• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: Commander in chief must support gay troops

Apparently some of their more vocal supporters do.

Where were the Democrat politicos during the shameful denogration of our soldiers over the past few decades? Were you calling for action when they didn't speak-up? You weren't, were you?

So much for consistancy.
 
ohhhhhhhhhhh, so it's just about gay soldiers? Not all of our soldiers, just the gay ones.

Hey dude, I get it!

You're all over the place, aren't you?

Reread the thread title and maybe you'll get it.
 
You're all over the place, aren't you?

Reread the thread title and maybe you'll get it.

No, I'm right on target--steel on the kill--but I can't help but wonder why, now, everyone thinks the prez should stand up for the troops. Didn't seem all that important to the Libbos, before. Could it have something to do with the fact that it was a gay soldier that was picked on this time?
 
Yeah, two dudes booed. That's huge.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about it's not the president's place to tell the American people what they can and can't say in public. Kinda goes against the whole free speech craziness that Libbos hate, except when it's them doing the speaking, that is.

That's rich, the liberals believe the behavior of a handle full of people represents the collective thinking of 120,000,000 people. I guess it's fair game to assume the murderous rantings of the New Black Panther Party MUST represent the collective thinking of the entire democrat party.
 
That's rich, the liberals believe the behavior of a handle full of people represents the collective thinking of 120,000,000 people. I guess it's fair game to assume the murderous rantings of the New Black Panther Party MUST represent the collective thinking of the entire democrat party.

Yeah, where were they when Libbos were calling our troops murderers and war criminals?

The only reason this is a story, is because this soldier is gay.
 
Watch it, it's not as climactic as it's been made out to be.



We should, yes, but the president shouldn't. How many times has Obama set WBC and Code Pink straight? Did Obama say anything when Jack Murtha falsely accused four Marines of murder?

I've never seen Obama set anyone straight, when they hoisted the most shameful of accusations and insults on our troops. But now, a couple cats boo a gay soldier and it's all of a sudden the president's job to say something about it?

How should we define this?

1) Political correctness run amuck?

2) Obama exploiting our troops to score political points?

3) Obama is just stupid?

4) Obama is so desperate to score some kind of political victory, that he's latching on to anything he can?

What should we call it?

You can call it anything you want. It does not change that if I had been one of those people on stage, I would have condemned those booing one of our soldiers, right there on stage. Calling an asshole an asshole is not politically correct, it's not exploiting any one, it's not being stupid, it is not a sign of desperation. But if it makes you feel better to spin it that way, feel free.
 
Yeah, where were they when Libbos were calling our troops murderers and war criminals?

The only reason this is a story, is because this soldier is gay.

I am a libbo and you know I have not done so. That proves you are overgeneralizing.
 
I am a libbo and you know I have not done so. That proves you are overgeneralizing.

Where was Obama for the past nine years when Libbos were insulting our troops?

Bet you won't answer that one.
 
Where was Obama for the past nine years when Libbos were insulting our troops?

Bet you won't answer that one.

Where they doing it at events he was at?
 
Where they doing it at events he was at?

That makes a difference? Really?

Give us some more disqualifiers to protect the hypocritical Libbos.
 
That makes a difference? Really?

Give us some more disqualifiers to protect the hypocritical Libbos.

Yes, that was in fact the whole ****ing point. They are at an event, some people at the event boo one of our soldiers. They did not react.
 
This entire thread is mostly bull****. Bottomline: Soldiers who hump the load get respect. The rest is horse****ing****. Anyone who has raised his/her hand "to defend America against all enemies foreign or domestic" will tell you that having the CIC's respect was/is piddling compared to the other government people who **** with them. Congress is HANDS DOWN the worst. God almighty, would war go a lot better for the troops if Congress were not involved. Oh, but they are. Weird **** comes down from Congress in a war zone that makes you want to scream. It's one thing to have your ass on the line. It is entirely something else to have your ass on the line and getting ****ed with because of some dickhead in Congress. It happens more than you know.

As for DADT, it used to be no one paid much attention to it. If you have a night to go into town and "run the whores" you go with your friends. If someone doesn't want to go, no one used to give a damn one way or the other. Honestly, we spent ZERO time worrying about who was gay. It was no issue.

We took little of what the President said to heart. What most people who haven't served don't know is that POTUS has next to no effect on troops other than staying or pulling out. Presidents come and go during most people's tour. You just shake it off and walk on.

Who really disrespects troops? Congress.
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
Hell, not only did it happen at an event he was at...he was the one saying it!

Obama: troops just airraiding villages and killing civilians - YouTube
You have no ****ing clue what he was talking about there do you?
I'm sure most of the right doesn't know. Fox is famous for taking sound bites out of context and then telling them what to believe about the altered message. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
 
I'm sure most of the right doesn't know. Fox is famous for taking sound bites out of context and then telling them what to believe about the altered message. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

I wonder if he realizes that Bush was talking about the same problem at the time?
 
it was Log cabin Republicans who filed the suit agasint DADT ...that ended in a decision of DADT being unconstitutional.

at the time is was passed, Democrat Sam Nunn led the opposition for keeping the total ban on homosexuals.. and Republican Barry Goldwater led the charge for full repeal... Clinton compromised with DADT.



what was that about historical revision again?

Anecdotal. Clearly conservatives are, in general, more strongly opposed to various rights of homosexuals, including the right to serve openly.
 
You have no ****ing clue what he was talking about there do you?

I think that would be you. Don't get testy, because I made your boy look like an idiot.

Want me to post the link showing Jack Murtha falsely accusing four Marines of murder? Who spoke up then, about denying those men their right to due process? Was it Obama?
 
Anecdotal. Clearly conservatives are, in general, more strongly opposed to various rights of homosexuals, including the right to serve openly.

That's a right?
 
I understand apdst's argument, if this incident had not occurred at a Republican convention or debate or whatever it was, I'm sure he wouldn't have said anything. So is Obama doing this in part for political points? Of course. However he is right in what he said regardless of why he said it, if there's truely no distinction made between gay and straight Soldiers than Republicans and anyone else should have the same opinion if a Soldier is being booed regardless if he is gay or not, that obviously was not the case.

Now we can't also expect Obama or the President in the future to come out with a public statement everyone with a bit of marginal media time says something or does something like this, however again clearly because there was an opportunity to influence politics he made this statement.

In the end what matters is that we recognize that booing a gay Soldier is unacceptable.
 
Here's two videos of the incident here:

GOP Debate Audience Members Boo Gay Solider - YouTube

Crowd boos gay soldier at GOP debate - YouTube

They both cut off right as the booing stops and Rick Santorm is about to answer the question, and it sounds pretty clear to me that its NOT the entire audience, and its probably 2 or perhaps a hand full of guys at the most. AND I think its quite probably the case that they were booing not the gay Soldier for being gay, but booing because they didn't support the repeal of DADT which is what that guy was asking about. Now to me its two different things, to others it may be the same thing and to me it would be worse to boo at a Soldier than it is to boo at a policy.

Also I don't blame Republicans or Rick for not commenting on the booing during the debate because:
1) They only have a limited time to answer questions.
2) The booing only lasted for a second.
3) There are staff at these events to handle the problems of rowdy or noisy audience members.
4) The candidate has to think quickly, again given the amount he has to answer, he's probably more focused on answering the question than addressing two noise makers.

Of course he could have addressed them in his response which he failed to do because they were both about the same subject, the booing and question that is, however its hardly a point to criticize him about
 
Of course he could have addressed them in his response which he failed to do because they were both about the same subject, the booing and question that is, however its hardly a point to criticize him about

Actually it is quite easy, he does not support homosexuality and he even says after that he would reinstate the DADT. (If I remember correctly) Maybe I should just start referring people that talk about Santorum to the google search.
 
Actually it is quite easy, he does not support homosexuality and he even says after that he would reinstate the DADT. (If I remember correctly) Maybe I should just start referring people that talk about Santorum to the google search.

I was saying its hardly a point of criticism that he did not address the hecklers in his response to the question, thats just my opinion. However its also my opinion that you can criticize him all you want if he wants to reinstate the DADT policy, especially since you can't force those out of the closet to go back in.
 
I think we need to put a little prespective on this issue. Politicians are debating a policy not debating individuals. Obama may be coming around now because it finally has become politically expedient to do so but he has no reason to pretend that he has the moral high ground. Good for him to finally come around but he was very slow to do so. When any poltician see our troops going into harms way they are not thinking "I hope all the gays in the military die and fail their mission". They just see troops and give their support. The battle over a policy is a separate issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom