Republican Debate
 

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

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.

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.

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.)

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:

Watching the video, it seems like it only last a couple of seconds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_977105.html

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

"[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.

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

proud dem (moonbat)
 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Thank you.....

Keep spinning....

Spinning the truth, you mean?:ohdear:

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.

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.

Boo Bird
 

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.

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.

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

You are wise.:icon_wink:

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:

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

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.

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.

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.