Politics

GOP Debate: Did Audience Boo Gay Soldier…or His Question?

GOP Debate: Did Audience Boo Gay Soldier...or His Question?

Stephen Hill (YouTube)

One of the most talked about moments from Thursday’s Republican presidential debate came after a video question from a gay soldier serving in Iraq when several boos were heard from the crowd.

In the question, directed at former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Stephen Hill asked: “Under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”

Before Santorum responded to the question, members of the audience were heard booing. The prevailing media narrative immediately became that the audience booed a gay service member, little more than a week after the last debate when the audience seemed to cheer a man’s death.

But listen to the video carefully: The first boo isn’t heard until after Hill finishes his question — not when he introduces himself as a gay soldier, nor when he said he had to “lie about who [he] was” when he was first deployed. It sounds like the boos weren’t directed at Hill himself, but at his question.

Nevertheless, here’s a sample of the headlines that ran following the debate:

  • “Presidential debate audience members boo gay soldier; Rick Santorum would reinstate DADT” (Washington Post)
  • “Debate crowd booed gay soldier” (ABC)
  • “Gay soldier booed at GOP debate; candidates stay mum” (The Hill)
  • “Republican Debate Audience Boos Gay Soldier Stephen Hill After DADT Question” (Huffington Post)
  • “Audience Members of GOP Debate Boo Stephen Hill, Gay Soldier Serving in Iraq” (Mediaite)

At least one major news organization seemed to note the nuance: The Los Angeles Times‘ headline read, “At GOP debate, crowd boos gay soldier‘s question on ’don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

According to audience member Sarah Rumpf, there’s another problem with the way the story played: It wasn’t “the crowd” that booed, but rather one or two individuals who were quickly shushed. Rumpf wrote on her blog:

There was audible booing after his question…however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people. [Emphasis hers]

I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!“ ”No!“ ”Shut up, you idiot!” etc.

Santorum addressed the issue Friday with on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, including why he didn’t comment on the booing right when it happened, instead continuing with his answer.

“I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos, and had I heard them I certainly would have commented on them,” he said, saying that he condemns the audience’s reaction. “I would have said, don’t do that, this man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.”

Although Santorum referred to it as “the people who booed that gay soldier,” Kelly pointed out that it was unclear whether the reaction was directed toward Hill himself or the content of his question.

Video via Fox News:

The entire episode raises a question: Audience members frequently cheer (and boo) candidates’ answers during debates — audience reaction can even be critical to a candidate’s perceived performance. Is the audience not allowed to show its discontent at a line of questioning it doesn’t like? Chris Wallace certainly got a taste of the audience’s displeasure at the GOP debate last month, after former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused him of asking a “gotcha” question.

Furthermore, nearly every searchable headline on the incident refers to the crowd booing a “gay” soldier — if the audience did boo Hill, not just his question, isn‘t saying they booed a member of America’s armed forces offense enough?

Comments (473)

1 2 3 ... 8
  • headbtweenlegs
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:27pm

    Does he take showers with women? If that’s the deal I will lie …giggity!

    Report Post » headbtweenlegs  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:32pm

      If gays serving in the military causes a problem with unit cohesion then the problem is generating from the straight guys, not the gays. The straight guys need to get over it. They fight for everyone’s freedom. Straight republican guys always think that every gay guy wants to have sex with them and that people will think they are gay if they don’t distance themselves from gay people.

      The ones who have the problem are the straight soldiers and they need to quit crying about it. If the person next to you is willing to give their life trying to save yours then it’s pretty stupid to worry about this.

      We are talking about Republicans, though.

      Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:41pm

      “If the person next to you is willing to give their life trying to save yours then it’s pretty stupid to worry about this.”

      This being the possibility of someone falling in love with you–oh God, what a tragic occurrence, am I right?

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • 1TrueOne55
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:46pm

      Do we know who those that created the issue are and if they have anything to do with conservative ideology. Remember there are no background checks of audience members and being on a college campus anyone could be of the Progressive mind and trying to create problems for those on the stage or even event Sponsors so I would not be too excited at these tactics.

      Report Post » 1TrueOne55  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:54pm

      @Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American

      You sound like an absolute flipping moron. If the persons next to you is a rapist, has sex with chickens, and molests children, who has the problem? Let me guess, it is the heterosexual soldier.

      what makes this topic so hard for you people to understand. Have you ever served in the military? Do you share a shower, small living space, and live in open bay tents for a year at a time with a bunch of gays?

      Listen up, this has to be the 50th time typing this in a week.

      Gays are only two percent of the population (less in the military),. They carry 80% of the AIDS, 64% of the syphilis; they have high suicide, drug abuse, and alcohol abuse. They tend not to get along with those around them (ask a cop).

      Combat can be a bloody mess, thus the combat part. This is not a big civil rights play ground, were we sit in the imaginary fox hole, smoke cigarettes, and have a good old gay time. It is the U.S military.

      Do you have any idea how much putting gays in the military is about to cost the American tax payer? it will not increase lethality, it will degrade it. It will force much higer medical costs; weaken cohesion, and lower morale.

      Every nation in the world that accepted homosexuality, did so on their way to the bottom, and died as a nation soon after. No exceptions. What you are doing, is signing the death warrant of a nation. Are you that stupid?

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • RLTW
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:58pm

      BQ’SF’CA
      If you really think that, you’re stupid. In this case it’s not the military’s job to adjust to gays, it’s time for gays to adjust to the UCMJ, and they for decades will fail, that is the disruption that’s started.
      I could care less about what your sexual pref is, but why should anyone be forced to except it? If you F’ed squirrels should I think it’s OK?

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:12pm

      @RLTW

      You hit the nail on the head. The left and the gays think everyone should bow to their little needs wants, and concerns. Very soon, they will start screaming for all manner of new rights and privileges. I am stationed on a very large post. I will cut and paste on here when it happens. I will guarantee, that the lesbians will be the first to holler/ They will want lesbian night at the officers club, and other such stuff. they will know that officers will be afraid of them. All they will have to do is scream EQUAL OPPORTUNITY violation. I am a poor female, and I am lesbian, and now the chain of command is picking on me. Rachel Maddow, and the rest of the MSM libs will all come running to defend them. This is all going to turn into a big mess, and the highest ranking members of our military are going to turn a blind eye, and tell congress that everything is fine. We have become a nation of weak minded, politically correct punks. men are few and far between, and very few have any real character these days.

      keep leading the way.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Obama Bin Lying
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:18pm

      Bible qoutin douche bag. You should sell your computer as you only dumb up the internet. I tell you what…let me shower with the female soldiers. It is the same thing

      Report Post » Obama Bin Lying  
    • Edct
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:25pm

      Oh my God it is so politically incorrect to think that a gay is an immoral sick pervert that is such a negative disgusting influence on American society since God destroyed Sodom for such a sick sin let’s hope the audience was not rude to this poor individual.

      Report Post »  
    • Virgil_Lance
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:40pm

      Wow,
      Great point BQSFCA! Why shouldn’t gay combat soldiers have the right to advertise their sexual preference and feel comfortable with it. Maybe they can have gay flags outside their barracks and gay power rainbow patches on their uniform. You’re right; the problem is with the straight republican soldiers – especially the Christian ones. Religious symbols, prayer before combat and prayer for fallen comrades have no place in a U.S. combat zone because it might make atheists feel uncomfortable. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio got it right when she banned the words “God,” and “Jesus” during funeral services for Christian soldiers. Isn’t it wonderful that female Christian soldiers are being “encouraged” to wear Islamic headscarves so that Muslims don’t feel uncomfortable. It’s obvious that with all of these wonderful changes, nobody will feel uncomfortable – at least nobody important!

      Report Post » Virgil_Lance  
    • drattastic
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:56pm

      Anyone with at least half a brain know that gays openly serving in the military will cause problems. It’s already starting and will only get worse. Not all but too many gays are constant crybabies who want attention and special treatment which is never ending ,once one “goal” is reached it’s time to move the goalpost. I for one am sick of the victim mentality by them and others.

      Report Post » drattastic  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:06pm

      Worse still, the repeal of DADT has been linked to the DEATH of bird and fish in Arkansas. Seriously. Here’s Cyndy Jacobs with the story.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17WGTvPHGg

      Report Post » jzs  
    • WeeeDontNeeedNoSteeenkinBadges
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:16pm

      Question: “GOP Debate: Did Audience Boo Gay Soldier…or His Question?”

      And the answer is … BOTH!
      Well done, Americans!

      Report Post » WeeeDontNeeedNoSteeenkinBadges  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:35pm

      Hey gays in the military… who cares if you got boooed? I would have boooed to if I was there.

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:10am

      @jzs
      I’m pretty sure you are the one bent over in front of Stephen Hill while he did his thing.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:26am

      Maybe Homos will be issued rainbow fatigues so that they can stand out! Just playing, sort of…..

      My stance is it is none of Governments business if your **** or hereto, straight or backward. Keep it in your pants while your serving. One isn’t serving for a Homos agenda, one is serving to defend our country. 

      I agree with servicemen like Ranger P in that this seems to be a recognition agenda, not an equality agenda as we are being fed by the media. I also agree with Ranger P that if the military isn’t careful this agenda will be used against them and cause more problems then it fixed and might actually weaken our military or at the least strain it. 

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • NukeHaze
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 1:34am

      all soldiers coming into training are treated the same but now we have the 15 minute stress free card. We are literally castrating our military and the military way of life. It is absolutely different from civilian life in many many ways. One example is that there is double jeopardy if you break civilian laws. Another is that a man is guilty until proven innocent if he is accused of rape so it is best to be responsible with whom you are intimate and not engage in one night stands or, heaven forbid, make the wrong gal mad at you. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ. If a straight male were to walk into the barracks of the female soldiers and take a shower with a shower full of females, I dare say there would be tremendous consequences laid upon him beginning with Leavenworth and ending in Dishonorable Discharge after serving a lot of time.

      I concede to these facts knowing that General George Washington’s main training officer that helped us win the Revolutionary War was a gay French officer who had a fondness for strapping young men. That behaviour, however, had no place in the training or deployment of our forces. The fact is that you give up a lot of priveleges from civilian life when you swear in the oath for the third time. You lose certain protections, privacies, and as they say “uncle Sam owns your arse now so go ahead and write your Congressman…it won’t make any difference”. You cannot choose bith lifestyles at the same time and fully belong to or embrace ei

      Report Post »  
    • Trail_Boss
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 1:51am

      Ever stop to think that the enemies of America may have a problem with it? O yea that’s right America is invincible so what our enemies think has no bearing on anything. No danger there.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 1:52am

      PatriotDave, I’m trying measure of your character. Because you would “boo” a member of the US military, a guy who would give his life for the country, your dislike of gays must be deeper than your patriotism. But what I wonder is, is that because your patriotism is so shallow, or because your dislike of gays is so deep.

      Do you feel a little awkward and stiff around someone you think might be gay?

      Report Post » jzs  
    • dracothedragon
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:02am

      At Bible Quotin…..once again we are being ruled by the minority thought process. A process which is slowly destroying this country at many many levels slowly but surely. The heterosexual male is the dominant majority. If the gays want to be able to come out. I say let them. We can create a Sacred Band of Thebes unit. They can shower together and bone each other up the a-hole in a massive gay orgy. Gay men showering with heterosexual men gives me the creeps. If we allow this. Then we should allow men and woman to shower together like Starship Troopers. Same difference. Then again…..maybe it is happening in our military as we speak. Not sure. I will have to research it.

      Report Post »  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:23am

      JZS,
      I don‘t care what you are trying to measure and I’m guessing I don’t want to know. And for the record, I wouldn’t boo someone in the military because they are military, but I would boo them because they are gay.
      Your comment and this response may not be completely understood by all because The Blaze deleted my second comment where I said I have no problem with being homophobic. And my reasons are the same… Being homophobic is normal because I have a high standard of morals, which is something lost on homosexuals. Nwo does this mean I go around looking to bash gays? No, absolutely not. It’s not up to me to judge you, I’ll leave that up to our creator. But on the same hand I don‘t have to bow down to some stupid pressure by gays because they don’t want to feel inferior. Too bad, you had a choice… and you chose badly!
      Homophobics unite!

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • NukeHaze
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:44am

      I wouldn’t call it homophobia but rather heterophilia, with morals.

      Report Post »  
    • MetalPatriot
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:50am

      Ok, about the whole gay sex thing. Guys get upset because it’s guy on guy rear access. Now, what about if I want to participate in guy on girl rear access? That’s equally taboo…and people DO talk about it with their buddies or girlfriends.

      Is this a moral issue? Should all talk of sexuality be banned? The only thing I know for sure is that my sexuality should be banned….lol!!

      Report Post » MetalPatriot  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:12am

      One thing your post confirms is that your objection to gays is stronger that your support of a gay man or woman who enters the service of this country and is willing to give their life for our country. You would “boo” them still based on your strong morals. Christian morals I assume. Good for you.

      As far as I can tell the Koran doesn’t say much about homosexuality, but the Bible does. The bible says, “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

      Would you both “boo” them and have them them put to death? Or is there an intermediate morality, one somewhere between the biblical injunction to kill gays, and openly expressing your disaproval to their face. I believe that’s the case with you, although I doubt you have the moral conviction to actually confront a gay person with their “immorality.”

      You don’t support the execution of gays, in accordance with the punishment specified the Bible (in other words, you don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible). But you feel like you can and you are willing to openly tell gays they are immoral. Do I have that right?

      Report Post » jzs  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:49am

      THEPATRIOTDAVE,

      Why don’t you just yell “OBAMA 20012” and call it a night?

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:53am

      Church people are such morons.

      “The left and the gays think everyone should bow to their little needs wants, and concerns.”

      That’s what you fairy-tale believing church-mongers do.

      Good thing christianity is on it’s way out.

      This idea that gay people uncontrollably have anal sex and prance around wanting to anal-rape all the straight guys every time they turn their backs is like saying that every straight man is a rapist waiting to happen.

      I think you church-going skoal-dippers are just afraid of finding out that BOTH sexes reject you. Church is poison.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 5:20am

      @ThePatriotDave

      You may want to reread your reply post to JZS…..You say you would boo the Homos dude, but then say you wouldn’t judge. Isn’t booing a judgement of disapproval? 

      I agree being Homos shouldn’t be pushed on us and it shouldnt be used as an agenda like it is. Let them be Homos, that is their problem. 

      Also, homophobic is fear of Homos. Seriously, are you scared of Homos? You are to fear God and nothing else. Fear gives power to what is feared. Something to ponder, Dave. 

      @JZS
      Good comments. I hope you are doing good. Hope to have a good debate sometime! Stay well! 

      @GetLife
      Now that is funny! 

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:00am

      @jzs

      The religion of peace teaches that homosexuality is worthy of death

      Qur’an (7:80-84) – “…For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds…. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)” – An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the “rain of stones” on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people’s destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).

      What they teach, and practice are two separate things. Southern Afghanistan if you will, is the gayest population of anywhere I ever lived. They believe women to be dirty, but have no problem raping a young boy. If you study homosexual cultures, having sex with young boys is generally the way it goes. Once gay marriages gets passed in the U,S, lowering the age of consent will be next on the agenda.

      These people think they are so enlightened and smart. None of this is new; it is the same old evil. Just because we have cell phones, MTV, internet….. We think we are different. Old Socrates was typical of this type. He worshipped his own brain. In the end, he had sex with a young boy, sacrificed a chicken to a false snake god, and then killed himself. I guess he was right when he said “the one thing i know, is that I know nothing”

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:11am

      RLTW

      Some on here have this belief that because this gay dude is in the Army, that it is wrong to speak badly of him. They do not stop to think that we volunteer for this. There are turds among us that are not worth a flip of a wooden nickel. Most that serve will never step in harm’s way, and only a small percent do the fighting. Even among these, there are turds. Just because you serve does not make you some hero.

      There is a difference from serving and serving honorably and with respect to the uniform and the nation. I do not respect a man/woman, just because they serve. I could have been a plumber, or delivered pizza, I chose to wear the uniform of the Army. Just because I chose to be a soldier does not make me above reproach. It is what you do while in uniform that counts. If you wear the uniform, then spout about your gay rights, you are putting your deviance and sexuality before the military and the nation.

      If a soldier stood up, and told us that he was a swinger, and has sex with other soldiers wives, and that the Army his not supporting his sexual desires, would the left support him? That would be putting his sexual desires before the duty of being in the Army. We all of a sudden think that all these gay perverts should have their wants and needs met.

      thanks again for your service.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Obama Been Lauding
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:44am

      I served over 35 years in the military, and this is one of the craziest things I have heard of!!!
      When Clinton signed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” order, I went to my base commander, directly, and confronted him on the issue.
      My exact argument to him was the same as what you just said, I want to shower and house with the women, because that is my ‘sexual preference’, and why should I not be allowed my ‘sexual preference’, if gays are allowed to be with theirs???
      People in the private sector have no idea what this all means. Now they can flaunt their sexuality, and if anyone laughs, or gigs them on it, all hell will break loose.
      Mark my words, this is going to be a “Big” problem in close quarters!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • realindependent
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:45am

      Everyone that serves in the military knows there are gays serving in the military. period. this isnt about bieng gay its about not having to wake up everyday and lie about who you are. imagine if you had to wake up everyday and pretend to be a liberal? It would make you sick, angry, sad, and probably for most of you “ people” suicidal. Thats what this is about. We live in a coubtry where you can be who you want when you want as long as it doesnt break the law. DADT didnt make being gay in the military illegal. It means what it says. Dont Ask, Dont Tell. which is stupid. cause if someone is gay. and you spend any time around them. your gonna know it. why must we have segregation in 2011? and yes thats what this is a civil rights issue. I know most of your religion says homosexuality is a sin, well thats fine thats your opinion and beliefs and your free to have that opinion. Just as homosexuals are aloud to believe or feel what they do. Live with it… You live in the greatest country in the world. Thank God for that and turn the other cheek…God will judge us all, so you shouldn’t

      Report Post » realindependent  
    • maliheh
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 8:02am

      tea bag crowd was boo’ing the soldier for being gay

      Report Post » maliheh  
    • robert
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 8:22am

      Notice that this twinkie phrases his question trying to create the impression that dropping DADT is an improvement….instead of a liability….and it would be a hateful thing if other presidents revert back to DADT. It’s just one more attempt by these pitiful souls to mainline their perversity.

      They can’t understand that the policy was dropped, because we have a black president that sees everything through the lens of victimhood.

      This black mindset is dangerous to the security of the US. It was Clinton’s black Energy Secretary, Hazel O’Leary, who dropped assigning clothing tags, designating a person’s level of security clearance at Los Alamos, because she said it showed “discriminatrion.” Consequently, many unauthorized people had access to nuclear secrets who shouldn’t have and some important items were stolen afterwards and given to the Chinese communists.

      Leftist blacks are privileged citizens in this empire, but they retain a victim mentality that makes them too dangerous for high level jobs. This dropping of DADT is another great error by a president who has been GIVEN all this system has to offer in spite of his many inabilities, but he spits in the face of America, because he hates it. He wants to destroy this country and rewrite its history.

      Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 8:55am

      @rangerp
      Thanks for that. I served 1984-88. I knew several lesbians (no gay men). They were militant about it. One girl I know got a female officer drunk, had a relationship with her (in the bushes, no less) and then blackmailed her into a full blown steady relationship. When the relationship was discovered, the officer was dismissed, and the enlisted girl was transfered. I asked once why they didn’t do anything about the lesbians, as it was supposed to be cause for dismissal. I was told there were too many lesbians high up. They danced openly with each other in the enlisted club (back then!). I was told by this same enlisted woman that she would rather bend a straight woman than date another lesbian.

      Report Post »  
    • Professional Infidel
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 9:11am

      When I served men were in the Military. Now women, Gays, join the ranks??? Does Gay mean Happy? Sort of like imitation stuff, First the Original. Was not that first Army thought out or were the Gays, and Women forgotten then?? Glad I‘m a 1960’s era vet.

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 9:26am

      Ranger…. well said (your first post)

      Realindependent….. you’re an idiot and obviously have no concept of military life. This isn’t about the freedom to be who you are. You VOLUNTARILY join the military, there are certain codes you live by and certain freedoms you suspend while serving.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • obamasacommie
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 11:15am

      My understanding of the UCMJ is that we arent to use our uniform and the fact that we are in the military to give our opinions in a public setting. I think this **** should be charged with UCMJ actions for giving his opinons on a national stage in uniform. If i were to go to a Tea Party event and give a speech in uniform and it was televised on either the local or national news i assure you i would be hauled into the commanders office for a reprimand.

      Report Post » obamasacommie  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 11:56am

      This story is a joke for several reasons:

      1) Is it my imagination, or did The Blaze run a story about a week ago where it blatantly MADE UP something it THOUGHT Michelle Obama MIGHT have said based on Beck’s completely amateur lip-reading skills. (And it should be noted that Beck stuck by this interpretation even after they brought in an actual lip-reader who had a completely different take on it).

      And yet, when it comes to this incident, The Blaze is suddenly open to the subtle question of whether the Republicans were booing the soldier himself, or the fact that the soldier was exercising his right to ask a question of these candidates for higher office. (Somehow it’s more acceptable to boo when someone serving his country wants to actually participate and think for himself).

      2) Who is the Blaze kidding? It seems the writers never actually read the comment board–does it really think it will somehow prove that The Republicans here are no anti-gay because of the timing of the boos? If you want to complain about bad press, complain about something that is NOT TRUE! Otherwise, take responsibility for your views. (Note that out of the candidates, only Huntsman defended the soldier–all the rest dodged the question quite shamefully).

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:12pm

      RangerP,

      You have a point there about the difference between respecting a person and respecting the uniform. I respect your service, but I certainly think that you are a bigoted blowhard.

      As RealIndependent pointed out, the question here is not whether there are gays in the military–there are, and always will be, since there is no actual way to keep them out. The issue here is whether an American should have the right to serve his country without living in constant fear of being kicked out of the military for something about themselves that they cannot control. And as for diseases–the United States does not determine who should and who should not have basic rights to equality based on the idea that there is a higher percentage of a certain disease in a population. Your attempt to use these statistics to justify discrimination is just stupid.

      Report Post »  
    • SavvyCowboy
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:50pm

      @rangerp – Well said (serving and serving honorably). I am a retired 1SG and agree that 90% or my time was spent dealing with 10% of my troops (the turds). I am glad I retired long before DADT was repealed. Having open gays/lesbians in the military will destroy union cohesion and esprit de corps. But that’s what all leftists want, a weak military, so the next time we need to go to war we will have to envoke the draft. The repeal of DADT was an extremely STUPID thing to do but then we have a moron for a president. I’m sorry you have him for a CINC “rangerp”. But hang in there – help is on the way – we’ll get a GOOD CONSERVATIVE in the White House – maybe Chris Christy will jump in then get elected!

      Report Post » SavvyCowboy  
    • Wetmouse
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 1:06pm

      I think Gays should be shot at if anybody ! Yes the boo’s were for the question.

      Report Post » Wetmouse  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:54pm

      Spartans were the strongest fighters of the ancient world; feared by every standing army. Their effectiveness is a direct result of the strategy – the Spartan Phalanx. The Phalanx required them to stand really close to one another so their shields overlapped seamlessly.

      In order to prepare themselves for these potentially awkwardly close situations (keep in mind they fought mostly naked) it is believed they would engage in homosexuals relations with one another.

      True, Rome collapsed (after over 1000 years of uncontested glory), but it certainly was not because there were gays in their military or anywhere else in their nation. The homosexual tendency of their military only aided in strengthening their ranks.

      Anyone who thinks Gays should be treated any less than a “normal” person is obviously not an American. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness – the rights of all men, not just the heterosexual.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:03pm

      @realindependent

      Did you read any of the supporting comments, or arguments on why we do not need gays serving?

      Are you unable to apply logic to this situation? The U.S. military is not some big civil rights play ground, where everyone gets a trophy for showing up. The goal is to have a military that is able to fight and win our battles, and defend our interests both at home and abroad.

      Have you ever served? Did you at least play sports? Do you know about team building, cohesion, morale, discipline?

      Homosexuals by the virtue of what they do, define themselves by their deviant sex behavior. Let me break this down Barney style for you. I is not natural for one man, to poke another man in the butt. If you fail to acknowledge this, than you have serious problems. American always knew this, and it was common knowledge. Then MTV, Rosie o Fat Butt, Ellen the Degenerate, and others rammed it down America’s throat that homosexuality was normal. It aint normal, either is having sex with farm animals, children, multiple wives, swingers….. It is a sexual perversion. So says the Bible, and so says nature, and so says history. Nations that allow homosexuality to flourish, fail, and crumble, it is not about opinion, it is about truth.

      Once again, they do not coincide with Army life, they have very high crime rates, 80% of AIDS, 64% of Syphilis, drug and alcohol problems, more likely to commit suicide.

      Pull your head out of your civil rights minded butt.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:09pm

      @SavvyCowboy

      Good comments, thanks.

      How is it that those officers and NCOs that served 20 plus years, all see ending DADT as stupid, and as being against our military, and a step in destroying the nation?

      It is the ones that never served that do not seem to get it. They are also the ones that seem to be the most opinionated.

      I cannot imagine being the company 1SG, and having to deal with the homosexuals in the unit issue. We have enough smarts that we do not shower males and females together, but now we will be telling our normal heterosexual soldiers, to shut up and do not snivel when we put a queer in amongst them. It goes against common sense.

      Leaders with serious rank on their colors will be lying to congress, and telling them that it is all working out fine, as they jockey for position in the impending socialist take over.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • robert
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:36pm

      VoteBushIn12
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:54pm
      “Spartans were the strongest fighters of the ancient world……………In order to prepare themselves for these potentially awkwardly close situations (keep in mind they fought mostly naked) it is believed they would engage in homosexuals relations with one another.”

      “True, Rome collapsed (after over 1000 years of uncontested glory), but it certainly was not because there were gays in their military or anywhere else in their nation. ”

      How on earth would fighting nearly naked in close quarters have anything to do with homosexuality? Spartans were indeed some of history’s greatest fighters, but they were Greek, not Romans as you aluded to. And it was not Sparta but another Greek state that utilized homosexuals, probably Thebes.

      They placed boy lovers in the rear ranks with their older mentor/lovers in the front, the theory being the ones in the front would fight harder so the enemy would not reach their boy partners in the rear. Homosexuals were, therfore, used as a tactic, not because they were particularly effective.

      Roman Centurians lambasted and ridiculed the Greeks for allowing homosexuals in their ranks. The ranks of the Roman Centurians most certainly were not gay, and they ruthlessly defeated the Greeks.

      In fact most armies of the ancient world ridiculed all Greeks for the few who used homosexuals, deriding them as “those effiminate Greeks.”

      Report Post »  
    • Clive
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:45pm

      ps… ranger p…
      they surveyed this among all military branches, the majority of the military doesn’t care about the sexual orientation of their fellow fighters… again, the other side are people like you, who are repressed homosexuals, that can’t admit it. people like you will be like dinosaurs in twenty years. dems, independents, and even a lot of republicans don’t care what anymore. you can get all angry now, and watch some g@y p0rn to take your mind off of things. then hate yourself for it later.

       
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:47pm

      @PubliusPencilNeck

      “question here is not whether there are gays in the military–there are, and always will be, since there is no actual way to keep them out”

      “The issue here is whether an American should have the right to serve his country without living in constant fear of being kicked out of the military ”

      Your two statements above, show your stupidity. Weather you know it or not, currently in our military, we have rapists, child molester, thieves, murderers, and all manner of heathens serving. We will never keep them all out, just like the sodomites. keeping out degenerates and deviants is different to allowing it, making them into a special and protected class of people, with special untouchable rights. This is not civil rights play ground we are talking about, it is the U.S. Military.

      “the right to serve his country” -Guess what? military service is not a right, and it never was. Do blind people have the right to serve as your local fireman. Do ex cons have a right to be a policeman? Do foxes have a right to guard the hen house? Your line of logic is not logical. We keep all manner of folks out of the military. We do not allow people to have multiple wives, adultery is not allowed (I will come back to that), rapists are not allowed. Once again, this is not civil rights play time, it is the military.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • robert
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:53pm

      To the people on here who are bringing up every non-related incident of homosexuality years ago in other nations, let me tell you that none of the Asian countries tolerate it now, nor did they tolerate it in the past, the same as the West refused to do for years before the Cultural Marxist manipulators took over Western societies.

      And as regards the Middle East, their policy toward homosexuals is the same as it is today, which is illustrated by the following video that speaks for ALL Muslims:

      “US Muslim, Kill the Homosexuals!~Video
      This is a video interview of an American Muslim from their September 25Th Capital Hill prayer outing. He clearly states that if Sharia Law becomes the law of the USA, that homosexuals shall be put to death.

      From the “Sodomy and Lesbianism” chapter of Reliance of the Traveller
      A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law

      “p17.3 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

      “(1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”

      http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-muslim-kill-homosexualsvideo.html

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:53pm

      New question, and I do not have the answer.

      New policy claims soldiers can be bisexual. Does this apply to our married soldiers?

      As an officer, I have done 15-6 investigations on soldiers cheating on their wives. It can end a career. Are we violating “rights” if we say married soldiers can not be bisexual? Can Joe, have a wife at home, deploy, have himself a gay buddy, then go back home.

      I find it absolutely sickening to even type what I did above, just showing that we are opening Pandora ’s Box with this.

      DADT stayed out of peoples bedrooms. You could keep your mouth shut, and serve. Now we will have the sodomites parading their sick, evil, deviants in front of the rest of us. it is what gays do. Go to Google Images and type “gay ” enlighten yourself, this is what they are, and what they do.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:59pm

      @Clive

      take a vote there Clive, and see if more people on here agree with me, or the idiots like you.

      The thing I hate about the blaze, I can not look a turd like you in the eyes, and then open hand smack about a weeks worth of slobber out of your stupid mouth.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • henryKnox
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 5:15pm

      The problem is when someone wants to get in your face to flaunt their sexuality. I would also have a problem if someone were to go around making a point in every conversation that he was a pedophile or a heterosexual or a necrophiliac. Why don’t they all keep it to themselves and go about the business of getting their job done?

      Report Post » henryKnox  
    • avenger
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 5:52pm

      this is crazy..Roman Empire had the same problem and you should know what happened to rome !GONE.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 7:28pm

      RangerP,

      Go ahead–show how childish you really are by making fun of the screen name. I’m sure it makes you happy.

      “we have rapists, child molester, thieves, murderers, and all manner of heathens serving.”
      Yes, but there is an obvious difference. These are crimes. Homosexuality is not a crime. Did you not notice this when you were typing your drivel? Or do you just not think about what you say?

      “Do blind people have the right to serve as your local fireman. Do ex cons have a right to be a policeman?”
      I’m beginning to think that you actually do not know what an analogy is. You see, you are supposed to be presenting two comparable situations. In the first case, a blind person is physically unable to perform those duties–however, the fact that there are already gay people in the military shows that there is nothing about being gay that makes you physically unable to serve. In the second example, you seem to be confused about “crimes” again. And not for nothing, but when someone is convicted of a crime in this country, they are tried as an individual–not condemned based on how one feels about their “group.”

      But how about this analogy: would it be considered discrimination if they decided that black people can no longer serve? That they threaten unit cohesion? Oh wait–that battle has already been fought…

      Report Post »  
    • VoteBushIn12
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 7:44pm

      @Avenger
      Ancient Rome last over thousand years. The USA has just over 230 under its belt.

      Rome grew beyond the limits of its communication lifeline. The USA has internet, telecoms, and airplanes.

      Rome was sacked by the Gauls. The USA has yet to be.

      You cannot even compare the two.

      There are many theories as to why Rome collapsed, “homosexuals” is not one of them:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

      In addition to having Homosexuals, Rome had running water, a standing military, city states, currency, paved roads, hospitals, fine art, etc. By the laws of propositional logic the claim (Gays therefore Collapse of Rome) is just as valid as the claim (Sunlight therefore Collapse of Rome) or (I like pie therefore Collapse of Rome). That is to say, if the implicator is false the assertion will still validate to true. The only time an implication is false is if the implicator is true and the implicated is false. Because Rome DID collapse (the implicated is true), any argument can stand as an implicator and therefore asses to true.

      In other words, you’re an idiot.

      Report Post » VoteBushIn12  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 9:11pm

      @PubliusPencilNeck.

      My analogy is based on “choice”

      Rapist chose to rape, child molesters chose to molest children, the chicken lovers….. well, you get the picture.

      Some want to compare the blacks and their civil rights struggle with homosexuality. There is no comparison, as skin color is benign and non behavioral, were homosexuality is pure behavior.

      Yes, they currently serve, and 99 times out of 100, you know who they are, and they do not serve well. Someone on here brought up PFC Bradley Manning, the little queer that spilled info for wiki leaks. I have served with a number of gays and lesbians. All have been subpar performers,. I worked with a female captain at the Officer Candidate School who was a lesbian. She was also African American. The chain of command feared her, because of the double EO issue. She was a recruiter for lesbianism. I was the senior tactical officer, and she is bar none, the worst military instructor I ever dealt with. There were prior service candidates in OCS. The prior Special Forces and Ranger dudes that ended up in her platoon all got ranked lowest by her, but their peers ranked them at the top. She always wanted to rank black females at the top. Instead of getting fired, she got moved laterally. This is just one example. Every gay person I have served with has been a problem. They do not make good soldiers, or good citizens. There is a reason the Bible calls them an abomination.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 9:41pm

      sometimes I see all the problems we have as a nation, and I wonder why people are too foolish to look to our past, and learn/

      Our military went from small, to the millions during WWII. We needed soldiers for Europe and the Pacific, and in a short ammount of time, we had the best military in the world. We did not allow homosexuals to serve. It was not even considered, as people knew better.

      For those who believe in evolution. I think you have it backwards, looks more like we are devolving.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • jamesm80
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 11:17pm

      @ RANGERRP

      I’ll just caveat this with I am not a homosexual. I do serve in the Army. I do share a shower and close living spaces. If you think that homosexuality is a major problem in the Army you’re delusional. Every week I have to deal drinking and driving, domestic disputes, drugs, not paying bills, stealing, lying, cheating on wives.

      Why is it that when some one is a homosexual people equate it with criminal acts, or worst bestiality? You wrote that accepting a homosexual soldier would be like accepting “a rapist, [someone who] has sex with chickens, and molests children. If you really think that adult relationships between two men or women is like some one who violently rapes someone, or who has sex with animals or children you are sick in the head.

      Will you explain to me how every nation that accepted homosexuality “died as a nation soon after”. Please don’t use some generalized statement like that, get down to specifics.

      Do you think that when armed forces increased so rapidly during the early 1940s, you don’t think that gay men were not within those millions? Or did homosexuality only start recently-they didn‘t supposedly allow any gay men in because men didn’t admit to it out of shame.

      Report Post »  
    • Nlitend1
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 11:21pm

      @Voteinbush12
      You must live in California and be gay or have developed an unhealthy tolerance due to your frequent exposure. Due to this, your facts cannot be trusted and your arguments are moot, without regard to their veracity. The only facts that we can accept here are distorted to support a deep hatred of all that we choose not to understand. For instance, Romans killed jesus because they were gay, and g-d punishes the gay. If you need a citation for this ‘fact’, I suggest you see westboro baptist church and/or pat robertson. They provide more ‘truth’ than your left wing professors could ever dispense.
      Welcome to the blaze

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 11:46pm

      RangerP,

      Ah, choice! I see. I thought you were trying to say something specific. Instead, you just blather on with some vague nonsense. Again, do you really ever put thought into what you are saying? It apparently does not bother you that the comparison makes no sense. I’m sure there is no point in telling you that it is not a choice, so I’m not going to bother.

      But really, you say that every gay person you have met is a problem, but you are so obviously biased that you have no credibility here. But sure, even if you think every gay person you have ever met made a bad soldier, that would still not be enough to exclude gay people from the armed services. Why? Because of what I have been saying–rights are given to individuals, and it’s individuals that we evaluate, not groups.

      Report Post »  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 12:20am

      @Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American

      The Gay Rights Agenda is like a p.e.n.i.s…..
      1. Its ok to have one.
      2. It’s ok to be proud of it.
      3. Don’t whip it out in public and wave it around.
      4. Don‘t try shoving it down my children’s throat.

      It is soldiers of various religious faiths that will now be disregarded and their beliefs will no longer be accommodated nor tolerated. The military services have no plans to create separate living & shower areas for gay soldiers. For the same reason we do not have co-ed showers in the military we should not force hetero and gays to shower in common facilities nor should they be compelled to have them as roommates. If a Christian soldier objects to these arrangements and is denied accommodation based on his beliefs, then the government will have a serious problem.

      Here is the quartering problem:

      1. You can’t have two gays in the same room together for the same reason we do not allow males to room with females.
      2. You can’t force a religious service member to room with a gay sm.
      3. Shower facilities have the same issues above.
      4. An equitable solution would be individual rooms and showers but this will never happen due to cost.
      5. Allow sm’s to reside off-base and pay them the same subsidy that married soldiers receive for quarters. This too will never happen.

      Conclusion: Soldiers that object will not be accommodated. The courts will soon be hearing from them and rightly so.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 1:08am

      Perp, if you think you can impose Sharia law on this country you should take stock. We’re not killing gay people in this country to comply with Sharia law. Nice try, but it ain’t happening. You will not impose your laws on the United States of America.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 1:14am

      NukeHaze
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:44am
      I wouldn’t call it homophobia but rather heterophilia, with morals.
      ==============================================
      Excellent idea!

      America is in Dire Need of a Hero…
      Mine is Allen West!

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 1:39am

      rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:11am
      RLTW
      Some on here have this belief that because this gay dude is in the Army, that it is wrong to speak badly of him.
      ==================================
      Excellent post. You obviously “get it” and deserve a congratulations.

      Everytime one of these conversations comes up, the supporters of bad behaviour come crawling out from under the rocks. And taking it one step further, I find it amazing how people with high moral standards are now the bad guys in todays society. Just more proof of how screwed-up the world is in the year 2011.
      They can live their life the way they want to because they live in a free country and I will honor that, but that’s as far as I go. THEY KNOW and I KNOW, that what they do is very immoral and wrong, so they should NOT get special treatment or consideration for anything. It is THEY that have to defend their actions, not me… I’m the one living a moral life. Not them!

      So once again I announce to anyone that cares…. I’m homophobic and proud of it! Hear that JZS?!

      NOTE: Did you know that JZS gets paid Soros money to come here and give Glenn Beck fans a hard time by arguing against anything we are FOR? (Media Matters Inc)

      America is in Dire Need of a Hero…
      Mine is Allen West!

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • thepatriotdave
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 1:45am

      realindependent
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:45am
      Everyone that serves in the military knows there are gays serving in the military. period. this isnt about bieng gay its about not having to wake up everyday and lie about who you are. imagine if you had to wake up everyday and pretend to be a liberal?
      ========================================
      There is a simple fix to the above problem… you chose to be gay, but now that you are you are openly gay your finding it tough to get acceptance. Then un-choose! Yeah, that’s right, simply start living a moral life and the problem goes away. If you go straight you would never have to lie again about your sexuality.

      Report Post » thepatriotdave  
    • libsdolie
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 6:57am

      As a retired military member hard to answer.. Gay in the military, I for one am glad that i do not have to answer this question….
      Should he or she be allowed to serve and die for his country?…….YES no doubt….
      Could it affect unit morale?….. YES
      In certain units this could be a question…YES
      Should the militarty and all units adapt to a persons personal habits or wishes?….No
      Should a unit have to be sensitive to a members orentation?…No
      So the answer to this question is…NO
      If you do not believe this let our proud sevice members vote about it?

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 9:15am

      PencilNeck and Jamesm80

      We equate homosexuality with immorality for a number of reasons. First and foremost, our Bible tells us it is a sin, and abomination, and is evil. That is enough for me. When I look at history, I see that nations that accepted it all fell. There is no super power gay nation. America is falling quickly, we are crumbling from the inside, like a cancer. Our education is in a mess, crime is out of control, we have the largest population of people behind bars, our economy is a mess, we owe trillions to China…. and guess what. All of a sudden, we think being gay is great, that they should get married, serve in the military…. Once again, nations that accept it, fall, and do it on the way to the bottom, not the way to the top. If you deny, you are delusional.

      I also look at homosexuality in regards to health and crime. Homosexual men have a very high child molestation rate. There is a reason that they have 80% of the nations AIDS and 64 % of syphilis, and that lesbians are twice as likely to have an STD/ There is a reason their suicide, drug, an alcohol rates are much higher.

      Use of illegal drugs is…. well, it is not legal. Child molestation is a crime. Not sure you realize it, but lesbians have a high rate of brutality toward each other.

      It is against Bible truth, we have history to show us that they do not build nations, they help destroy them. and the Center for Disease Control stats show us the health problems with this grou

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 9:17am

      Publius Penci Neck, and JamesM80

      I am off to church, will answer the rest of your question when I get back. Will show you that homosexuality is not genetic, and is from environment, and a series of choices.

      Study up on the genetic thing while I am gone, and enlighten yourself that no study ever was able to show a genetic connection, and those that tried all failed.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 11:58am

      RangerP,

      Again, you are blatantly attempting to dodge my point, and it’s rather pathetic. All of your statistics about “gay crimes” and disease rates have absolutely no bearing, because as I said, it’s a matter of the individual, not the group. When you go to the doctor, you are diagnosed according to diseases YOU have, not those what your group has.

      But African-Americans are more likely to commit a crime, more likely to contract HIV/AIDS, overall have a lower life expectancy and a higher rate of alcoholism and drug problems. Now, again, is this ample evidence to not allow African-Americans to serve in the military? Are you suggesting that these statistics have to do with a genetic inferiority in African-Americans? And not for nothing, but the higher suicide rate among gay people is most often caused by nasty bigots like yourself bullying them.

      And as for civilizations–your wide generalizations are completely useless and entirely unconvincing, so stop just vomiting whatever nonsense comes to your mind and try to argue like a thinking human being.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 1:55pm

      @PubliusPencilNeck.

      No where do I attribute homosexuality to genetics. You want to talk about African Americans, so let us bring them into the discussion.

      In the fifties, look at homosexuality in America. It was almost exclusively white. Look at homosexuality in the U.S, and the fastest growing population of gays is blacks. Is it genetic? To suggest this may violate some PC rules, and is not founded, as all studies showing a genetic gay gene, have turned up false.

      Look at the CDC stats again, and you will notice that blacks (6%) of the population have 64% of the HIV that is from male with male sex. Not sure if you took grad level statics, or research methods, but this is considered statistically significant. Research the topic, and you do not find a whole lot. This is a topic that the gay community does not want looked at.

      When did large numbers of black start turning gay? About the time you see the current welfare programs getting deeply rooted in the black community, you see seven in tend of black babies being born into single parent homes, no fathers, more black men going to prison than to college…. The black community changed socially, and changed for the worse. This is when you see a surge in black homosexuals (what some call love on the down low). This suggests that it is environmental not genetic. Gays fear such language.
      Ever wonder why all of a sudden you see so many long haired black men?

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 2:12pm

      @Pencil Neck

      Do you wonder why every gay article the blaze puts out, that I hammer away with the same Bible, the same history, the same medical info? I do it, because people listen. Some are not used to a man that has not drunk the PC Kool Aid, and will lay out facts. Some are on the fence, and learn by what I say. Go back, and read every post. Look at those who agree. How many read it, learned, and did not reply. Also notice, it is the libs like you that call names, ignore facts, and degrade others. Every time folks like you argue, it makes my points stronger

      When Washington was president, would we have this argument? Would we have it fifty years ago? People used to know right from wrong. Is America getting better, or is it getting worse?

      Notice that your idea of American is far from that of Washington and the fore fathers, but it coincides nicely with the ideals of Madonna and Lady Ga Ga. That should tell you something.

      America is literally crumbling on the inside. With morality issues, degraded education, high crime, out of control debt, tanked economy, high abortion, and we have you and the other libs with a big smile, pushing us more toward homosexuality and destruction/

      My writing means nothing to you, as you reprobates. Your mind is seared and sealed. There are those that listen

      Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, a

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 2:14pm

      Pencil Neck

      Correction on one of my posts above. Blacks make up 12 percent of the population. Black males are six percent, and carry 65% of all new HIV cases per year. That is very significant.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 3:47pm

      @Pencil Neck

      Being my analogies of gays and other sexual deviant behavior threw you, let me make another analogy.

      Currently, a soldier can be punished under the UCMJ Article 134 for adultery.

      Adultary is contrary to good discipline. In cases where a leader has adultery with the spouse of a lower ranking member of the unit, it can be devastating on the unit, and do much to destroy unit cohesion. Adultry is a choice, it violates morality (Biblical once again). Should we do away with this also? Do you believe soldiers should be able to commit adultery, and not be in jeopardy?
      .
      Once again, homosexuality being allowed opens the door to all manner of problems in the military. Currently the new policy states a soldier can be bisexual. Do you believe this coincides with good discipline. Do you see where this can and will cause problems? Should the bisexual status apply to a married soldier. Should a married soldier be able to have a male partner?

      Stats show that gays change partners at a much higher rate than heterosexuals. Do you not see this being a problem in the military?
      Again, all of this will detract from concentrating on the mission, and get our military mired in problems that could have been avoided had we not followed the morality of MTV, and stayed with what we had before.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 3:57pm

      @JamesM80
      http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=224
      Read this article, it does a better job than I can.

      Dr. Carle Zimmerman in 1947 wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He studies the decline of several civilizations and empires. He discovered eight patterns of domestic behavior that signaled the decline of a civilization:

      1. The breakdown of marriage and rise of divorce.

      2. The loss of the traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony.

      3. The rise of Feminism.

      4. Increased public disrespect for parents and authority in general.

      5. Acceleration of juvenile delinquency, promiscuity and rebellion.

      6. Refusal of people with traditional marriages to accept their family responsibilities.

      7. A growing desire for and acceptance of adultery.

      8. Increasing interest in and spread of sexual perversions (homosexuality) and sex-related crimes.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 3:59pm

      The risk of anal cancer for homosexual men rises by an amazing 4,000 percent and doubles again for those who are HIV positive. According to the Centers for Disease Control, homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than the general male heterosexual population.

      If your risk of being killed by a terrorist rose by 4,000 percent, you would probably take steps to stop it.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 4:24pm

      Oh RangerP,

      I see my quite clear and straitforward point about African Americans seems to have confused you greatly. What I was saying is that you’ve deployed all these statistics to show how unhealthy the “lifestyle” of homosexuals is. However, most of those same statistical problems (crime rates, alcoholism, lower life expectancy, etc.) are also problems faced by the STRAIGHT African-American community. So, then, we would have to assume that you also think African-Americans are unfit to serve as well (since you are for judging everyone by the statistics of their “group”).

      But as far as the UCMJ article is not against adultery because the Bible is against adultery. Otherwise, it the UCMJ would probably have some rule against idol worship (which, as I am sure you know, the Bible is very much against). So your point their makes no sense, as usual.

      But really, you’ve made MY point for me. The UCMJ article forbids adultery in so many words. Well, what percentage of adultery cases do you think involve heterosexual males? And yet they still let heterosexual males into the military! This is because not every heterosexual male is automatically guilty of adultery in the way that you automatically assume every gay person sleeps around, molests people and spreads disease. You still continue to evade the question of individual rights.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 4:32pm

      But here’s the kicker:
      “When Washington was president, would we have this argument?”
      Ha! No, probably not. Why? Because back when President Washington was just General Washington, he had no problem with hiring a former Prussian military officer named Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben to train his men at Valley Forge. Von Steuben had been forced to leave Europe after rumors that he was a homosexual (he was) ruined his career. At Valley Forge, Van Steuben literally INVENTED discipline in the Continental Army, which is why he is considered one of the fathers of the American military.

      I guess Washington was OK with gays in the military, and a good thing to!

      And by the way–don’t go bragging about how people listen to all your nonsense here on the Blaze. You know full well you are preaching to the choir. But that’s fine–I’m sure it makes you fell better about your own bigotry.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 5:33pm

      Adultery goes against morality. Homosexuality goes against morality.

      Once again, monogamous heterosexual marriage is the norm, it is healthy it is Biblical.

      Adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, plural wives…. is against morality, is againt decency, is contrary to good discipline. Thus the reason they have not been allowed.

      How about my question? Is America getting better, or getting worse? Do you side more with the ideals of Washington, or more with the ideals of Madonna and Lady Ga Ga. Who is more inclined to leading a nation or an Army, Washington or Lady Ga Ga? Do you not see the trend of higher crime, dropping education, more homosexuality, large national debt….

      Under George Washington’s Army, gays were not allowed to serve. A Lieutenant was relieved and punished for sodomy charges.

      Study old Von Stueben. He may have been gay, but he was not open about it, as it would have resulted in his removal.

      You will also see that he was typical of the gay community in that he had a preference for young boys. Once again, aligning with what I already stated. Homosexuals have an affinity for young boys, and a much higher rate of child molestation/

      there have been gays that served in various position throughout history, along with rapist, child molesters, and all manner of deviants. Because they exist is not a reason to allow them to serve openly.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 5:59pm

      Sure. I’ll answer your question. In many ways, America is getting better. in many ways. Your assertion that we have “higher crime” is just plain wrong–nationally our violent crime rate continues to fall. The idea idea that you are blaming the national debt on Lady Gaga is completely stupid. I think the two wars we have been fighting are a little bit more to blame.

      And since I answered your question, how about you answer point about the individual that I have repeated several times and you have ignored.

      But Von Steuben DID serve, despite the common rumor that he was gay. And while serving, as I said, he practically created the American army. And furthermore, there is no evidence that he was a pedophile; he is said to have liked young men, not boys.

      Monogamy is the norm in the Bible? Afraid not my friend.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 8:30pm

      @PencilNeck

      I answered your question, and you more than answered mine. You see America as getting better, where those of us who can actually see, know it is declining rapidly.

      No one said Lady Ga Ga had anything to do with the economy. My point is, that reprobates like you align your values, and ideology with MTV, Madonna, Hollywood, Lady Ga Ga….. Where conservative like me look to the Bible, our fore fathers, the constitution for our ideology.

      All manner of evil men have achieved all manner of positions and accomplishments. From Hitler to Obama, and from Boniface to Stalin. Hitler used homosexual leaders in his SA and the Brown Shirts. He claimed they were ruthless and would go to any means to get a job done. I do not believe the end justifies the means.

      Von Stuben did not build our army. He wrote the manual for our drill and ceremony. Drill and ceremony was very important when fighting in Napoleonic type formations with muskets that needed to be volley fired.

      You helped me prove a point with what I believe of gays. Von Stueben was known to have violated young boys, not men. He was typical of queers. Ever seen any of the National Man Boy Love Association stuff? Looks like the Baron would have fit in, as he was into pounding young boys in the butt. He is not the first. Socrates (Mr. the one thing I know, is nothing at all) pounded little boys in the butt also. He is the one that sacrificed a chicken to a false snake god, and then killed his self

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 8:56pm

      @Pencil Neck

      “In 1776, Steuben’s career at Hohenzollern-Hechigen ended in scandal when he was accused of having “taken familiarities with young boys” in his charge at Prince Joseph’s court”

      Like I said, a typical degenerate queer who violates young boys. Why do you think child molestation is so high among homosexual men/ I also expalined that man homosexuals get their into to homosexuality while behind bars.

      Not what we need in our modern Army.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 26, 2011 at 6:56am

      2 Timothy 3 1-3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • ARELL
      Posted on September 26, 2011 at 12:38pm

      re: RANGERP
      Copulating with chickens? Now that’s novel. Please direct me to the website or at least a dirty book store where I can obtain naked chicken images… besides “BUTCHER’S MONTHLY” — that old rag is so-o-o-o droll and devotes far too much content to cattle. Yuk!

      Report Post » ARELL  
    • NukeHaze
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:21am

      All of the politicians with their bright ideas about such policy should be forced to live military life for at least a week before making decisions that affect so many and so much. The first problem they would have would have to be the haircut not understanding “why?” Simple. Lice do not grow on hair that is too short to lay eggs upon. Next would be the latrines and open showers and living quarters with no privacy in either. You give these things up when you swear in for the third time. There is no “turn taking” in the showers. There are lessons in unit cohesion meant from almost all of the traditional practices in the military that will be adversely affected because of this.

      This is another attack against the institution of marriage being between a man and a woman as well as a back door for healthcare and other benefits for those who are not allowed to marry because of the definition of the institution of marriage.

      Military has done a pretty good job of integrating and making skin color irrelevant at this point. Though, having subcultures such as homosexuality embedded within is as damaging to unit cohesion as having a female in the trenches with you or street gangs within ranks who may put their comrades higher up in their list of friends to protect than the rest of their fellow soldiers. Men will typically protect the female first instinctively. THAT is a fact and we have seen what our enemies will do to them if captured.

      Report Post »  
    • NukeHaze
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 5:29am

      Having protected subcultures within the military implies that one soldier or sailor‘s life is worth more than another’s and adversely affects the unit. Hate crime legislation implies the same thing. I thought you libgressives were all about equality or is it just equal treatment as long as your treatment is better than that of heterosexual Christian and Jewish males?

      Report Post »  
    • NukeHaze
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 3:09pm

      Also, knowing what I do about the UCMJ, after pondering this for awhile, it seems far more likely that this soldier was screened and put up to asking this question during a debate by some political subgroup, certainly not through his chain of command. This would not have been allowed which is perhaps why he is not wearing but his undershirt. Maybe some loophole involving not being in complete uniform and through a prerecorded youtube video via the internet. Soldiers simply are not allowed to present themselves as such, wearing the uniform, and be involved in any political demonstrations much less a Presidential debate.

      I think the boos were because a soldier was being USED by one of the libgressive groups to entrap candidates or make them out to be anti-gay, stereotype conservatives which they love to accuse conservatives of doing to them. They would have known the question would have put them in an unwinnable situation no matter what the answer was.

      We need to stick to our principles. We should hold this idiot accountable under the UCMJ. Thanking him for his service is not necessary if his whole career there is to prove a point or make a statement if he even is really in the military given the whole context of what carny show we see here.

      Report Post »  
  • Walkabout
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:26pm

    Reading up on gays in the military I stumbled across more lies form the left.

    The left says we should have gays in the military like Europe.
    There was an article where thee Germans had a glass ceiling for gays in the military.
    One officer was demoted to the enlisted ranks.

    This policy change in 2000.

    So I think that Europeans have a problem with gays in the military.

    The answer is not integration. The answer is psycho therapy.

    Report Post »  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:41pm

      Rick “Google Me” Santorum can say he didn’t hear those boos but they were the loudest crowd response all night and only a slick, liar, career politician would stand there and say he didn’t hear it.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:53pm

      You should get a new icon that doesn’t say Tea bags. Those are fighting words.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:57pm

      I served with joint NATO troops in Afghanistan, to include Australia, British, Canadians. All say the gays have caused more problems than it is worth, is not cost effective,and degrades unit cohesion/.

      The Clintons had an absolute disdain for our military. Heck, Bill ran from service in Viet Nam. As soon as he hit office, trying to destroy the military by putting in the gays was one of his first acts. When it failed, he emplaced DADT./ Pre DADT was better, they asked before you joined, and if you said you were gay, you did not serve.

      Eight years of Clinton hurt our military. Togo West and company set in place a system of promoting libs to general. Thus Westly Clark, Paul Eaton, and others.

      Obama is no better. He is anti American. What better way to degrade our military, but to put in the gays, and let them have their way. His wife is the one that was never proud of America. Is she proud of our military now that it allows devients to serve openly?
      Obama is a tyupi

      rangerp  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:00pm

      I could really care less what someones sexual orientation is. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is between them and the God they happen to believe in, if at all.

      DADT is the right policy. The United States was chartered with the Declaration of Independence, where even Jefferson deferred to the Supreme Governor of the Universe. The Constitution was crafted with the Laws and Moral Codes of the Bible making it an unshakeable base to build on. Those Laws and Moral Codes aren’t changeable which is what has made the United States Constitution the current longest standing charter on the face of the earth.

      The Moral Codes can’t be changed no matter how many man-made laws are thrown at them. Society to be strong must have restraints to provide for right Liberty in Republican governance. According to Moral Codes, homosexuality is wrong, BUT, the Constitution (Bill of Rights) prevent a government from infringing on peoples personal property (includes happiness). If gays want to be in the Military they should be allowed to serve, but their sexual orientation a private matter. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the right answer.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Doug in Seattle
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:08pm

      So what? Were someone’s feelings hurt? Well thats just too bad.

      Free speech is protected in this country. Or at least we have this Constutuion thingie that says it is.

      Free speech sometimes means those with unpopular views get booed. I would hazard to say that in a room full of conservatives anything “gay” would get booed.

      There is nothing hateful about booing or diagreeing with someone. People need to get over this idea that free speech only applies to one side of a contentious issue. And I think everyone in America is aware that gays in the military is a contentious issue.

      Report Post » Doug in Seattle  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:12pm

      @rangerp

      Do you realize how stupid you sound? As the president of the United States, do you really think Bill Clinton wanted to destroy the military? You really think that Obama wants to destroy the country? That would probably hurt his reelection chances don’t you think?

      Gays have openly served in the Israeli military for quite a long time now and they have had no problems. If one of the world’s most powerful militaries can operate with gays and lesbians openly serving, I think that shows that any military can function like that.

      You need to acknowledge the fact that you are intolerant and don’t want others to have the same rights as you and just use this as a justification for your discrimination and intolerance.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:14pm

      “I served with joint NATO troops in Afghanistan, to include Australia, British, Canadians. All say the gays have caused more problems than it is worth, is not cost effective,and degrades unit cohesion/.”

      Time to write blogs under pseudonym & film.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:23pm

      “You really think that Obama wants to destroy the country? ”

      its rather obvious isn’t it? I mean you have be a brain-dead democrat (ie the only kind of democrat there is) to think he isn’t.

      its what he means by ‘fundamental transformation’ into a fascist state.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:40pm

      The first thing this soldier said was that, “he lied” to get into the service and to stay in the service. Out here in the other World, if you lie to get a job and the employer finds out later, you can be fired. Any person who lies to get a job in the military and continues to lie to stay in the military should be fired. Just because DADT is gone… his lie came first and he should have found a job where he did not have to lie.
      “What something is… is what it extends” and this person is a liar. He‘s not worthy of wearing the uniform because he can’t be trusted to tell the truth. It’s just that simple.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • ThomasUSA
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:50pm

      What we hear at home and what the people on stage hear are two different things… I’ve done basic sound work on a stage setting and know that what was loud on air could have been something that did not register to Rick… I don’ think he is blowing smoke saying he was focused on the question and did not focus on audience reactions.

      Report Post » ThomasUSA  
    • tifosa
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:08pm

      Cheering Perry’s execution record , cheering the death of an uninsured man, booing the gay soldier and nobody on stage thanking the guy for his service. I’m all for free speech too. WE THE PEOPLE are learning a lot about the new political Teapublicons.

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:09pm

      Godfather.1 says:

      You really think that Obama wants to destroy the country?
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————–
      YES! 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt he does.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:11pm

      @Godfather.1

      While I may sound stupid to you, I think I make a bit of sense to many others. Yes, I believe those like Obama are focused on destroying this nation. He declared his run for the senate in the house of Bill Ayers. Ayers blew up bombs in our subways, and recently stated that he did not do enough. The weather underground had a goal of starting a rebellion that would kill millions of capitalist. Obama sat in the congregation of an anti American church that preached anti Semitic messages, and used black liberation theology. They hate everything American stands for, they despise our constitution, they hate capitalism, they hate Christianity, they hate the Bible, they hate our second amendment rights. Just look at the last three years. He started out by firing the CEO of GM. This was a symbolic move against capitalism. GM was the crown jewel of capitalism, and at one time, was arguably more powerful than the heads of many states/

      Yes, I believe Bill Clinton and his wife despised our military, and did the best they could do degrade it. I served during the Clinton years. I saw the drop in money for training, and the push for allowing gays, and the promotion of left leaning generals.

      Do you not see what has happened to our country lately? Are you stupid? The progressives are trying to dismantle everything American, and they will destroy us if Obama is elected again. Do you not see the economy in the tank, Obama turning his back on our allies, and s

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:24pm

      @tifosa

      Wow, looks like you share my enthusiasm. Things are looking up. Booing gay soldirs, I hope it leads to a president with a backbone that will put DADT back in place.

      Aint Perry’s execution record great? He runs a state that executes low life trash that kills children and police officers. If president, I hope he gets rid of the electric chair, and replaces with the electric couch. Might zap a whole lot more, and a whole lot faster.

      Funny, I read the constitution, and never found that part about insurance. I think the fore fathers left that one out. Kind of like when they left out having 46 million people on welfare. I could be wrong, but I think they had the idea that government stay small, and Americans go get a job, buy their own food, and pay their own doctor bills.

      glad to see you coming over on our side

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:26pm

      tifosa
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:08pm

      Cheering Perry’s execution record , cheering the death of an uninsured man, booing the gay soldier and nobody on stage thanking the guy for his service. I’m all for free speech too. WE THE PEOPLE are learning a lot about the new political Teapublicons.
      ————————————————————————————————————————————-
      How the heck are ya Daisy Duck?

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:31pm

      @ rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:24pm

      @tifosa

      glad to see you coming over on our side
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————
      I just got sick to my stomach. With friends like tifosa, we better have exceptional life insurance.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:38pm

      This might cause some issues here but, here it is;
      I watched the video of Stephen Hill several times because something seemed wrong. The angle of the video, the position of his arms and the slight moving he made at the end of the video. I wish we had the full body shot of him and not just the upper body part. I think he was having sex with someone else while filming this… just to make a silent gay statement on national news. The jokes on us kind of a statement.
      Watch the video again, closely and tell me what you think. Somethings wrong here, in my opinion.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:43pm

      @ThomasUSA

      I would have a lot more respect for Rick, had he booed also. I wish we could get a candidate to look one of these queers in the face, and tell them, “you are a deviant, sick, sex pervert, and I hope you, the rapist, child molesters, swingers, chicken lovers, and any other perverts go vote for Obama, because I do not want you on my side, and I have nothing for you”. That would get my vote.

      Stop pandering to 2% of the population that has 80% of the AIDS, 64% of the syphilis, the highest rates of child molestation, suicide rates, alcohol and drug abuse……

      The glitter throwing idiots are not going to vote republican anyway, so be up front and tell them like it is.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:54pm

      @rangerp
      The guy in the video, Stephen Hill, is having sex with another man while making this video. Is that “up front and tell it like it is” enough for you? He’s making a sick statement on national TV.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:01pm

      @The-Monk

      enough, I am tapping out. You just made me throw up.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • mmcdonald628
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:10pm

      And Monk, please just shut up, you make conservatives look like retarded retrogrades.

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:40pm

      @rangerp
      Sorry, but I wasn’t the one posting a sex video for the Republican debate. It was the liar.

      @mmcdonald628
      No, I won’t shut up. The only person making “conservatives look like retarded retrogrades” is the Democrats who post gay videos at Conservative Presidential debates and influence people like you to keep quiet.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Tronix
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:42pm

      I take the word of those who’ve served in the army (Or any force). Besides, I honestly think you won’t get stronger an army filling it with gays and lesbians openly exercising their tendencies. I mean, I think is a pretty good way to weaken an army. An army is an army, and isn’t a game. Having functional groups, fully operational, full trust in each other is difficult enough to add unnecessary issues like sex orientation. I respect gays, I know some, and I also have some friends that appreciate and love as friends, but I do not want to live 24/7 with them in a tent or something….I respect them, but I do not want to live with them or share their way of life all day long……I have rights too, and I have the choice, and I chose to be respectful, good person, but I also chose live and work in a different way. For me, all these things are just building the tyranny of the minorities over the majorities. Little by little we are being forced to live with things we don’t share from small groups……where are the rights of the rest?

      Report Post » Tronix  
    • RLTW
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:21pm

      RABGERP

      Right on the money, Clark is, was and will always be a S-bag, I could tell inside stories about what an inept POS he was. You are so right as to the direction this admin will make it even worse.
      RABGERP

      Right on the money, Clark is, was and will always be a S-bag, I could tell inside stories about what an inept POS he was. You are so right as to the direction this admin will make it even worse.

      At this point I’m sure you and I stomped the same ground at more than one point in our careers.

      RLTW 4th stanza

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:23am

      @ RangerP
      You cannot base your expectations about how homosexuals will conduct themselves in the US military upon what you have heard from soldiers serving in other nations’ military services. For example, an example of a brave, stable, trustworthy AMERICAN homosexual soldier: PFC Bradley Manning.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:21am

      @Godfather.1

      Once again, your argument has no merit. Being black is genetic. I can get a blood transfusion from a black person, and be just fine.

      Being gay is a choice. A person could be a strait soldier this year, and be gay next year. Not so with black, asian, hispanic. there is not comparison.

      I love you just brush aside the Bill Ayers fact. Ahhh, no big deal, our current president is friends with a known anti American terrorist. You are the friends that you keep.

      Sorry I hurt your feelings about Bill Clinton. Look at what he did to our forces that fought in Somalia. He jerked the rug out from under their feet. Nothing new, libs have a long track record of doing this; Look at LBJ and McNamara and what they did with their little math games they played in Vietnam with our troops. How about our military under Jimmy Carter.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:22am

      @Chuck Stein

      You keep beating me up on these posts with the truth. I need to go hang out on the huffpo

      Bradly Manning is such a shinning example of a good gay soldier. it is my understadning that the left has made a hero out of him

      google “john paulus”. I served with this turd in 3-75 ranger. He was a devient and was not trusted. See what he does now

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • HumbleMan
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 7:32am

      The trolls are out in force. There are those who would “boo” anyone declaring themselves a Christian.

      I have the constitutional rights to practice my religion and to speak publicly about it.

      You liberals want me to accept that homosexuality is normal. You think it’s normal. The liberal lobby coerced the medical “experts” to reclassify deviant behavior as normal. That doesn’t make it so.

      Your real agenda is to break-down the civil society … on your way to some mythical Marxist nirvana.

      Report Post » HumbleMan  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:16pm

      @RANGERP

      Again, if you honestly believe the president of the U.S. is or has ever tried to destroy this country, you are stupid beyond belief.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 2:54pm

      @Godfather.1

      Outside of calling me stupid, do you have any ability to argue, debate, support a point of view?

      You appear to be a typical lib, who can repeat a talking point or two, call a name, then run away. Do you have any ability to apply critical thinking, and then articulate your thoughts?

      Me and others gave supporting comments as to why we believe Obama wants to destroy the nation, and is heading that way.

      The man does not like our constitution that is from his mouth, not mine He is on tape, saying that he dislikes the constitution, in that it limits the government. Thus the idea of our constitution, it gives power to the people. Communists, socialist, progressives do not like the people having the power, thus the reason they fear an armed population.

      Once again, what president in our history is friends with anti-American terrorists that hate America? This is not something light to just brush off. What about his anti American church? Any answer.

      How about his firing the CEO of GM, how about him forcing a socialized healthcare on a nation that clearly did not want it?

      What about his book “Dreams from my Father”? Notice is was not Dreams of My father it is dreams from his father. Obama adopted his father’s anti-American stance.

      His wife stated prior to the last election, that she had never been proud to be an American.

      Obama hates America, and he is on a mission to destroy it.

      What say you? Put up, or shut up.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 3:15pm

      @Godfather.1

      On your question concerning the comparison of homosexuals and blacks.

      Skin color is benign and non behavioral. Homosexuality is purely behavioral. It might be a convenient comparison, but not a realistic one.

      Comparing homosexuals with rapist, child molesters, those that have sex with animals would be a more realistic comparison, as they are all behavior problems and a deviance from normal behavior.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 12:28am

      @Godfather.1

      Your facts are wrong regarding the Israeli military. I have worked with them in the past and they DO have major problems with it. Where did you get your false facts from? Out of a box of Cap’n Crunch? Try again.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 25, 2011 at 2:17pm

      @Melvin Spittle

      Interesting. Every military I have worked with, that allows homosexuals says the same thing.

      What do these knuckle heads belive adding gays will attribute to our military? they are fools.

      Report Post » rangerp  
  • Bids
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:13pm

    Whatever they were booing, these audiences belong at a Roman coliseum rather than a presidential debate. No manners.

    Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:20pm

      plus 100

      Report Post »  
    • paulusmaximus
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:22pm

      Better yet at a Madison Wisconsin public employes union meeting or even a teachers rally.

      Report Post » paulusmaximus  
    • ObserverMI
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:28pm

      You compare booing at a debate to a Roman coliseum? Really??

      What… would you rather have no expression at all? We don’t get enough expression to our so called leaders, yet you want to quash it, freedom of speech even more??

      Grow a skin ‘then’ come out to the real world.
      Unreal.

      Report Post »  
    • eagle275
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:59pm

      But it’s ok to burn the US flag and spit on soldiers and call them baby killers, right? FU.

      Report Post »  
    • WeeeDontNeeedNoSteeenkinBadges
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:30pm

      Manners? LOL! Manners …

      “Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. … If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

      How’s THAT for manners? (Actually, that’s VERY GOOD manners.)

      Report Post » WeeeDontNeeedNoSteeenkinBadges  
    • Wayne
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 10:38am

      I am not for the GOP, and I would boo a ***. I for one don’t want to be around them. The lowest form of life on Earth don’t practice this kind of sex. I thank all the **** should be shipped to and Island by them selves so they cannot contaminate anyone with HIV.

      Report Post »  
  • CalloftheWild
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:11pm

    Why is it, everytime some idiot hells out some stupid remark in a group, everyone who disapproves, seems to think they should be guilty for allowing it, and must condemn it? It’s freedom of speech! Doesn’t change a thing, in anyone else’s opinion, either you are happy it was blurted out, or you loath it. So what! Do you want some high authority to shut you up? Maybe someone thinks you have stupid views, right?

    Report Post » CalloftheWild  
  • sizzler2220
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:10pm

    And, what if the audience did boo?

    Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:33pm

      you

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • Nlitend1
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:10pm

      It would mean bad things. like conservatives hate gay people more than they love soldiers and this country. In fact, it means that you believe being gay negates all heroism, all service and honor…because gay. It means conservatives have no soul or understanding, that they are intolerant and in the dark ages, that they have no respect for people who sacrifice their lives for this country. It would be analogous to spitting on someone who trying to save your life. How about hating the first responders and firemen who ran into the twin towers simply because they were new yorkers (and therefore most likely libs). It would mean bad things very generally…so stop being stupid

      Report Post »  
  • Walkabout
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:10pm

    The most I know about Santorum is that he is a social issue candidate & he back stabbed Toomey.

    I also know that Dan Savage has defined a Santorum as “the FROTHY mixture of LUBE & FECAL matter that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex” Other gays use that phrase all the time.

    I have to ask:
    How is gay sex normal?
    How can we stop looking at social issue when the gays & others never stop?

    Report Post »  
  • heavyduty
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:10pm

    In my books a gay soldier is worse or better than any other soldier serving his or her country. But they are trying to make it something special because they are gay. When you are dodging bullets you want to know that they guy next to you has your back not your butt on his mind. If a gay person wants to serve in the military then fine. But don’t make it a point to serve. Because if that is why you’re serving then you are serving for the wrong reason.

    Report Post »  
  • TomFerrari
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:09pm

    I think it is inappropriate for an audience to be ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING in a debate, in the form of REACTIONS.

    The debate is to INFORM the audience about the candidates.

    I don’t mind so much the audience being allowed to ask questions. But, to cheer and/or to boo, etc….? That behavior is just inappropriate, and lacks decorum.

    I DO feel that having audience members directly ask the questions is nothing more than marketing and fuzzy-feel-good-ism by the media. It is kind of insulting, too, from that regard. (Do you really think your audience is so shallow we won’t “enjoy” a debate without some of us “participating”?)
    I’m also pretty confident that we could do a better job of generating questions than I have seen in any debate this year.

    Oh, and let’s not just assume the “boo-ers” were of any particular political bias. There have been, and will continue to be false-flag attacks in this election cycle.
    .
    .
    .

    Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • CottonMPG
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:23pm

      Did you feel that way when Obama was giving speeches and people were swooning and chanting etc?

      Report Post » CottonMPG  
    • patriotteapress
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:03pm

      Tom said, “There have been, and will continue to be false-flag attacks in this election cycle.”

      My first thought was that this was a set-up. Someone that knew the question was coming planted one or two in the audience. We may never know unless someone tracks down those doing the booing.

      On another note:

      For those in the gay community, I said if you don’t want the negative attention quit leading every paragraph with “I’m gay.”

      I’m a hillbilly. Maybe I should start telling everyone I’m one and demand special treatment for my people class. After all we are poor, “talk funny” and have been the bud of many an inbred joke.
      Or I could get over it and try to make something out of myself.

      .
      .

      Report Post »  
    • dmac225
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:32am

      @patriot…… you may be on to something there. why do gay people insist on flaunting their gayness. I don’t start every conversation with “I’m heterosexual….”.
      But I do like your idea to promote whatever personal trait you have the causes you to be discriminated against. In my case I’m left-handed trying to live in an unfair right-handed world where everything is made and set-up to help you evil right-handed people! How is that fair? I want justice damn it!

      Report Post »  
  • seon
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:58pm

    I was bracing myself from a lot of hateful comments (this is the Blaze after all) but there‘s lot’s of sensible comments. The article shows me that not all audience members booed and some even tried to silence the booers. It also shows the tactics of the liberal media. Now everyone in that audience booed the gay soldier when only a few did. I think that was what the audience members meant by “**** up you idiots” they knew the liberal media would use this to attack them.

    Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:28pm

      So what gay culture blogs do you read so we can go there & see how hateful they are?

      I bet we see comments like Bi-Bull, Christianists, imaginary guy in the sky & worse.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:54pm

      I forgot to mention Teabaggers

      It seems that that is a favorite for gay blogs

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:20pm

      Clearly you commented too soon, or maybe we set our “hateful” bar at different heights?

      Report Post » tifosa  
  • trolltrainer
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:58pm

    There were two loud boos. Yeah, they might HAVE been booing the gay soldier. Which would have been extremely wrong. But idiots come in all shapes, colors, and political persuasions.

    Report Post »  
  • dwh320
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:58pm

    What a joke of a question. It was clear they opposed the question not the person. As stated on the stage it is not a issue of who the person has sex with, it is a issue of SPECIAL RIGHTS. No person should have SPECIAL RIGHTS based on their choice of sexual partner. Don‘t ask don’t tell fully addressed that point.

    Do you see heterosexuals demanding SPECIAL RIGHTS? No you don’t. This is all a attempt at social engineering by the Progressive left. Just as they have done for years now in the private sector they want to impose their views on the military. I can see it now… the next time a drill Sargent yells at a private in boot camp, not knowing the private was gay, they will haul his butt up on hate crime charges. Kick him out with a dishonorable discharge and jail time. We will soon see total havoc in the military all thanks to the political correct Progressive idiots and their agenda to destroy America.

    Report Post » dwh320  
    • mmcdonald628
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:12pm

      Can you name me one “special right” homosexuals are demanding of the army? They want to be able to come out of the closet, and enjoy the SAME rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Homosexuals care about DADT, not because they’re a bunch of whinny wusses (*cough Santorum cough*) (Doubt you could pick a fight with the gay soldier in the video), but because they want to be able to enjoy the other activities that come as part of living the military life, i.e. living on base with family.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:34pm

      With gays making up 61% of new HIV infections would the average person want a blood transfusion from a gay person?

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:56pm

      I would consider it a special right to join the military just because the AIDS epidemic disrportionately affects the LGBT community.

      Report Post »  
    • krenshau
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:59pm

      @mmcdonald628, coming out is the special treatment they want. No one asks if heterosexuals are heterosexual because no one cares. Homosexuals don‘t like don’t ask don’t tell because they want to flaunt their homosexuality, i.e. gay pride, etc. There is no straight pride day. Gay people want everyone to know they are gay. I don’t care who you have sex with, just keep it to yourself. You don‘t hear straight people running around telling everyone they like having sex with the opposite sex and they shouldn’t have to hide it, do you? Of course, not. All sex should be hidden.

      Report Post »  
    • 8jrts
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:16pm

      @dwh320
      So well said…anyone who has been thru Paris Island can tell you…it shakes moral to talk about any of it…straight or gay….that’s not what you need to concentrate on, you think of what you need to learn and what’s at stake….nothing else.
      McDonald Sometimes it’s not fair to straight couples either….but they aren‘t put’n up flags about who they sleep with, have kids with or if they are a widow (r) or/and can’t live on housing either for some reason….get over it. Which vow is more important to you …. choose…..the one you spoke to your other, or your country. Straight people do it all the time…they put off marriage to see if one will come home or not…not for gubment housing, but for reasons only known to them. Keep your reasons to yourself too.

      Report Post » 8jrts  
    • MAProg
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:00pm

      @Krenshau: you’re missing the point. If it was found out that they were gay, soldiers risked losing their jobs, and hundreds did. It’s the fact that they have to hide something fundamental about who they are, if if they are found out, they are booted. Secondly, being gay isn’t a sexual practice anymore than being heterosexual is one. Being gay means you are emotionally and physically attracted to someone of the same gender. Sure, sex is a part of that equation, but you are misrepresenting what homosexuality is by reducing it to “guy who has sex with other guys.”

      Report Post » MAProg  
    • mmcdonald628
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 10:25pm

      @krenshau
      Homosexuals don‘t like don’t ask don’t tell because they want to flaunt their homosexuality, i.e. gay pride, etc. There is no straight pride day. Gay people want everyone to know they are gay.”

      You obviously didn’t read what I said. Not every gay person participates in gay pride, but they do have relationships, and many military personnel live on a military base with their families. Now they are able to live with their partners, and enjoy the same treatment as other couples.

      “You don‘t hear straight people running around telling everyone they like having sex with the opposite sex and they shouldn’t have to hide it, do you? Of course, not. All sex should be hidden.”

      Of course you don’t see straight people doing that, because they don’t have to hide it! All homosexuals are asking for is to live life as they choose; that does NOT mean the military becomes gay pride orgy.

      You people wonder why homosexuals are so different, it’s because you exclude them from so many organizations. You think homosexuals would be so opposed to churches, if the churches welcomed them in? That doesn’t mean changing your views; it means loving people and showing compassion no matter what. Even if you think the gay couple next door is immoral, that does NOT mean you should look down upon them or refuse to engage in them.

      If you are religious, remember that Christ’s light is in all of us, and we should stand as a light to all, even those we vehemently

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 6:29am

      I think Santorum, Krenshau and anyone else who thinks that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is in any way realistic and that gay soldiers who don’t want to live in fear of being exposed just want to engage in some kind of distasteful flaunting of sexuality must never have met a soldier. All they do is talk about sex! Distasteful flaunting of sexuality is the number one hobby among straight soldiers. Most of what little free time they have is spent chasing women, talking about chasing women, and lying about how successful they are at chasing women. I’m sure that for all the time DADT was in place everyone knew who most of the gay soldiers were because they were the only one’s not gassing about their prowess with women. Santorum says “keep it to yourself whether you’re a homosexual or a heterosexual,” but if we had a policy of kicking straight soldiers out for not keeping it to themselves, we’d have an all-chaplain army.

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 8:08pm

      The next thing we’ll see is the specail rainbow ribbon they will demand to wear on the uniform.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
  • Any_One_But_Obama
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:56pm

    Did you hear what Glenn said to Rick Perry about his statement asking people against Illegal Immigration if they have a heart. Glenn responded, Perry, ‘Do you have a brain.”: http://url2it.com/hqqp

    Report Post » Any_One_But_Obama  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:42pm

      One thing’s for sure: He doesn’t have a conservative brain.

      Report Post »  
    • GRusling
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:10pm

      I’m from the Texas border region. I’m 100% Anglo, but the majority of my neighbors are not.

      Unfortunately, Glenn is not very well informed on this particular subject, and only those who live along the border can be. There are families along this border who live on BOTH sides and have since long before any “Anglos” moved to this part of the world. That has to be taken into account when addressing the border problems.

      The problems in this area have been many decades in the making. They’re often complex, did not start with Obama, and they won’t be resolved anytime soon with some simplistic pronouncement…

      Report Post »  
  • NCTRUTH
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:55pm

    Thank you for your service BUT IF YOU THINK FOR ONE SECOND ITS A REASON TO APROVE OF YOUR LIFESTYLE YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN.

    Report Post »  
    • LibertarianForLife
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:07pm

      Why does he need your approval haha..? If anything, i’d want you to dissaprove of my lifestyle haha. You have imaginary friends in the sky and the logical capabilities of a 6 year old.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:30pm

      LibertarianForLife
      Logic dictates that a gay life is sustainable by a large number of people lifestyle without AZT?

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:12pm

      @libertarian…

      I disagree with your lifestyle…

      but hey if you want to parade around in a starched brown shirt and jack-boots, whatever turns you on….

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • FNTM
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:22pm

      @libertarianfor life – You certainly seem to be showing your age with your comments.

      Report Post » FNTM  
    • mr.goodvibe
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:39pm

      LIBERALTARIAN

      Logic dictates that if there was no sky God and evolution is the reason we are where we are today then homosexuality would have evaporated out of the gene pool by now. Did I make it to an 8 year old level of logical thinking yet.

      Report Post » mr.goodvibe  
    • MAProg
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:54pm

      At Mr. Goodvibe: not really. It would just show that you have a poor understanding of genetics and epigenetics.

      Report Post » MAProg  
  • Any_One_But_Obama
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:55pm

    Now Frank Luntz’s focus group said Romney was the clear winner of the debate ( http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/sep/luntz_winner_romney.html ) but I have also seen that Santorum was the winner. When it comes to answering this question, Santorum was at his peak, Heterosexual or homosexual, sexuality should not be part of military service, so get rid of it.

    Report Post » Any_One_But_Obama  
    • GiGi80
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 7:59am

      Well, if you “get rid of” all heterosexual and homosexual personnel, who would serve?
      This is not about privileging any particular sexual activity, it is about allowing people to serve our country, regardless of whom they live with or sleep with. It is about allowing those who VOLUNTARILY put their lives on the line to serve without having to fear that they will be discharged if someone finds out that they gay. There have ALWAYS been gays in the military. Are you saying that the sacrifices they have made are meaningless or somehow less honorable than the sacrifices made by straight soldiers and sailors?
      So much for “supporting our troops.”

      Report Post »  
  • 8jrts
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:54pm

    YEAH!!! Rick has it right!! Who cares ….Quit throwing it in others faces!!! No special treatment…. The military needs to feel camaraderie and anything that gets in the way needs to go!!! Political correctness is the first thing!!!

    Report Post » 8jrts  
    • seon
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:00pm

      Homosexuality will not get in the way of anything. If it does it is the problem of the religious fanatics, not the gay soldiers.

      Report Post »  
    • 8jrts
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:05pm

      sounds like you have not served?

      Report Post » 8jrts  
  • papaweez
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:52pm

    My biggest problem with society today is that it seems we need to label people i.e. I am a gay solider or African-American woman or Italian-American La Costra Nostra member, with these label seems to come the notion that they should also have special privledges and this is where the foundation begins to crumble under the duress. Why have we stopped being Americans? Male or Female, a soldier or a sailor. Why is it my President, my Commander in Chief has to be known as African american President? Isn’t he the president of all americans, black, white, gay, straight, male or female? To have to identify someone into sub categories is to say that their qualifications as a person can not stand on their own and that our factors must be considered in order to quantify them. Personnally I say BullShoot to that!

    Report Post » papaweez  
  • EqualJustice
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:52pm

    The question was DIRECTED at Rick Santorum for a reason. Just like the very first “social issue” question went to Michele Bachmann. All set ups. The last debate focused on nothing BUT social issues. I was hoping for more in depth “economic and tax” questions and answers!

    Report Post » EqualJustice  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:06pm

      Focusing on Social issues are considered as a strategy to win by some Republicans & the Dems.

      Talk show host Jerry Doyle says that Republicans try to whip u[p the base with God Guns & Gays. Then some of them go on to big government spending. There is some truth to that.

      I don’t know how I would be happy to win fix the economy only to loose the 2nd amendment.

      The 5th column press is all to happy to try to damage the GOP with social issues. God knows they do anything correct economically or foreign policy wise.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:31pm

      Correction
      God knows they *cannot” do anything correct economically or foreign policy wise.

      Report Post »  
  • 808Americans
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:51pm

    Aloha,
    When the soldier finished asking his question, I clearly heard a few boos.
    Whether they were directed towards the soldier or the question make no difference to me.
    It was disrespectful.
    He butt is on the line in Iraq, as opposed to a seat in an auditorium.
    P.S. the base’s gym room facilities must be working well.

    Report Post » 808Americans  
    • CottonMPG
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:19pm

      Question….If his question had been about whether a law could be passed to provide payed conjugal visits for those military personnel deployed more than one month on foreign soil in an effort to decrease rape instances on the local people, and he was booed, would you be similarly outraged?

      Report Post » CottonMPG  
  • TomFerrari
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:50pm

    The “boo” is obviously the audience’s reaction to the end of DADT.

    Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • Obama>Jesus
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:08pm

      Agreed. As one of those “dangerous-liberal-nazi-communist-socialist-anarchist-islamic-atheists,” I honestly think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. I mean, it’s a republican debate; booing a decision they didn’t like is just part of the show. I’m sure a democrat would boo if someone called an act that discriminated against gays progress. It’s just a way of expressing disdain.

      Report Post » Obama>Jesus  
    • mr.goodvibe
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 11:34pm

      OBAMA<CARTER and that is really bad

      You must have some real thin skin. My comment was removed and not one word was bigoted, hateful or innacurate. Was that you crying to the blaze mommy. Just use the usual reply when you are backed into a corner and call e stupi, racist, redneck etc. and then REPORT ME!

      Report Post » mr.goodvibe  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:49pm

    Thank you for your service soldier.

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:51pm

      Ditto !

      Thank you soldier, for helping to keep us safe, and for defending our freedom and liberty!

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
  • mmcdonald628
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:49pm

    The soldier asked a legitimate question. DADT has been repealed, so now there are openly homosexual people in the military. They wanted DADT to be repealed, not so they could brazenly talk about their sex lives, but so they could enjoy the same arrangements as straight couples enjoy, i.e. living arrangements, health issues, etc. Many families live on base, and now that DADT is gone, homosexual families will enjoy similar rights.

    The soldier was right to ask what would happen to all these open homosexuals should DADT be instituted, like Santorum would do if he were President. The boos in the audience were clearly in response to the soldier being gay; his question was not controversial.

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:56pm

      I agree with you that it is a fair question. However, I think you are definitely wrong about why a COUPLE of audience members “booed”. The last phrase he used referred to the repeal of DADT. The audience reacts when they heard THAT phrase, and not before. So, it is the REPEAL OF DADT that they are booing.
      .

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • mmcdonald628
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:07pm

      The question was not about whether DADT was a good idea; he was asking what would happen to himself and other homosexuals should DADT be repealed. Those who booed were booing because he referred to DADT repeal as “progress” for gays.

      So were they booing because he was gay? I still think yes; even if you agree that DADT was good policy, booing a soldier who was discriminated against because of that policy is extremely disrespectful, and shows a lack of conscience amongst those who thinks we shouldn‘t deal with homosexuals because they won’t be in heaven anyways.

      Report Post »  
    • Prowd2beblack
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:57pm

      yes they want to be able to have their family arrangements on base,,,but i garuntee that the hetrosexual families that live on base(its all about raising their kids) do not want the devients living a family life on base,,holding hands..arm around each other..etc in front of their kids..it will be hard to explain to the kids that adam and steve are abnormal and shouldnt be living like man and wife…

      Report Post » Prowd2beblack  
    • TumbleBumble
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 8:26pm

      MMCDONALD628 ~

      It most certainly was in response to the question. At the exact same time the boos came from the crowd, I had turned to my husband and said “He called the repeal of DADT ‘progress’. That’s not progress.”. I didn‘t ’boo’, but how do you express displeasure when you are in a crowd?

      Anyone who claims that this is in response to the man being gay is the same type of person who will say that people who disagree with Obama are racists.

      Report Post » TumbleBumble  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 8:05pm

      What’s going to happen when DADT is reinstated?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
  • We the people of the republic
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:48pm

    This will become another tool for the left to call us all racist, sexest, bigoted, homophobic, natzis.
    Clearly people don’t have the right to express their opinions here in America because everybody keeps pandering to the leftest loons.

    sad days ahead for sure……..

    Report Post » We the people of the republic  
    • seon
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:54pm

      Maybe we wouldn‘t call you that if you’d speak out against homophobic audience members more.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:38pm

      Its great to be homophobic. A person should be scared of something that can kill them.

      How many hemophiliacs died during the last 2 decades due to HIV?
      What % of gay men died due to HIV?.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:46pm

      1 million people are living with AIDS. 50% or more of them are homosexual or greater than 500,000.
      but homosexuals make up 4% or less of the population. Yes I think all people should be homophobic.

      Report Post »  
    • Obama>Jesus
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 9:02pm

      @Walkabout Learn your facts. It‘s been estimated that it’s closer to 8-10% of the population are homosexual.

      Report Post » Obama&gt;Jesus  
    • mr.goodvibe
      Posted on September 24, 2011 at 12:09am

      OBAMA<JESUS

      @Walkabout Learn your facts. It‘s been estimated that it’s closer to 8-10% of the population are homosexual!

      When did an estimation become a fact ? I estimate 80% of leftists are suffering from a mental disorder and 20% are plain stupid. Is that a fact ?

      Report Post » mr.goodvibe  
  • JuanaDance
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:47pm

    They “booed” his question, in that, it was a lie.
    His false premise was that he would not have been deployed if it were known that he is a homosexual. That is a lie. He would have been denied deployment and been subject to military law if he had been openly flaunting his sexual preferences in the face of other soldiers, which at THAT time was a reason for action because the rule was “don’t ask, DON’T TELL”!
    Another pathetic attempt by the media and homosexuals to be the victims of mean old conservatives.

    Report Post » JuanaDance  
    • 8jrts
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:04pm

      YEP! Exactly.
      Even though I feel as others have said, I do Thank him and all that serve, for their service to our country!! they are all heroes regardless of sexual preference.

      Report Post » 8jrts  
  • BARN-KAT
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:47pm

    I like this guy.

    Report Post »  
  • NCTRUTH
    Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:45pm

    OK lets make this very simple. The gay life choice is wrong end of story. All are born with a sinful nature and its up to you to decide to follow it or not.

    If you do not believe we are born with a sinful nature when did you teach your kids to lie to get out of trouble. You didnt it was just there and its our job as parents to teach them right from wrong.

    Report Post »  
    • seon
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 6:56pm

      There’s a difference between teaching our children morals, which even secular parents should do, and teaching them religious fantisies.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:18pm

      Seem to me ancient people had a a lot of time to observe. Beside observing the motions of the stars & becoming good astronomers they observed interactions among people.

      When they observed that homosexuality lead to an increase in disease above the norm, they banned homosexuality.

      & that is a good thing.

      They didn’t have douches & AZT & condom dispensers.

      Care to argue that?

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on September 23, 2011 at 7:19pm

      @ seon
      Fantasy is believing that you can have safe gay sex.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 8

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love