.

[Guest]

Don't you think the military will care more about if he/she can shoot straight then what their sexual orientation is? Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. They are not stupid. Overcoming prejudice requires some action, not just verbalization. As I said, Eisenhower intergrated the troops on an order and that worked pretty well. Male military sexual predatory behavior against female military is much worse. Is there any progressive idea that you don't label "liberal social engineering?" Change is a good thing...There is no "expectation of privacy" in the military...this according to my hubby who was career military.

It will definitely change the behavior of everyone else though.

Since you brought it up, how about providing those statistics of the greater predatory instincts of male heterosexuals as opposed to male homosexuals. I haven't read those findings or seen an analysis.

Sorry if you don't like the term "liberal social engineering", but that's what it is and your aversion to the term doesn't make it any less true.

I glad your husband has no trouble sitting on the toilet next to the openly gay male sitting on his toilet next to him, and taking a shower with him, and all the others daily activities we do. I'm pretty sure I would have a problem with it. That's just me though.

[Guest]

Now Rick Santorum claims he would have said something to defend gay soldiers service to their country if he had only heard the crowd reaction. Ya right!!!...So where was he that he couldn't hear the boos? :cus:

Why didn't you also state that in articles about the incident that the people surrounding the couple of dolts who booed the question immediately shushed them. Didn't fit your agenda?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/23/the_truth_about_the_boos.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46388

[Guest]

Don't you think the military will care more about if he/she can shoot straight then what their sexual orientation is? Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. They are not stupid. Change is a good thing...There is no "expectation of privacy" in the military...this according to my hubby who was career military.

OK, so you two women agree. Why? The answer isn't obvious.

The answer is obvious. As Ladydoc said, Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. I don't understand why you think that gays serving in the military will suddenly turn into raving sexual predators just because their sexual orientation is known.

Anyway this thread is about the Debate so I apologize for going off topic.

[Guest]

It will definitely change the behavior of everyone else though.

Since you brought it up, how about providing those statistics of the greater predatory instincts of male heterosexuals as opposed to male homosexuals. I haven't read those findings or seen an analysis.

Sorry if you don't like the term "liberal social engineering", but that's what it is and your aversion to the term doesn't make it any less true.

I glad your husband has no trouble sitting on the toilet next to the openly gay male sitting on his toilet next to him, and taking a shower with him, and all the others daily activities we do. I'm pretty sure I would have a problem with it. That's just me though.

Maybe you need to have a talk with yourself and see why you would have such a problem with a gay man on the toilet next to you. And for the third time, was Eisenhower a liberal when he integrated the military? I will find those stats when you tell me what the basis of your stating that the journal that published that liberals were smarter article was a liberal magazine. You can not just deduce that from the article. Also, you said that a liberal magazine would find that liberals were smarter. There was research backing up that conclusion. Again, were you implying a falsification of data, which is a very serious accusation.

[Guest]

OK, so you two women agree. Why? The answer isn't obvious.

Why do we agree? Because we are right.:laugh:

[Guest]

Wow vg, if I was taking a shower with a bunch of naked women,I don't think I'd be excited.....I'd be scared....Of course I know my limitations..lol

[Guest]

Wow vg, if I was taking a shower with a bunch of naked women,I don't think I'd be excited.....I'd be scared....Of course I know my limitations..lol

Maybe you should look in the mirror and ....no forget it.

My nephew (by marriage) acted like a regular guy but after he came out of the closet and divorced his wife he acted different. He actually walked different, and talked different. The gays in the military will flaunt their gayness, and try to use it as intimidation and there will be all kinds of talk about discrimination against gays and it will disrupt the military big time. Worse thing that coulf happen. I feel sorry for our troops.

[Guest]

Why didn't you also state that in articles about the incident that the people surrounding the couple of dolts who booed the question immediately shushed them. Didn't fit your agenda?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/23/the_truth_about_the_boos.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46388

No I actually didn't hear or read that. I commend them. Cuz, yes it does fit my agenda. :cus:

[Guest]

It has been many, many years since Richie, Village Golfer, and I were in the military. Is basic training still the same with the open squad bays for sleeping and the totally open bathrooms or has it changed to be something a bit more modern? I don't know. Do you?

Sure, there will be a few trouble makers who are gay just over-flaunting to see if they can goad someone into a bad response. (Sort of like a couple of posters trying to do the same thing on this forum?) Those few will be discharged administratively. For the main part, I do not believe most will be open about their sexuality. Most will probably be quiet about sexuality and like other soldiers, just do their job.

Don't worry about it. Gays have been accepted into the military of Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and many other countries for years. It will not hurt morale nor the capibilites of the military.

[Guest]

It has been many, many years since Richie, Village Golfer, and I were in the military. Is basic training still the same with the open squad bays for sleeping and the totally open bathrooms or has it changed to be something a bit more modern? I don't know. Do you?

Sure, there will be a few trouble makers who are gay just over-flaunting to see if they can goad someone into a bad response. (Sort of like a couple of posters trying to do the same thing on this forum?) Those few will be discharged administratively. For the main part, I do not believe most will be open about their sexuality. Most will probably be quiet about sexuality and like other soldiers, just do their job.

Don't worry about it. Gays have been accepted into the military of Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and many other countries for years. It will not hurt morale nor the capibilites of the military.
How can you be so certain? America is different, we are larger and obviously have been in more wars.

[Guest]

How can you be so certain that I am wrong? Remember that integration of African-Americans was frought with the same arguements that you are bringing to the table right now - and I think that worked out okay.

[Guest]

The answer is obvious. As Ladydoc said, Gays being open about their orientation will not change their behavior. I don't understand why you think that gays serving in the military will suddenly turn into raving sexual predators just because their sexual orientation is known.

Anyway this thread is about the Debate so I apologize for going off topic.

Like I said, everyone has to bring it down to the baser aspects. They want to live OPENLY. They want to live OPENLY AND PROUDLY as men who are sexually attracted to other men and then live in the communal living of the military.

I don't understand how you don't understand this.

Isn't this why women don't live in the no privacy communal living arrangement in the military with heterosexual men?

[Guest]

Maybe you need to have a talk with yourself and see why you would have such a problem with a gay man on the toilet next to you. And for the third time, was Eisenhower a liberal when he integrated the military? I will find those stats when you tell me what the basis of your stating that the journal that published that liberals were smarter article was a liberal magazine. You can not just deduce that from the article. Also, you said that a liberal magazine would find that liberals were smarter. There was research backing up that conclusion. Again, were you implying a falsification of data, which is a very serious accusation.

Eisenhower put men together of different races, not of different sexual orientations. It's a ludicrous comparison.

Do you want to sit on a toilet in a room without partitions next to heterosexual males, or take a shower in that same open room with them? Sexual orientation wise, it's the same situation.

You think men should be forced to share this open non-private space with men who are sexually attracted to men. Why shouldn't women share the same space with men who are sexually attracted to women?

I think you must be thinking of someone else in you liberal mag statement, because that wasn't me.

[Guest]

How can you be so certain that I am wrong? Remember that integration of African-Americans was frought with the same arguements that you are bringing to the table right now - and I think that worked out okay.

The comparison is silly. The race issue is non-compatible with forcing men to share their non-private communal living space with men who want to live OPENLY as MEN WHO ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO OTHER MEN.

If they were content to live privately, that's what they've been doing forever. They want to now live OPENLY. Come on, how can you not understand this?

[Guest]

Richie,

This conversation about gays in the military could get really good over a couple or three ice-cold Yeunglings. I am sorry I will not be able to be at the watering hole on Monday with you and the others. I will be out of town but back the following week.

Hopefully, this forum can exist a week without my wit - or is that only half true?

[Guest]

Richie,

This conversation about gays in the military could get really good over a couple or three ice-cold Yeunglings. I am sorry I will not be able to be at the watering hole on Monday with you and the others. I will be out of town but back the following week.

Hopefully, this forum can exist a week without my wit - or is that only half true?

Enjoy your trip and we'll keep the brewskis on ice anticipating your return. I'm sure they'll be even more pressing issues demanding our attention when you return.

Without my wit?......half?.........wait, wait......I'm thinking I'm on this side of some Buggy humor here.........uhhhhhhhhh......no......I lost it.:laugh:

[Guest]

Maybe you need to have a talk with yourself and see why you would have such a problem with a gay man on the toilet next to you. And for the third time, was Eisenhower a liberal when he integrated the military? I will find those stats when you tell me what the basis of your stating that the journal that published that liberals were smarter article was a liberal magazine. You can not just deduce that from the article. Also, you said that a liberal magazine would find that liberals were smarter. There was research backing up that conclusion. Again, were you implying a falsification of data, which is a very serious accusation.

Comparing race with sexual orientation? Really?:ohdear:

[Guest]

I wish you two guys would get it straight(pun intended)

[Guest]

Comparing race with sexual orientation? Really?:ohdear:

Obviously, you think that sexual orientation is a choice. But you would be wrong.

[Guest]

Obviously, you think that sexual orientation is a choice. But you would be wrong.

Your you trying to bait me, again? Show me where I came to that conclusion?

[Guest]

Your you trying to bait me, again? Show me where I came to that conclusion?

Here....

Comparing race with sexual orientation? Really?:ohdear:

[Guest]

Any gay that wants to join the military we will just first have them stop off at Michelle's hubbys place and get fixed, errrrr, straigntened out. That should take care of the DADT or anything else that you all are worried about.

Get real we have had gays in the military since there was a military and maybe before that.

The statement that the US has been in more wars than Europe shows that you are not a student of history. We are way behind in the war score box against Europe. They started way before America was even thought of.

[Guest]

Eisenhower put men together of different races, not of different sexual orientations. It's a ludicrous comparison.

Do you want to sit on a toilet in a room without partitions next to heterosexual males, or take a shower in that same open room with them? Sexual orientation wise, it's the same situation.

You think men should be forced to share this open non-private space with men who are sexually attracted to men. Why shouldn't women share the same space with men who are sexually attracted to women?

I think you must be thinking of someone else in you liberal mag statement, because that wasn't me.

"Originally Posted by RichieLion
So the liberals at Science Daily have concluded that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Gee, who woulda thunk it?"

Does this jog your memory? Do you think all scientiests are liberal? I can tell you that from first hand experience as someone who has done research, that they are not. I could tell you the blood, sweat and tears that go into designing a research study, doing a very encompassing literature search, framing the null hypothesis, selecting and justifying your statistical model, choosing your level of probability, defending your statistical model, explaining why you are using a one or two tailed t test, defining the degrees of freedom of each variable, how you are defining your universe of subjects, how you then randomized that universe and it goes on and on. Implying a conclusion is due to falsifying data is a terrible thing to say unless you can prove it using the principles I stated above. I did my own research and mentored many many more studies.
Scientific research is hard. How many research projects have you done?

Back to the other issue: What makes you think every gay man is attracted to every straight man? My gay friends have great gaydar and they don't approach straight men. As I said, they are not stupid. If they happen to be having a bad gaydar day, they tell me they apologize to the guy and walk away. Gay men are not predators after every man's junk. Do you lust after every woman you see in an uncontrollable way? You have been sharing bathrooms with gay men your entire life.

As to the issue of intergrating the military not being the same as having gays serving openly, it is exactly the same thing. Prejudices had to be addressed and why drag this out? As I said 3 times before, do you think Eisenhower was a liberal social engineer? Calling everything you don't like liberal is kind of weak.

As to flaunting their lifestyle, once again, what makes you think they will do that? I agree that ANY PDAs (public displays of affection) while in uniform are out of bounds be it gay or straight. There are rules in place to deal with these issues and should be applied to gays just as they are to heterosexuals.

[Guest]

Comparing race with sexual orientation? Really?:ohdear:

Really! Both are genetic, not choices people make. :ohdear:

[Guest]

Really! Both are genetic, not choices people make. :ohdear:

Excellent answer!

[Guest]

Integrating different races is different then sexual orientation. If you can't see that then you do not have enough practical experience. Social experiments do not belong in our military forces.

[Guest]

I'm going to make this my last post on the mandated total integration of OPENLY PRACTICING homosexuals in the the open area non-private communal living arrangements that is the US military.

Trying to discuss this subject with liberal women who are obviously and totally ignorant of the military life, especially where it concerns the world of men, is frustrating and pointless.

I know you will take offense to that statement, but it's no less true because you do. So, I'm expecting it.

I would bet if any of you women walked in a bathroom or shower room today, and you walked into one open room with sinks on one wall, and toilets on another and shower heads sticking out of the wall at the end, you would quickly turn around and walk out of that room. You wouldn't be thinking of anything else except the lack of privacy there. Now you want to install that room into the highly charged subject I'm talking about and throw some b.s. at me about Pres. Eisenhower. For pete's sake!!

That's it, and that's all. Now you can say what you want to say, as I've said my piece.

[Guest]

I'm going to make this my last post on the mandated total integration of OPENLY PRACTICING homosexuals in the the open area non-private communal living arrangements that is the US military.

Trying to discuss this subject with liberal women who are obviously and totally ignorant of the military life, especially where it concerns the world of men, is frustrating and pointless.

I know you will take offense to that statement, but it's no less true because you do. So, I'm expecting it.

I would bet if any of you women walked in a bathroom or shower room today, and you walked into one open room with sinks on one wall, and toilets on another and shower heads sticking out of the wall at the end, you would quickly turn around and walk out of that room. You wouldn't be thinking of anything else except the lack of privacy there. Now you want to install that room into the highly charged subject I'm talking about and throw some b.s. at me about Pres. Eisenhower. For pete's sake!!

That's it, and that's all. Now you can say what you want to say, as I've said my piece.

OK and here is my last word. Liberal is not a dirty word. You use that adjective whenever you want to bolster a shaky premise. And you completely ignored your own quote about the science magazine being liberal...still would like to know on what grounds you say that. Does your last word include not answering that? I will assume that it does.

[Guest]

OK and here is my last word. Liberal is not a dirty word. You use that adjective whenever you want to bolster a shaky premise. And you completely ignored your own quote about the science magazine being liberal...still would like to know on what grounds you say that. Does your last word include not answering that? I will assume that it does.

Ok, I forgot the article. I obviously posted that article because it tickled me and I wanted to irk liberals with it. That was probably the only reason and it seems it worked to perfection.

Thanks for reminding me and for the smile I have on my face at this minute.

[Guest]

Ok, I forgot the article. I obviously posted that article because it tickled me and I wanted to irk liberals with it. That was probably the only reason and it seems it worked to perfection.

Thanks for reminding me and for the smile I have on my face at this minute.

If you think sounding ignorant is amusing, more power to you. At least you amuse yourself. I don't believe that is why you posted it...I think you can't justify what you posted. But oh well...

[Guest]

If you think sounding ignorant is amusing, more power to you. At least you amuse yourself. I don't believe that is why you posted it...I think you can't justify what you posted. But oh well...

I didn't go back through my posts and look for it, but because I don't remember it, I have to assume I was "poking"; a favorite pastime of mine.

Although, now that I think about it, I can't find fault with the premise.

This is not the first time a liberal, or a woman, found my humor less than stellar, and I'm sure you'd find my wife in agreement with you on this. But it is what it is, I think..

[Guest]

So you don't like women or liberals. Wow, must be sort of lonely around your house.

[Guest]

Really! Both are genetic, not choices people make. :ohdear:

Where is your proof that homosexuality is genetic?

[Guest]

Integrating different races is different then sexual orientation. If you can't see that then you do not have enough practical experience. Social experiments do not belong in our military forces.

Why????? They are already there and most other major nations have already done it.

And both you and Richie Lion are out of the service..... LOL (Laugh its just a joke)

[Guest]

Where is your proof that homosexuality is genetic?

Ok... try this one on for size. Point of clarification....The debate is are you born this way or do you choose. Agreed?

So if sexual orientation is a choice for homosexuals then it must be a choice for heterosexuals. So I assume that you are a heterosexual....

The question is when did you choose to be a heterosexual? At what age? Or maybe you didn't choose, you just always knew.

Awaiting your answer.

[Guest]

Ok... try this one on for size. Point of clarification....The debate is are you born this way or do you choose. Agreed?

So if sexual orientation is a choice for homosexuals then it must be a choice for heterosexuals. So I assume that you are a heterosexual....

The question is when did you choose to be a heterosexual? At what age? Or maybe you didn't choose, you just always knew.

Awaiting your answer.


With your reasoning...Horses live in barns. Therefore, if I live in a barn, I must be a horse? Or if I don't live in barn I can't be a horse?...

As far as the genetic proof, I'm pretty sure the research is not conclusive either way yet...Unless you know something that I don't, which was my original question.

[Guest]

So you don't like women or liberals. Wow, must be sort of lonely around your house.

You've taken quite a leap, or you're just being silly. I'm not sure which; maybe both.

[Guest]

With your reasoning...Horses live in barns. Therefore, if I live in a barn, I must be a horse? Or is I don't live in barn I can't be a horse?...

As far as the genetic proof, I'm pretty sure the research is not conclusive either way yet...Unless you know something that I don't, which was my original question.

But you don't live in a barn and other animals live a barn.

I noticed you didn't answer the question.....Why???

And one study at UCLA found a genetic marker in the DNA of gay male twins Xq28. Here the link

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

However, as I know you are a devout Christian, from one of your posts, the only acceptable proof is in the Bible.

[Guest]

But you don't live in a barn and other animals live a barn.

I noticed you didn't answer the question.....Why???

And one study at UCLA found a genetic marker in the DNA of gay male twins Xq28. Here the link

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

However, as I know you are a devout Christian, from one of your posts, the only acceptable proof is in the Bible.

OK, so scientists think they have proof of inbred homosexuality. But, do you think that sexual behavior cannot be taught and learned?

[Guest]

However, as I know you are a devout Christian, from one of your posts, the only acceptable proof is in the Bible.
Thanks for the link. I honestly am willing to learn and will read their study and continue to look for a couple more to support their findings...that is only logical to take the word of 2 or three.

The Bible my source of truth and I believe it contains all the answers to any questions that we have. However, I have yet to find sound evidence in the Bible telling me to view the practice in either a good or bad light. God is the God of science also, and I think he will allow the truth to be found one day. At the end of the day, as a Christian I am called to love others with no strings or restrictions attached. When I am able to do that, He always takes care of the details for me.

[Guest]

I'm going to make this my last post on the mandated total integration of OPENLY PRACTICING homosexuals in the the open area non-private communal living arrangements that is the US military.

Trying to discuss this subject with liberal women who are obviously and totally ignorant of the military life, especially where it concerns the world of men, is frustrating and pointless.

I know you will take offense to that statement, but it's no less true because you do. So, I'm expecting it.

I would bet if any of you women walked in a bathroom or shower room today, and you walked into one open room with sinks on one wall, and toilets on another and shower heads sticking out of the wall at the end, you would quickly turn around and walk out of that room. You wouldn't be thinking of anything else except the lack of privacy there. Now you want to install that room into the highly charged subject I'm talking about and throw some b.s. at me about Pres. Eisenhower. For pete's sake!!

That's it, and that's all. Now you can say what you want to say, as I've said my piece.

Well, isn't that the truth. These so-called educated people sit in their sterile room listening to their draft-dodging professors telling their world view which consists of listening to their liberal draft dodging professors, and the beat goes on. Listen to real science not unproven classroom claptrap. A scientist can guess what it might feel like walking on the moon, but a real astronaut can tell you for real.

[Guest]

Thanks for the link. I honestly am willing to learn and will read their study and continue to look for a couple more to support their findings...that is only logical to take the word of 2 or three.

The Bible my source of truth and I believe it contains all the answers to any questions that we have. However, I have yet to find sound evidence in the Bible telling me to view the practice in either a good or bad light. God is the God of science also, and I think he will allow the truth to be found one day. At the end of the day, as a Christian I am called to love others with no strings or restrictions attached. When I am able to do that, He always takes care of the details for me.

Thanks.....

[Guest]

Well, isn't that the truth. These so-called educated people sit in their sterile room listening to their draft-dodging professors telling their world view which consists of listening to their liberal draft dodging professors, and the beat goes on. Listen to real science not unproven classroom claptrap. A scientist can guess what it might feel like walking on the moon, but a real astronaut can tell you for real.

Ok sorry to do this but....

In my family military unit there are 3 votes and I asked:

USMC - Worried
US Navy - Who Cares
US Army - What's the big deal.

In the service right now....

[Guest]

Ok sorry to do this but....

In my family military unit there are 3 votes and I asked:

USMC - Worried
US Navy - Who Cares
US Army - What's the big deal.

In the service right now....

By your unofficial poll, assuming we have approximately 3 million military personnel both active and reserve (according to Wiki, anyway), that means we have 1 million military personnel who are worried about these new imposed changes in decorum. That's a pretty big number.

[Guest]

Ok sorry to do this but....

In my family military unit there are 3 votes and I asked:

USMC - Worried
US Navy - Who Cares
US Army - What's the big deal.

In the service right now....

:laugh::laugh: That's your DNA related family?

[Guest]

By your unofficial poll, assuming we have approximately 3 million military personnel both active and reserve (according to Wiki, anyway), that means we have 1 million military personnel who are worried about these new imposed changes in decorum. That's a pretty big number.

You are correct but I have twice that number.....

[Guest]

:laugh::laugh: That's your DNA related family?

2 out of 3......LOL

[Guest]

Thanks for the link. I honestly am willing to learn and will read their study and continue to look for a couple more to support their findings...that is only logical to take the word of 2 or three.

The Bible my source of truth and I believe it contains all the answers to any questions that we have. However, I have yet to find sound evidence in the Bible telling me to view the practice in either a good or bad light. God is the God of science also, and I think he will allow the truth to be found one day. At the end of the day, as a Christian I am called to love others with no strings or restrictions attached. When I am able to do that, He always takes care of the details for me.

Quite a few people use the Bible to support their persecution of gays (largely because of what Saul/Paul wrote). I appreciate that you have not come to the same conclusion.

If you're willing to take the word of someone who has gays in his family and was raised by a technically bisexually but, for all intents and purposes, lesbian aoptive mother - and yet still managed to "turn out" straight, married, with two kids - it might give you some more insight to consider.

[Guest]

By your unofficial poll, assuming we have approximately 3 million military personnel both active and reserve (according to Wiki, anyway), that means we have 1 million military personnel who are worried about these new imposed changes in decorum. That's a pretty big number.

66% don't care. That is a pretty big majority, don't you think? And as I have been thinking of this issue, I realized you have been using the wrong analogy. The analogy is not gay male military-straight male military vs. straight male military and straight military women. It is gay women military-straight women military. So, I am going to call my niece, an air force plane technician and ask her to talk to some of the ladies and see what they say. I think their answers will be more like 80% plus don't care. Women are not as threatened by these kind of sexual issues as men are.

[Guest]

Seriously, my point did not have a larger agenda. I am very protective of my nephews. The booing of the soldier in Iraq was shocking.

We can agree on one thing here....we are in deep dodo and we do need strong and effective leadership.

I also have nephews in the military. One just retired after 20 years. He spent the last few years flying missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We worried all the time. My husband is career military...in the Army. So I kind of do know a lot about the military. But Richie still thinks we ( I think he means me and Barefoot) are just irrelevant liberal women. LOL

[Guest]

Ridiculous are these little private polls I have been hearing about in the forums lately. Well, I can give an isolated poll to the other junk polls: There are openly homosexual women in our Villas. They have been to a couple of the neighborhood functions. They rarely mingle with the straight women here, and I know for a fact that the straight women here do not feel comfortable being around them. Is this an isolated poll? Maybe it was just by the pick of the straw that these particular women all moved here at the same time? Is this a worldwide example? I think not but most of these woman here are in the same age group. Could that be a factor?

[Guest]

66% don't care. That is a pretty big majority, don't you think? And as I have been thinking of this issue, I realized you have been using the wrong analogy. The analogy is not gay male military-straight male military vs. straight male military and straight military women. It is gay women military-straight women military. So, I am going to call my niece, an air force plane technician and ask her to talk to some of the ladies and see what they say. I think their answers will be more like 80% plus don't care. Women are not as threatened by these kind of sexual issues as men are.

You may have a point there because It's always been assumed that men are the most aggressive when it comes to displaying their sexuality. This is true in almost all of nature. This come really close to helping me illustrate my point. Thank you.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that women in The Villages would feel uneasy about being around lesbian women in a social setting. I have known lesbians in a social setting and they get along great with straight people. Some gay guys I know are also very social and get along great with straight guys and ladies.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that women in The Villages would feel uneasy about being around lesbian women in a social setting. I have known lesbians in a social setting and they get along great with straight people. Some gay guys I know are also very social and get along great with straight guys and ladies.

Believe me. There is a huge circle of women in our villas and my wife is one of them. I hear everything whether I want to or not. LOL

It is not so much in a social setting with alot of people around, it is the small settings with no men around where they feel funny. Maybe many of them haven't been exposed to such individuals where they came from before moving here? You know, small town America is still out there.;)

[Guest]

You may have a point there because It's always been assumed that men are the most aggressive when it comes to displaying their sexuality. This is true in almost all of nature. This come really close to helping me illustrate my point. Thank you.

Boy, you are a master of twisting what people are saying....I said men are more threatened by these issues; I said NOTHING about aggression. Aggression?? Are you afraid of gay men?

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that women in The Villages would feel uneasy about being around lesbian women in a social setting. I have known lesbians in a social setting and they get along great with straight people. Some gay guys I know are also very social and get along great with straight guys and ladies.

Most of the lesbians I know, I had no idea they were until they told me.....

[Guest]

Boy, you are a master of twisting what people are saying....I said men are more threatened by these issues; I said NOTHING about aggression. Aggression?? Are you afraid of gay men?

You're still unable to see things in the way I'm trying to present them and no matter how I try to rephrase, you still are misunderstanding. It must be because you're not a man, and that's not a bad thing, but it is what it is.

I believe it's a hopeless task to get you to understand what I'm saying.

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that women in The Villages would feel uneasy about being around lesbian women in a social setting. I have known lesbians in a social setting and they get along great with straight people. Some gay guys I know are also very social and get along great with straight guys and ladies.

In a social setting? Do you think that's what this conversation is about; men and women of different sexual orientations sitting around sipping coffee and discussing their golf game? My forehead hurts, I smacked it so hard.:rolleyes:

[Guest]

homophobes

[Guest]

HrpO1 is absolutely right in his comment.

[Guest]

HrpO1 is absolutely right in his comment.

Why did you throw that out there when deep inside you know that we are not what he said. The homophobe name calling are the equivalent of calling people racists. You guys can do better then those old cliches.

When your ammo is empty, throw dirt.