• 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!

Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die



Wow. My brain can't cope with this kind of psychosis that plagues some of these people. The outburst in the crowd is absolutely absurd and incredibly sad on a level that I once thought was unimaginable. It's amazing how the beliefs of people like that have shown America the most degenerative politics it has ever seen. Who cares if they're gay or straight? They're fighting for your freedom! Booing soldiers is un-American, and that is not up for discussion. It is also very appalling yet unsurprising that none of these potential nominees said anything about it when it happened. You want to be president and yet you don't stand up for one of the soldiers who you hope to command some day. I'll vote for Shmucky the Clown before I vote for any of them.

As for Santorum's answer, he is right that sexual activity has no place in the military. What he is wrong on is that it doesn't give gays a special privilege. A heterosexual man in the military can say he loves women without fear of being discharged. If a gay man said he loved men he would be discharged under DADT. It's not a special privilege, or a privilege at all. I also agree that social policy does not belong in the military either. It was simply the introduction of DADT that started this whole debate in the first place. If it was never put in place, this would have never been an issue. DADT put social policy in the military, and I'm confused on why Santorum didn't oppose it based on what he said about keeping social policy out.
 
And that has been cleared up long ago. Why continue to beat this dead horse that we all recognize has long a go expired? Yes, the video is badly titled and is false. Youtube has others that are not of the same incident. Yes, the thread title is misleading. We all know that.

But to use that as some sort of cover to pretend that members of the audience did not voice approval of the Blitzer question about letting them an die is simply intellectually dishonest.

I have never pretended that members of the audience did not voice approval of the Blitzer question. What I have said (repeatedly) is that I heard exactly two men's voices saying, "yeah." Not a crowd. Not many. Two. Nothing intellectually dishonest about this; what's dishonest is trying to broadstroke an entire audience or political movement because of two voices.
 
I have never pretended that members of the audience did not voice approval of the Blitzer question. What I have said (repeatedly) is that I heard exactly two men's voices saying, "yeah." Not a crowd. Not many. Two. Nothing intellectually dishonest about this; what's dishonest is trying to broadstroke an entire audience or political movement because of two voices.

As long as you do not LIMIT the audience response to those two men who said "yeah". To do so would be dishonest and create a false picture of the actual audience response.
 
As long as you do not LIMIT the audience response to those two men who said "yeah". To do so would be dishonest and create a false picture of the actual audience response.

Yeah, if ANYONE in this thread has been painting a false picture of the actual audience response, it's nota bene.

:roll:
 
He actually thinks someones going to buy his claim that the teabaggers are silent about anything :lamo

article-1213056-0666A9DA000005DC-11_634x401.jpg

Poor, stupid tea party... Nobody is paying attention to them, not even the GOP.
 
I disagree. Although I am not a member of the Tea Party (whatever this actually is), I have found formerly complacent voters becoming fed up with business-as-usual very refreshing. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote their way (whoever "they" are), but I'm glad that some ordinary citizens are seeing past the two Parties and asking questions. Especially about fiscal reponsibility.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059808980 said:
A man was dying?

Yes, but Conservatives don't value life human life... :prof:
 
Yes, but Conservatives don't value life human life... :prof:

They may value life......they just value money more, especially their own
 
he was asked relatively the same question 2 years ago. Off sync was probably intended, can't find a better quality without it being removed.

 
Last edited:


And to think, one of the rightwingers was trying to dishonestly claim that the audience didn't want to speak up when those teabagging comrades cheered letting the sick die.

And note that none of the candidates said anything in opposition to the idea of letting them die. The rightwing celebrates death
 
And to think, one of the rightwingers was trying to dishonestly claim that the audience didn't want to speak up when those teabagging comrades cheered letting the sick die.

And note that none of the candidates said anything in opposition to the idea of letting them die. The rightwing celebrates death
The only one with a brain that was there is Ron Paul.
 
Back
Top Bottom