PDA

View Full Version : Several people at GOP debate boo gay soldiers question



pghin08
09-25-2011, 11:35 AM
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/09/23/nr-fleischer-gop-debate-gay-soldier.cnn?hpt=hp_t2

1. If you're an American and you boo an American soldier, you should be ashamed of yourself. No matter the sexual orientation, this is a person who has chosen risk his/her life to protect all of us. Absolutely ridiculous.

2. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and going to get a little bit partisan. For two reasons, I will assume that the people that booed the question are Republicans. Number one, it was a GOP debate, I'd bet the majority of the crowd were Republicans. And number two, I know zero Democrats who react poorly to the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell".

Since the era of the neocons began, they've managed to paint Democrats as unpatriotic socialists. So I ask, how can you boo an American soldier and then claim to be a patriot?

To me, those couple people that booed should not represent Americans as a whole.

mrveggieman
09-26-2011, 09:55 AM
These republicans trip me out. They are so in favor of wars that they wont fight in themselves and they boo the people who are willing to fight in them. SMH.

Star_Cards
09-26-2011, 11:15 AM
I won't classify the entire party as being "booers", but as a whole, the party, tends to fight to keep rights away from homosexuals and it's a shame in this day and age.

Why anyone would boo this decision is beyond me.

Hilfiger1975
09-26-2011, 11:38 AM
Just another way that Solidiers that fight for this country get no respect...it's truly sad...

pghin08
09-26-2011, 12:23 PM
Amen. Rick Santorum should have charged into the crowd and beaten those people into submission. I would have cheered that. :winking0071: <br />
<br />
I'm sure that normal Republicans would feel totally sick...

andrewhoya
09-26-2011, 05:20 PM
I'm sure that normal Republicans would feel totally sick over hearing those people boo.

Yep.

gatorboymike
09-26-2011, 07:40 PM
Those people booing ARE the &quot;normal Republicans.&quot;

Hilfiger1975
09-26-2011, 07:50 PM
those people booing are the "normal republicans."
lol...

andrewhoya
09-26-2011, 08:54 PM
Those people booing ARE the "normal Republicans."

Wrong by a longshot.

gatorboymike
09-27-2011, 06:10 AM
Wrong by a longshot.

Oh really now. I challenge you to produce a crowd of Republicans who are not anti-gay, a crowd of such magnitude as to make that which booed the gay soliders look statistically insignificant by comparison.

andrewhoya
09-27-2011, 08:09 AM
Oh really now. I challenge you to produce a crowd of Republicans who are not anti-gay, a crowd of such magnitude as to make that which booed the gay soliders look statistically insignificant by comparison.

If every republican was like that then the entire room would be booing.

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 09:43 AM
If every republican was like that then the entire room would be booing.
Not all people are born with courage...

duane1969
09-27-2011, 09:44 AM
If every republican was like that then the entire room would be booing.

Beat me to it.

I was just thinking that there had to be at least a few thousand Republicans there yet just two or three booed. But of course, the liberal response is always to crucify the masses because of the actions of a few.

Kind of ironic if you think about it. Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few. Hypocrite much?

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 09:58 AM
Beat me to it.

I was just thinking that there had to be at least a few thousand Republicans there yet just two or three booed. But of course, the liberal response is always to crucify the masses because of the actions of a few.

Kind of ironic if you think about it. Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few. Hypocrite much?
Just out of pure curiousity...i'm not hip to all the political terms and such, but isn't calling someone a "liberal" or "republican" a form of labeling also?

habsheaven
09-27-2011, 10:02 AM
The fact is only a few in the crowd lack the common sense necessary to keep their boos to themselves. The rest (many of which feel the same way as the booers) are smart enough to know that they can achieve more by silently voting for the candidate that best represents their outdated, bigotted feelings.

duane1969
09-27-2011, 10:02 AM
Just out of pure curiousity...i'm not hip to all the political terms and such, but isn't calling someone a "liberal" or "republican" a form of labeling also?

Yes, but it isn't a derogatory statement. I consider myself a conservative and take no offense to it. However, when someone sees a person who calls themselves a conservative running around naked it is unfair to label all conservatives as streakers or nudist.

habsheaven
09-27-2011, 10:06 AM
Yes, but it isn't a derogatory statement. I consider myself a conservative and take no offense to it. However, when someone sees a person who calls themselves a conservative running around naked it is unfair to label all conservatives as streakers or nudist.

Considering you opposition to "Liberal" viewpoints; everytime you say "Liberal" in a statement it is meant to be derogatory.

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 10:09 AM
Yes, but it isn't a derogatory statement. I consider myself a conservative and take no offense to it. However, when someone sees a person who calls themselves a conservative running around naked it is unfair to label all conservatives as streakers or nudist.
Ya, i just never been a fan of the "political labeling". Because not all people think the same and it's kinda unfair to group all these people on one group when it would be impossible for all them to have the exact same views on everything. America has been build on "labels" so why should it be any different for politics, i guess...

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 10:11 AM
Beat me to it.

I was just thinking that there had to be at least a few thousand Republicans there yet just two or three booed. But of course, the liberal response is always to crucify the masses because of the actions of a few.

Kind of ironic if you think about it. Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few. Hypocrite much?
This isn't a derogatory statement?

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 10:17 AM
I could honestly care less either way i'm just playing Devil's advocate about the whole situation. I don't put a "political" label on those people i consider them ignorant, they are not even worthy of a "political" label in my humble opinion.

You have a person in Iraq fighting for America and that same person that is booing him lives in America. And they are going to boo this man, because who he has sex with? This is a PRIME example is what is wrong with America today...i came across someone's signature a few days ago and it was awesome it said, "freedom is not free". It was 150&#37; factual...

MY TWO PENNIES...

duane1969
09-27-2011, 10:23 AM
This isn't a derogatory statement?

No it isn't. A guy carries a racists sign at a Tea Party rally, next thing you know liberals on here are calling all Tea Party members racists. A few people boo a gay soldier, next thing you know all Republicans are anti-gay. Republicans oppose uncontrolled immigration, they are racists (even tho immigrants are not a race). Republicans oppose a mosque at Ground Zero, they are racists (even tho Islam is not a race).

I was not being derogatory, I was stating the facts. Liberals are the first to get upset over labeling and categorization yet they jump at the chance to label all Republicans as anti-gay when something like this happens. That is hypocritical.

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 10:27 AM
No it isn't. A guy carries a racists sign at a Tea Party rally, next thing you know liberals on here are calling all Tea Party members racists. A few people boo a gay soldier, next thing you know all Republicans are of the same opinion.

I was not being derogatory, I was stating the facts. Liberals are the first to get upset over labeling and categorization yet they jump at the chance to label all Republicans as anti-gay when something like this happens. That is hypocritical.
So you honestly believe in your heart that 100&#37; of all the "Liberals" that live in America feel the way you are saying or are you just labeling them also? Because from what i'm reading there is some "pot calling the kettle black here".

Do you see the problem with "lables" in America? Let the Government do that, the want that to happen so they can control us like sheep...

duane1969
09-27-2011, 10:29 AM
So you honestly believe in your heart that 100% of all the "Liberals" that live in America feel the way you are saying or are you just labeling them also? Because from what i'm reading there is some "pot calling the kettle black here".

Do you see the problem with "lables" in America? Let the Government do that, the America people should not, in my opinion...

What label did I apply to all liberals?

pghin08
09-27-2011, 10:52 AM
No it isn't. A guy carries a racists sign at a Tea Party rally, next thing you know liberals on here are calling all Tea Party members racists. A few people boo a gay soldier, next thing you know all Republicans are anti-gay. Republicans oppose uncontrolled immigration, they are racists (even tho immigrants are not a race). Republicans oppose a mosque at Ground Zero, they are racists (even tho Islam is not a race).

I was not being derogatory, I was stating the facts. Liberals are the first to get upset over labeling and categorization yet they jump at the chance to label all Republicans as anti-gay when something like this happens. That is hypocritical.

I certainly wasn't labeling all republicans as anti-gay. In fact, I said exactly the contrary on the first page of this thread.

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 10:53 AM
Beat me to it.

I was just thinking that there had to be at least a few thousand Republicans there yet just two or three booed. But of course, the liberal response is always to crucify the masses because of the actions of a few.

Kind of ironic if you think about it. Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few. Hypocrite much?


What label did I apply to all liberals?
Isn't this whole post labeling?

From my observation you are having a problem with labeling, but then you turned around and did the exact same thing? I've had people on here tell me my reading comprehension sucks. Is that the case?

duane1969
09-27-2011, 11:28 AM
Isn't this whole post labeling?

From my observation you are having a problem with labeling, but then you turned around and did the exact same thing? I've had people on here tell me my reading comprehension sucks. Is that the case?

I said it was hypocritical. I did not label anyone. Pointing out hypocrisy is not labeling.

I repeat, what label did I apply to all liberals? Quoting my entire post is not answering the question. What label did I apply?

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 11:58 AM
Beat me to it.

I was just thinking that there had to be at least a few thousand Republicans there yet just two or three booed. But of course, the liberal response is always to crucify the masses because of the actions of a few.

Kind of ironic if you think about it. Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few. Hypocrite much?


I said it was hypocritical. I did not label anyone. Pointing out hypocrisy is not labeling.

I repeat, what label did I apply to all liberals? Quoting my entire post is not answering the question. What label did I apply?
Everything i put in bold is labeling. You are implying EVERY Liberal in the whole world. You are saying since one Liberal does something that ALL Liberals do it also. It's the samething, that you are saying that is done to Republicans. I don't know how much clearly i need to say that. It's the samething as 3-4 Republicans booing the American Soldier...then you have someone come on here and make a post and then you reply with the stuff i put in bold...

Star_Cards
09-27-2011, 12:11 PM
If every republican was like that then the entire room would be booing.

I don't know what percentage of republicans are anti gay or at the least didn't want DADT repealed and are anti gay marriage, but just because the entire room didn't boo doesn't automatically the rest of the room didn't feel the same way. It could be they just weren't jerks about it. That said, I won't say that the entire room felt that way.

duane1969
09-27-2011, 12:16 PM
Nowhere in my comments do I apply anything to ALL liberals. In fact, nowhere do I apply any label at all.

Labels are when you call someone a bigot, racists, homophobe, tree-hugger, hippie, etc. based solely on what group they are in. Pointing out a hypocrisy is not labeling. If I had said "All liberals are hypocrites" then I would have been labeling because it is unfair to apply a standard to everyone in a group. I did not do that.

If you think that using the tem "liberal" is an offensive label then that is your right to your opinion. I see everyone on here using terms like liberal and conservative to identify a position or point of reference all the time, but they are not meant to be harmful and to my knowledge nobody takes it wrong.

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 12:24 PM
Nowhere in my comments do I apply anything to ALL liberals. In fact, nowhere do I apply any label at all.

Labels are when you call someone a bigot, racists, homophobe, tree-hugger, hippie, etc. based solely on what group they are in. Pointing out a hypocrisy is not labeling. If I had said "All liberals are hypocrites" then I would have been labeling because it is unfair to apply a standard to everyone in a group. I did not do that.

If you think that using the tem "liberal" is an offensive label then that is your right to your opinion. I see everyone on here using terms like liberal and conservative to identify a position or point of reference all the time, but they are not meant to be harmful and to my knowledge nobody takes it wrong.
"Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few".

If this comment is not labeling then what do YOU call it? Would sterotyping sound better to you?

I could honestly care less what you "label" people to me, but it's kind of funny to actually believe that all Liberals or Republicans, etc. think the exact same way...like i said before "labeling" is done by the government enough it's just sad that American citizens do it 24/7 on EVERYTHING...

duane1969
09-27-2011, 12:58 PM
"Liberals are the first to cry foul when they think that a group of minorities is being treated unfairly, yet they are the first to categorize and label an entire group based on the actions of a few".

If this comment is not labeling then what do YOU call it? Would sterotyping sound better to you?

I could honestly care less what you "label" people to me, but it's kind of funny to actually believe that all Liberals or Republicans, etc. think the exact same way...like i said before "labeling" is done by the government enough it's just said that American citizens do it 24/7 on EVERYTHING...

Steroetyping makes sense. I guess I did stereotype. I apologize.

Hilfiger1975
09-27-2011, 01:00 PM
Steroetyping makes sense. I guess I did stereotype. I apologize.
Not a problem. But anyways, the people booing needed to be kicked in the face. :winking0071:

mrveggieman
09-27-2011, 02:06 PM
Not a problem. But anyways, the people booing needed to be kicked in the face. :winking0071:

Church!! :cheer2:

gatorboymike
09-27-2011, 05:16 PM
Church!! :cheer2:

Where do you think they got their poisonous ideas from in the first place? Saying bigots need more church is like saying junkies need more heroin.

andrewhoya
09-27-2011, 05:29 PM
Where do you think they got their poisonous ideas from in the first place? Saying bigots need more church is like saying junkies need more heroin.

Guess the word "church" triggers a censor in your head, no? You asked for a discussion earlier, but failed to respond until someone brought religion into it.

gatorboymike
09-27-2011, 05:49 PM
Guess the word "church" triggers a censor in your head, no? You asked for a discussion earlier, but failed to respond until someone brought religion into it.

"You're all hypocrites!" "No, you're all hypocrites!" is not my idea of a discussion.

mrveggieman
09-27-2011, 07:36 PM
Where do you think they got their poisonous ideas from in the first place? Saying bigots need more church is like saying junkies need more heroin.


When I say Church in these discussions it's just like saying can I get an amen or better yet can I get a hell yeah. So yes my atheists friends you can say church to and no one will accuse you of believing in God. Hell if you make a good point I might give you a Church too. :winking0071:

duane1969
09-27-2011, 10:50 PM
Guess the word "church" triggers a censor in your head, no?

It is an instinctual response.

I have a bee phobia (I know, weird). When one comes around me I lose all focus. I become this psycho arm-waving, yelling, running-away lunatic. Same for GBM. Someobody says the word church or God or Bible and he immediately goes on a raging tirade.

We are praying for him in my fundamental extremist Bible-thumping worship group. :cheer2:

gatorboymike
09-27-2011, 11:12 PM
We are praying for him in my fundamental extremist Bible-thumping worship group. :cheer2:

Aha, you admit it! But make sure praying for me doesn't cut into your time bowing and sacrificing cows before your giant, solid gold idol of Ronald Reagan.

andrewhoya
09-28-2011, 08:09 AM
It is an instinctual response.

I have a bee phobia (I know, weird). When one comes around me I lose all focus. I become this psycho arm-waving, yelling, running-away lunatic. Same for GBM. Someobody says the word church or God or Bible and he immediately goes on a raging tirade.

We are praying for him in my fundamental extremist Bible-thumping worship group. :cheer2:

I hate bees, too. But I also know how to control my anger and how to respect the opinions of others. I don't call out bee keepers or those who like bees.

Star_Cards
09-28-2011, 10:58 AM
one time I got stung by something on the island of Roatan while zip lining. I've never had an allergic reaction to stings, but whatever this was made my throat start to swell up. Scary stuff, but I still don't have ill feelings for bees.

duane1969
09-28-2011, 12:29 PM
Aha, you admit it! But make sure praying for me doesn't cut into your time bowing and sacrificing cows before your giant, solid gold idol of Ronald Reagan.

Oh we are way beyond the idol thing. We have a world indoctrination plan that we are starting in your neighborhood. Be warned, it's not just Kool-Aid ;)


I hate bees, too. But I also know how to control my anger and how to respect the opinions of others. I don't call out bee keepers or those who like bees.


one time I got stung by something on the island of Roatan while zip lining. I've never had an allergic reaction to stings, but whatever this was made my throat start to swell up. Scary stuff, but I still don't have ill feelings for bees.

Without going into a long story, when I was 7 I was attacked by a swarm of hornets. I took somewhere around 30 stings. They were in my clothes, in my hair...even in my underwear (how they got there I have no idea). It made an imprint on me. If I see the bee ahead of time I am fine but if one suddenly appears buzzing 2 inches from my face I start swinging for the fences without even thinking.

pghin08
09-28-2011, 01:37 PM
Oh we are way beyond the idol thing. We have a world indoctrination plan that we are starting in your neighborhood. Be warned, it's not just Kool-Aid ;)





Without going into a long story, when I was 7 I was attacked by a swarm of hornets. I took somewhere around 30 stings. They were in my clothes, in my hair...even in my underwear (how they got there I have no idea). It made an imprint on me. If I see the bee ahead of time I am fine but if one suddenly appears buzzing 2 inches from my face I start swinging for the fences without even thinking.

Ouch. I had a similar thing happen to me, though I didn't have as many stings. I accidentally stepped on a ground hornets' nest and took about 10-12 stings. Way worse than bees though, when I was about that age (7 or 8), I was down in Myrtle Beach and got stung by a jellyfish right in the groin. Which means that thing somehow got right up my swim trunks. Only thing I wanted to do at such a young age was to run back to my uncle's condo and get in the shower (don't know why I thought that would alleviate the pain, but whatever, I was a kid). To this day, my family says they've never seen anybody move that fast in their lives.

sanfran22
10-05-2011, 12:18 PM
So I actually went and watched this clip. Does anyone have any comment on when the boos actually occurred? They didn't boo after he said he was a gay soldier, they booed after the question. Were they booing the question? Or what the text of the question was implying? SO I would conclude that they were not booing the soldier as was insinuated in this thread.Maybe things were taken out of context??? hmmmm....

pghin08
10-05-2011, 12:20 PM
So I actually went and watched this clip. Does anyone have any comment on when the boos actually occurred? They didn't boo after he said he was a gay soldier, they booed after the question. Were they booing the question? Or what the text of the question was implying? SO I would conclude that they were not booing the soldier as was insinuated in this thread.Maybe things were taken out of context??? hmmmm....

I would have to assume they were booing that he was a gay soldier for two reasons:

1. Why would they boo the question? There's nothing "boo"-able about it.

2. They wouldn't boo during the soldier's question, because it would have taken away from the candidates' ability to actually hear the question.


It's a good point though, maybe they were, for some odd reason, booing the question.

sanfran22
10-05-2011, 12:22 PM
I would have to assume they were booing that he was a gay soldier for two reasons:

1. Why would they boo the question? There's nothing "boo"-able about it.

2. They wouldn't boo during the soldier's question, because it would have taken away from the candidates' ability to actually hear the question.


It's a good point though, maybe they were, for some odd reason, booing the question.

I don't know, if it were about him being gay, they would have booed at the announcement IMO. When have you heard complete and total restraint like that? I never have.

ensbergcollector
10-05-2011, 12:24 PM
These republicans trip me out. They are so in favor of wars that they wont fight in themselves and they boo the people who are willing to fight in them. SMH.

just saw this. that republicans won't fight in themselves? do you have anything even resembling proof to back that up? Are you implying that more democrats are in the army then republicans? Is that why the overwhelming majority of military vote goes republican? Or is this another one of your statements made with no proof at all?

pghin08
10-05-2011, 12:26 PM
I don't know, if it were about him being gay, they would have booed at the announcement IMO. When have you heard complete and total restraint like that? I never have.

That kind of gets back to my original point. It's not "total restraint", because it was only a couple of people doing it. They could have just as easily waited till the end than interrupt it.

mrveggieman
10-05-2011, 12:44 PM
just saw this. that republicans won't fight in themselves? do you have anything even resembling proof to back that up? Are you implying that more democrats are in the army then republicans? Is that why the overwhelming majority of military vote goes republican? Or is this another one of your statements made with no proof at all?


http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

It's too much to copy and paste but scroll down to where you find how your gold ole buddy gwb who was so gun ho about staying the course and fighting the good fight in iraq was too much of a gutless coward to fight for his country in vietnam.

ensbergcollector
10-05-2011, 12:59 PM
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

It's too much to copy and paste but scroll down to where you find how your gold ole buddy gwb who was so gun ho about staying the course and fighting the good fight in iraq was too much of a gutless coward to fight for his country in vietnam.

sorry, if people can't use fox news as a source then I refuse to recognize realchange.org cause yeah, that sounds like a nice unbias news source.

also, you didn't say gwb, you said republicans and aren't you one of the champions of not grouping all people based on one person? So when you say republicans, what you really mean is one person? thanks for the clarification

mrveggieman
10-05-2011, 01:16 PM
sorry, if people can't use fox news as a source then I refuse to recognize realchange.org cause yeah, that sounds like a nice unbias news source.

also, you didn't say gwb, you said republicans and aren't you one of the champions of not grouping all people based on one person? So when you say republicans, what you really mean is one person? thanks for the clarification


Wasn't GWB the handpicked republican saviour for 8 years? Was he not the one whom you voted in to speak for you and republicans all over?

ensbergcollector
10-05-2011, 01:25 PM
Wasn't GWB the handpicked republican saviour for 8 years? Was he not the one whom you voted in to speak for you and republicans all over?

so since obama didn't serve in the armed forces it is ok for me to claim that no democrats served in the armed forces. come on man, you are getting farther and farther away from common sense. You said republicans wouldn't serve in the armed forces. that is so far wrong that it makes you look less intelligent then you are. And your defense, rather than saying, "yeah, you're right, I misspoke" is to say well, GWB didn't serve.

mrveggieman
10-05-2011, 01:37 PM
so since obama didn't serve in the armed forces it is ok for me to claim that no democrats served in the armed forces. come on man, you are getting farther and farther away from common sense. You said republicans wouldn't serve in the armed forces. that is so far wrong that it makes you look less intelligent then you are. And your defense, rather than saying, "yeah, you're right, I misspoke" is to say well, GWB didn't serve.


Obama never enlisted in the military so therefore he would not have been assigned to fight in Vietnam. Bush your republican leader for 8 years was in the military but when it was time for him to fight in vietnam he had his daddy pull a few strings for him so he didn't have to go.

Star_Cards
10-05-2011, 03:05 PM
I assumed they were booing the act of overturning dont't ask don't tell. Not the soldier.

sanfran22
10-05-2011, 03:30 PM
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

It's too much to copy and paste but scroll down to where you find how your gold ole buddy gwb who was so gun ho about staying the course and fighting the good fight in iraq was too much of a gutless coward to fight for his country in vietnam.

That's a terrible argument. What service did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama enlist in? Didn't Clinton draft dodge?

duane1969
10-05-2011, 04:16 PM
Obama never enlisted in the military so therefore he would not have been assigned to fight in Vietnam. Bush your republican leader for 8 years was in the military but when it was time for him to fight in vietnam he had his daddy pull a few strings for him so he didn't have to go.

And? Show me a rich kid in the military with political ties and I will show you the same thing happening. However, other than liberal conjecture, I am unaware of any factual proof that GHWB pulled strings for GWB to keep him out of Vietnam. Also, Clinton flat out ran away from Vietnam, Kerry blatantly lied about his service in Vietnam...at least Bush didn't run away and hide or lie about what he did while he was there.

For that matter, there are both Dems and Reps both that have lied about military service. Blumenthal, Gordon, Kirk...the list is long.

Heck, even Hilary Clinton claims she came under sniper fire when she disembarked a plane in Bosnia and had to duck and run for cover. No evidence of this exists.

mrveggieman
10-05-2011, 04:17 PM
That's a terrible argument. What service did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama enlist in? Didn't Clinton draft dodge?

FYI I never voted for clinton and obama was never drafted so he could not dodge something that he was not asked to do. Your argument is almost as illogical as your buddy's argument for proving the bible. Try again.

ensbergcollector
10-05-2011, 04:31 PM
FYI I never voted for clinton and obama was never drafted so he could not dodge something that he was not asked to do. Your argument is almost as illogical as your buddy's argument for proving the bible. Try again.

yes, and your comment that republicans don't fight in wars in the second most offensive thing posted on these boards next to your uncle tom comment. You claim you don't make blasphemous statements and yet you accuse republicans of not being willing to fight in wars when 75% percent of our military votes republican. So, thank you for insulting all of our troops.

mrveggieman
10-05-2011, 04:49 PM
yes, and your comment that republicans don't fight in wars in the second most offensive thing posted on these boards next to your uncle tom comment. You claim you don't make blasphemous statements and yet you accuse republicans of not being willing to fight in wars when 75% percent of our military votes republican. So, thank you for insulting all of our troops.


Where did you get that 75% statistic from?

sanfran22
10-05-2011, 09:01 PM
Where did you get that 75% statistic from?
It doesn't matter. It's pretty well known that the military is mostly conservative. I've heard 65-75%. But somehow it will all go back to our savior GW Bush......

gatorboymike
10-06-2011, 05:08 AM
It doesn't matter. It's pretty well known that the military is mostly conservative. I've heard 65-75%. But somehow it will all go back to our savior GW Bush......

Hah, they admit it.

Star_Cards
10-06-2011, 10:52 AM
It doesn't matter. It's pretty well known that the military is mostly conservative. I've heard 65-75%. But somehow it will all go back to our savior GW Bush......

I would think that it would matter if he's saying that it is tabulated stat. I won't disagree that there is probably a majority of conservatives within the military, but I'd think even you wouldn't say that it doesn't matter where he got a number like that. He probably should have said something like... "I'd assume that the military is probably 75% conservative" instead of saying it so factually if he doesn't have a source or first hand knowledge.

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 10:55 AM
I would think that it would matter if he's saying that it is tabulated stat. I won't disagree that there is probably a majority of conservatives within the military, but I'd think even you wouldn't say that it doesn't matter where he got a number like that. He probably should have said something like... "I'd assume that the military is probably 75% conservative" instead of saying it so factually if he doesn't have a source or first hand knowledge.

Statistics say 65-75%. It's a widely available stat. My point was it wouldn't matter to him because it would all go back to Bush as usual.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 10:57 AM
Statistics say 65-75%. It's a widely available stat. My point was it wouldn't matter to him because it would all go back to Bush as usual.


Or how you like to blame obama for the cricification of jesus. :winking0071:

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 11:10 AM
goodness, sorry about that. I was in a hurry and should never have used a statistic I didn't have a source to. I'm sure I could find some www.georgewbushisgod.org website or something which would be about as credible as www.realchange.org

however, I will recant my use of the statistic since I do not have a source. However, let's get back on topic. I don't care if 5&#37; of the military is republican, it is blasphemous (his word) for veggieman to make claims like republicans don't fight in wars. It is an insult to numerous troops regardless of percentage.

Star_Cards
10-06-2011, 11:45 AM
what he should have said was "politicians" don't fight wars. not just republicans. However that's assuming he meant republican politicians and not just republicans. If he meant republicans in general then that statement is obviously incorrect.

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 11:48 AM
what he should have said was "politicians" don't fight wars. not just republicans. However that's assuming he meant republican politicians and not just republicans. If he meant republicans in general then that statement is obviously incorrect.

yeah, but he has been given every chance to take it back and he has chosen not to so I assume he meant what he said. And as you said, if he was only referencing politicians, then he should have said both parties.

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 11:51 AM
what he should have said was "politicians" don't fight wars. not just republicans. However that's assuming he meant republican politicians and not just republicans. If he meant republicans in general then that statement is obviously incorrect.

He didn't mean politicians. He made it clear what he was saying..............He was saying conservatives love war but won't fight in it themselves.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 12:14 PM
Let me set the record straight for the world. First of all let me take my hat off to all of our brave servicemen and women regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political preference. The point that some of you have missed is that the republican ledearship or better yet gov't as a whole does not give a damn about our soldiers or vetrans. GWB a republican is a perfect example. He is quick to start a senless war in iraq but he did not have the courage to fight in vietnam when asked. Also why hasn't anyone in his immediate family fought in any of these wars if it was such the right thing to do?

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 12:21 PM
Let me set the record straight for the world. First of all let me take my hat off to all of our brave servicemen and women regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political preference. The point that some of you have missed is that the republican ledearship or better yet gov't as a whole does not give a damn about our soldiers or vetrans. GWB a republican is a perfect example. He is quick to start a senless war in iraq but he did not have the courage to fight in vietnam when asked. Also why hasn't anyone in his immediate family fought in any of these wars if it was such the right thing to do?

I believe his dad fought in WWII. Please stop making yourself look foolish. It's getting out of control. Also, why are we still in these wars, adding troops and messing in lybia, egypt and yemen? Is Obama a warmonger????

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 12:26 PM
I believe his dad fought in WWII. Please stop making yourself look foolish. It's getting out of control. Also, why are we still in these wars, adding troops and messing in lybia, egypt and yemen? Is Obama a warmonger????


Who in the hell cares about his daddy? GWB Jr is the one who we are debating on. He is the coward who started a war but did not have the courage to fight in one when asked to. Again Obama was never in the military so naturally he was not asked to fight in a war. Also Obama inherited to wars that were going nowhere fast. Bush inhereted his daddys last name and money. You are the one who is looking more and more foolish my friend.

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 12:29 PM
Let me set the record straight for the world. First of all let me take my hat off to all of our brave servicemen and women regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political preference. The point that some of you have missed is that the republican ledearship or better yet gov't as a whole does not give a damn about our soldiers or vetrans. GWB a republican is a perfect example. He is quick to start a senless war in iraq but he did not have the courage to fight in vietnam when asked. Also why hasn't anyone in his immediate family fought in any of these wars if it was such the right thing to do?

it isn't republican leadership my friend. it is both parties, you just seemed obsessed with republicans. both parties voted for the war. and as has already been said, george bush senior did fight. Why didn't obama or clinton enlist? Don't see you calling them out. Instead you call out gwb based only on evidence that has for the most part been proven false. But keep trying to pretend you are unbias. It seems to be working well for you

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 12:31 PM
Who in the hell cares about his daddy? GWB Jr is the one who we are debating on. He is the coward who started a war but did not have the courage to fight in one when asked to. Again Obama was never in the military so naturally he was not asked to fight in a war. Also Obama inherited to wars that were going nowhere fast. Bush inhereted his daddys last name and money. You are the one who is looking more and more foolish my friend.

Go re-read your post and get back to me.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 12:37 PM
it isn't republican leadership my friend. it is both parties, you just seemed obsessed with republicans. both parties voted for the war. and as has already been said, george bush senior did fight. Why didn't obama or clinton enlist? Don't see you calling them out. Instead you call out gwb based only on evidence that has for the most part been proven false. But keep trying to pretend you are unbias. It seems to be working well for you


You are right both parties had their hands in the cookie jar but the iraq was is ultimately the brainchild of a republican president who wanted revenge for a hit that was put out on his daddy. Bush even mentioned that he believed that sadaam tried to kill his daddy. Google it if you don't believe me. As far as clinton I never voted for him so you will have to research on your own why he didn't enlist. As far as obama when he was of military age the vietnam was already over so he would not have been drafted. He was an excellent student so he decided to go to college instead of the military. Believe it or not in the united states military service is a choice not an obligation. I know that is a shocker to some people on here.

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 12:38 PM
Let me set the record straight for the world. First of all let me take my hat off to all of our brave servicemen and women regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political preference. The point that some of you have missed is that the republican ledearship or better yet gov't as a whole does not give a damn about our soldiers or vetrans. GWB a republican is a perfect example. He is quick to start a senless war in iraq but he did not have the courage to fight in vietnam when asked. Also why hasn't anyone in his immediate family fought in any of these wars if it was such the right thing to do?

you are completely losing it man. less than 10 minutes ago you asked the above question. When someone answers that his father fought you respond with "who the hell cares about his daddy? GWB jr. is the one we are debating on." If you can't even remember what you wrote 10 minutes ago then any hope of a rationale debate has gone out the window.

also, please feel free to prove your GWB theory with some source other than a majorly leaning blog. Last I checked all this came out before the 2004 election and all was proven to be fabricated and made up to slander bush. So, try again.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 12:48 PM
Go re-read your post and get back to me.


Also since you care to go there about GWB's family his grandfather Preston Bush was a known nazi supporter during WWII. So since you want to give Bush Jr credit for what his daddy did it should be ok to link him to the nazi party since his grandfather was.

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 12:51 PM
Also since you care to go there about GWB's family his grandfather Preston Bush was a known nazi supporter during WWII. So since you want to give Bush Jr credit for what his daddy did it should be ok to link him to the nazi party since his grandfather was.

you are completely mental!!! you asked why no one in his immediate family had fought. You were told his father fought. Now you act like we are trying to give him credit for his dad's service. you made a stupid statement and got called on it. Now you are trying to avoid acknowledging it by attacking us. seriously!

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 12:53 PM
and the man's name was prescott bush. if your anti-bush blog can't even get his name right you might want to find another source.

also, only left-wing conspiracy theorists actually believe the nazi money crap. historians and all who were involved with the union bank all verify that he was not involved. until you can get news from somewhere other than tin foil hat anti-republican blogs you should probably just stay out of real conversations.

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 12:55 PM
you are completely mental!!! you asked why no one in his immediate family had fought. You were told his father fought. Now you act like we are trying to give him credit for his dad's service. you made a stupid statement and got called on it. Now you are trying to avoid acknowledging it by attacking us. seriously!

Typical leftist stupidity. Can't debate the topic, just has to resort to name calling and baseless fabrications.....At least all the chatter has finally exposed this individual for what I believed he was all along..........

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 01:00 PM
Also since you care to go there about GWB's family his grandfather Preston Bush was a known nazi supporter during WWII. So since you want to give Bush Jr credit for what his daddy did it should be ok to link him to the nazi party since his grandfather was.
Since we are so off topic.......
You know what your boy George Soros is linked to don't you.....

duane1969
10-06-2011, 01:19 PM
The point that some of you have missed is that the republican ledearship or better yet gov't as a whole does not give a damn about our soldiers or vetrans. GWB a republican is a perfect example. He is quick to start a senless war in iraq but he did not have the courage to fight in vietnam when asked. Also why hasn't anyone in his immediate family fought in any of these wars if it was such the right thing to do?

This statement is so full of wrong it isn't even funny. You need to stop reading the jibberish on HuffPost or whatever far-left website you are sourcing. There is not a figment of factual data in your entire statement.

1) GWB did not start a war in Iraq. GWB inherited a war that Clinton was too afraid to get involved in for 8 years. While you could argue that GHWB started the war you would still be wrong. The whole ordeal started when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and a coalition got involved to drive him out of Kuwait and help Kuwait recover.

After that the whole mess devolved. The UN searches of weapons productions sites started, the lame Clinton "no-fly zone" came to be, Hussein ejected UN people, Hussein troops fired missles at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone...it snowballed from there.

At least know what you speak of before you try to tell others how wrong they are.

2) No one in his immediate family has fought in them because he has daughters who were like 10 years old when the Iraq war was happening.

Question: Since you are so adamant that Republicans need to be fighting wars and such, is it safe to assume that you also have active duty military experience? Or are you complaining that others have not done what you have not done either?

habsheaven
10-06-2011, 01:30 PM
This statement is so full of wrong it isn't even funny. You need to stop reading the jibberish on HuffPost or whatever far-left website you are sourcing. There is not a figment of factual data in your entire statement.

1) GWB did not start a war in Iraq. GWB inherited a war that Clinton was too afraid to get involved in for 8 years. While you could argue that GHWB started the war you would still be wrong. The whole ordeal started when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and a coalition got involved to drive him out of Kuwait and help Kuwait recover.

After that the whole mess devolved. The UN searches of weapons productions sites started, the lame Clinton "no-fly zone" came to be, Hussein ejected UN people, Hussein troops fired missles at aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone...it snowballed from there.

At least know what you speak of before you try to tell others how wrong they are.

2) No one in his immediate family has fought in them because he has daughters who were like 10 years old when the Iraq war was happening.

Question: Since you are so adamant that Republicans need to be fighting wars and such, is it safe to assume that you also have active duty military experience? Or are you complaining that others have not done what you have not done either?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the US has been at war with IRAQ for the past 20 years? Stop with the rhetoric. GWB invaded Iraq, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Blame it on whomever you want, but if you are going to correct someone else's post, keep it factual.:rolleyes:

duane1969
10-06-2011, 01:54 PM
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the US has been at war with IRAQ for the past 20 years? Stop with the rhetoric. GWB invaded Iraq, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Blame it on whomever you want, but if you are going to correct someone else's post, keep it factual.:rolleyes:

Well, I was around for the entire time frame that I am speaking of and during that time frame we have been performing some form of military action there.

But perhaps I am wrong. Let us check the timeline and see...

August 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
Jan. 17, 1991 - After failed atttempts at diplomacy, coalition forces begin bombing locations in Iraq (start of Desert Storm aka Gulf War)
Feb. 24, 1991 - US 2nd Armored Calvary division spearheads Operation Desert Sabre, the first ground invasion of Iraq by coalition troops
1991-2003 - UN air forces made up of mostly US fighter jets enforce a no-fly zone that includes hundreds of missile strikes on Iraqi radar and anti-aircraft missile sites
2003 - US invades Iraq
Oct. 6, 2011 - US troops still occupy Iraq, maintain multiple bases in Iraq, fly missions over Iraq and are involved in military action on a daily basis

Nope. I was right. You were wrong. My facts are spot on. Almost exactly 20 years...20 years and 7 months to be specific. Let me know if you need any help getting your foot out of your mouth...

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 02:13 PM
Well, I was around for the entire time frame that I am speaking of and during that time frame we have been performing some form of military action there.

But perhaps I am wrong. Let us check the timeline and see...

August 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
Jan. 17, 1991 - After failed atttempts at diplomacy, coalition forces begin bombing locations in Iraq (start of Desert Storm aka Gulf War)
Feb. 24, 1991 - US 2nd Armored Calvary division spearheads Operation Desert Sabre, the first ground invasion of Iraq by coalition troops
1991-2003 - UN air forces made up of mostly US fighter jets enforce a no-fly zone that includes hundreds of missile strikes on Iraqi radar and anti-aircraft missile sites
2003 - US invades Iraq
Oct. 6, 2011 - US troops still occupy Iraq, maintain multiple bases in Iraq, fly missions over Iraq and are involved in military action on a daily basis

Nope. I was right. You were wrong. My facts are spot on. Almost exactly 20 years...20 years and 7 months to be specific. Let me know if you need any help getting your foot out of your mouth...


That's all good and everything but what you failed to mention how Iraq provoked the US into attacking them in 2003. I would love to hear your spin on that one.

duane1969
10-06-2011, 02:24 PM
That's all good and everything but what you failed to mention how Iraq provoked the US into attacking them in 2003. I would love to hear your spin on that one.

First and foremost, that is irrelevant. Habs said we haven't been in Iraq for 20 years and we have. How or why is moot. All of it started in 1991, not in 2003, as most liberals like to think.

With that said, it started with Hussein refusing to allow UN inspectors into his facilities, a concession that he gave in the cease-fire agreement to end the Gulf War. When he refused to allow the inspections he violated the cease-fire agreement and provided all of the necessary avenues for invasion.

The WMD stuff was all icing to try and make the invasion seem more reasonable. The reality is that his violation of the cease-fire concessions was all that was needed.

Interesting side note. Did you know that liberals criticized GHWB for ending the Gulf War before Hussein was "dethroned"? That's right. The evil war-mongering President Bush was criticized by the peace-loving "we are the world" left for ending a war too early. Imagine that.

habsheaven
10-06-2011, 02:41 PM
Well, I was around for the entire time frame that I am speaking of and during that time frame we have been performing some form of military action there.

But perhaps I am wrong. Let us check the timeline and see...

August 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
Jan. 17, 1991 - After failed atttempts at diplomacy, coalition forces begin bombing locations in Iraq (start of Desert Storm aka Gulf War)
Feb. 24, 1991 - US 2nd Armored Calvary division spearheads Operation Desert Sabre, the first ground invasion of Iraq by coalition troops
1991-2003 - UN air forces made up of mostly US fighter jets enforce a no-fly zone that includes hundreds of missile strikes on Iraqi radar and anti-aircraft missile sites
2003 - US invades Iraq
Oct. 6, 2011 - US troops still occupy Iraq, maintain multiple bases in Iraq, fly missions over Iraq and are involved in military action on a daily basis

Nope. I was right. You were wrong. My facts are spot on. Almost exactly 20 years...20 years and 7 months to be specific. Let me know if you need any help getting your foot out of your mouth...

Perhaps you should inform the media. They seem to think the latest war started 8 years ago. I wonder what documentation you can find in Congress on a start date?

It's no wonder we disagree so often. Your way of thinking is so off-base it is disturbing at times.

habsheaven
10-06-2011, 02:44 PM
First and foremost, that is irrelevant. Habs said we haven't been in Iraq for 20 years and we have. How or why is moot. All of it started in 1991, not in 2003, as most liberals like to think.

With that said, it started with Hussein refusing to allow UN inspectors into his facilities, a concession that he gave in the cease-fire agreement to end the Gulf War. When he refused to allow the inspections he violated the cease-fire agreement and provided all of the necessary avenues for invasion.

The WMD stuff was all icing to try and make the invasion seem more reasonable. The reality is that his violation of the cease-fire concessions was all that was needed.

Interesting side note. Did you know that liberals criticized GHWB for ending the Gulf War before Hussein was "dethroned"? That's right. The evil war-mongering President Bush was criticized by the peace-loving "we are the world" left for ending a war too early. Imagine that.

I said NO SUCH THING! I said you haven't been in a WAR in IRAQ for 20 years.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 02:54 PM
First and foremost, that is irrelevant. Habs said we haven't been in Iraq for 20 years and we have. How or why is moot. All of it started in 1991, not in 2003, as most liberals like to think.

With that said, it started with Hussein refusing to allow UN inspectors into his facilities, a concession that he gave in the cease-fire agreement to end the Gulf War. When he refused to allow the inspections he violated the cease-fire agreement and provided all of the necessary avenues for invasion.

The WMD stuff was all icing to try and make the invasion seem more reasonable. The reality is that his violation of the cease-fire concessions was all that was needed.

Interesting side note. Did you know that liberals criticized GHWB for ending the Gulf War before Hussein was "dethroned"? That's right. The evil war-mongering President Bush was criticized by the peace-loving "we are the world" left for ending a war too early. Imagine that.


So let me get this straight. Because of a lie and a technacality that was justification for all of the lives lost, wounded soldiers and contractors and billions of dollars down the drain? On the other hand the same conservatives who championed this wasteful and useless war want to complain the gov't spends too much. SMH

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 03:31 PM
So let me get this straight. Because of a lie and a technacality that was justification for all of the lives lost, wounded soldiers and contractors and billions of dollars down the drain? On the other hand the same conservatives who championed this wasteful and useless war want to complain the gov't spends too much. SMH

until you are willing to address any of the crap you spewed on previous pages you don't have a right to ask anyone anything.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 03:39 PM
until you are willing to address any of the crap you spewed on previous pages you don't have a right to ask anyone anything.


Crap, dude are you serious? Have you forgotton about the biblical debate on the other thread?

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 03:40 PM
Crap, dude are you serious? Have you forgotton about the biblical debate on the other thread?

Yeah, you spewed alot on there as well....:winking0071::party0053:

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 03:48 PM
Yeah, you spewed alot on there as well....:winking0071::party0053:

Yeah and this is coming from my conservative brothers who have utterly failed to prove their points over there. I rest my case.

sanfran22
10-06-2011, 03:50 PM
Yeah and this is coming from my conservative brothers who have utterly failed to prove their points over there. I rest my case.

Ummm, I think we made a pretty good case to those that are objective. You'll know the answers soon enough.

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 03:56 PM
Ummm, I think we made a pretty good case to those that are objective. You'll know the answers soon enough.


What have you proven? Actually don't answer that over here take your "proof" back to our biblical discussion. Habs, GBM, Starcards, myself and others will be looking forward to reviewing and discussing any "proof" that you may provide.

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 04:11 PM
Crap, dude are you serious? Have you forgotton about the biblical debate on the other thread?

let's see, making accusations against gwb while only having crazy liberal blogs to back it up. asking about gwb's immediate family and then attacking us when we showed you his dad did. Making a reference to bush's grandfather (whose name you couldn't even get right) making accusations that only tin foil hat conspiracy theorists actually believe. so yeah, crap

mrveggieman
10-06-2011, 04:33 PM
let's see, making accusations against gwb while only having crazy liberal blogs to back it up. asking about gwb's immediate family and then attacking us when we showed you his dad did. Making a reference to bush's grandfather (whose name you couldn't even get right) making accusations that only tin foil hat conspiracy theorists actually believe. so yeah, crap

I made a typo calling gwb's grandaddy preston instead of prescott so I will take the heat for that one. However you conservatives love to dance around the fact that gwb was too cowardly to fight in vietnam and didn't even let his own children fight his iraq war even though they were of military age even though someone incorrectly said that they were only 10 years old (don't know how that could be despite the fact that his daughters have been out of college for years now) but want to brag on the fact that bush sr was in WWII. Again what does bush sr fighting in WWII have to do with gwb jr not answering his call to go to vietnam? You conservatives come up with every excuse to not answer that question.

ensbergcollector
10-06-2011, 05:00 PM
I made a typo calling gwb's grandaddy preston instead of prescott so I will take the heat for that one. However you conservatives love to dance around the fact that gwb was too cowardly to fight in vietnam and didn't even let his own children fight his iraq war even though they were of military age even though someone incorrectly said that they were only 10 years old (don't know how that could be despite the fact that his daughters have been out of college for years now) but want to brag on the fact that bush sr was in WWII. Again what does bush sr fighting in WWII have to do with gwb jr not answering his call to go to vietnam? You conservatives come up with every excuse to not answer that question.

first of all, you didn't mistype. half the conspiracy website incorrectly call him preston which just shows where you were getting your info.

the issue of gwb avoiding vietnam was brought up a decade ago and all sources, even those supporting democratic candidates found the "evidence" to be falsified and made up so you have no proof of anything. As for his kids, as much as i support our military, I wouldn't want my daughter fighting either. And unless you are ready to condemn every politician who supported the war who don't have kids fighting you are just showing your bias.
GWB senior fighting was only brought up because you asked about it. No one brought it up to defend gwb.

andrewhoya
10-06-2011, 08:45 PM
until you are willing to address any of the crap you spewed on previous pages you don't have a right to ask anyone anything.

:):

duwal
10-07-2011, 09:55 PM
this is why the politics/religion board is a waste. About a page worth of posts actually being on topic followed by 9 pages of 'my party's better than your party' and the retort of 'nuh uh, mine is'


to the topic, lets face it a very small scale of attendees booed but a good majority of the others kept quiet while agreeing. Simple fact is if the majority of a party didn't feel the same way that the ones booing do than stuff like gay marriage and no discrimination in the military because of homosexuality would be overwhelmingly accepted and approved. Unfortunately that isn't the case as some for some reason still want to believe its a sin from a book they've read over actually making their own decision on it