Reppublican Crowd Boos U.S. Soldier

The number discharged is irrelevant. They were battered into silence by a bigoted law. And your article is a survey. Who the fuck is going to hold theif hand up and say, "Yo!" when it's against the law, even if the survey is allegedly anonymous. The smart thing to do was to lie.

But fundamentally, what makes you think that the number is significantly different than the number of gays in society at large? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And your blathering factually based on what?

When a citizen volunteers for the military, does the paper work ask him if he's gay? When he joins his platoon, it is his option to tell his fellow soldiers what he wants to tell them. It then becomes the choice of his fellow soldiers to accept him or not. You can't legislate camaraderie amongst soldiers. If he is a good soldier, he is fine in my book.

When a citizen volunteers for the military, does the paper work ask him if he's gay? Originally Posted by cookie man

Actually, until recently, the paper work did ask if one had ever engaged in same sex activities. A "yes" answer was grounds for rejection. If such a liaison was discovered after enlistment, a "no" answer on the "paper work" was grounds for dismissal. Such a misrepresentation was equivalent to making a false statement under oath. Thus, a person who engaged in same sex activities and made a false statement at the time of enlistment would face at least two charges under the UCMJ. BTW, the "paper work", at one time, also asked if one was, or ever had been, a member of the Communist Party.

Actually, until recently, the paper work did ask if one had ever engaged in same sex activities. A "yes" answer was grounds for rejection. If such a liaison was discovered after enlistment, a "no" answer on the "paper work" was grounds for dismissal. Such a misrepresentation was equivalent to making a false statement under oath. Thus, a person who engaged in same sex activities and made a false statement at the time of enlistment would face at least two charges under the UCMJ. BTW, the "paper work", at one time, also asked if one was, or ever had been, a member of the Communist Party. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well that is wrong.

Since the prior DADT policy would preclude or impede members of gay relationships that lived together from "re-enlisting", I tend to go with the original estimate being lower than the general population but nowhere near the ridiculous figure of .03%.


Most of the more enlightened people in the world believe that attraction to the same sex is in a person's "makeup" or genes. (Not once did I ever tell Lil Little Stevie to get hard - it just "happened". I always happened with certain females and not with males.

Here is a Gallup Poll dealing with the issue but my opinion is that you would find same sex attraction more or less with about the same frequency of being born left-handed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/What...ation-Gay.aspx

The propensity and times the Tea Terrorist audience picked to boo is just more evidence that "dumb" and "mean" are overtaking America.

Since the prior DADT policy would preclude or impede members of gay relationships that lived together from "re-enlisting", I tend to go with the original estimate being lower than the general population but nowhere near the ridiculous figure of .03%.


Most of the more enlightened people in the world believe that attraction to the same sex is in a person's "makeup" or genes. (Not once did I ever tell Lil Little Stevie to get hard - it just "happened". I always happened with certain females and not with males.

Here is a Gallup Poll dealing with the issue but my opinion is that you would find same sex attraction more or less with about the same frequency of being born left-handed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/What...ation-Gay.aspx Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Then you would be quite wrong. According to your source: "The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes." Not 10 to 15%.

Another study puts the number of homosexuals at 1.7% in the U.S. community at large -- where such activity was not prohibited by regulation and tradition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_846348.html

Again, this is still not 10 to 15%. Simply because the military never has been representative of the U.S. community at large (as per TTH), it's doubtful that 1.7% of the military community was homosexual before the end of DADT. Furthermore, discharges under DADT is the only verifiable number available. In other words, you have no hard evidence to prove otherwise.

That soldier was willing to take a bullet for me. Shame on those who booed him, and shame on Santorum for not supporting this guy completely. I think Gary Johnson and Ron Paul ought to leave the Republican party, they might give some people hope that the Republicans really care about liberty.

Well that is wrong. Originally Posted by cookie man

Well, no shit. That makes you more qualified for the office of President than every leading contender on the Republican side.

Nobody booed the man's service to country. A few (less than a handful) booed his pro-gay stance.

But here is Mexican Americans booing America's team.
http://www.businessinsider.com/conca...onalism-2011-6


And Obama supporters booing the Pledge of Allegiance....
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/07...hussein-obama/

And who do you think this guy voted for in 2008?? Odds are he didn't vote for McCain !

OK so we have a U.S. Marine who fights for our freedoms. He uses his freedom of expression in an attempt to elevate the debate. The wing nuts boo him and you're good with that.
That pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.

Nobody booed the man's service to country. A few (less than a handful) booed his pro-gay stance.

But here is Mexican Americans booing America's team.
http://www.businessinsider.com/conca...onalism-2011-6


And Obama supporters booing the Pledge of Allegiance....
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/07...hussein-obama/

And who do you think this guy voted for in 2008?? Odds are he didn't vote for McCain !
Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I understand some idiots can't make the distinction; but the 2 people in the crowd of more than 5,000 didn't boo his military service...they said "boo" about his views on gay rights.

Saying "boo" at an event isn't upsetting; but shouting down your oppositon like the union thugs in Wisconsin is pathetic.


And I wasn't upset when democratic union thugs booed John McCain ( a true war hero) when he was attempting to "elevate the debate" on immigration back in 2006. Note that Republicans didn't make phony accusations that somehow those union thugs were being disrespectful of McCain's military service !

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12155322...igration-iraq/

Save your shallow outrage for more important stuff rjdiner.

And your article is a survey. Who the fuck is going to hold theif hand up and say, "Yo!" when it's against the law, even if the survey is allegedly anonymous. The smart thing to do was to lie. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

In order to justify one's statistics one attributes dishonesty to the subjects of the inquiry in order for one to make a point.

The same could be said for any poll.

A reliable poll has built into the questionaire verifying answers, and it is not just asking a single "yo" question!

As for the polls, the Clintons made the same error when they first occupied the White House when "believing" the polls on the number of gays in our society ... the actual number was less than 1/2 of the percentage with which they were making decisions.

Those seeking affirmation of same sex relationships will over state or over estimate the actual numbers to show: (1) it is "catching on" and (2) it is becoming more "acceptable" and/or (3) there is more openness about it. Those taking the polls are interested in increasing the numbers. That bias creeps into the structure of the polling questions and the interpretation of the results of the polling. It can even creep into the validity of the poll itself ... false/fictitous reporting of responses.

If one is going to make an "issue" of one's right to engage in same-sex sex, then the number doing it ought not be a criterion for supporting the belief that one has that right and/or privilege. Our individual rights and privileges ought to be protected from a majority determination. That is if one wants to assert there is a "right" or "privilege."

Saying "boo" at an event isn't upsetting; but shouting down your oppositon like the union thugs in Wisconsin is pathetic. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So the tea-party yahoos at the congressional town hall meetings while the Affordable Care Act was being discussed were/are......pathetic?

Save your shallow outrage for more important stuff rjdiner.

Doooooooooooooooove[/B];1701548]So the tea-party yahoos at the congressional town hall meetings while the Affordable Care Act was being discussed were/are......pathetic?



Originally Posted by [B

Pathetic? If that a is question then the answer is no...It wasn't pathetic. What's so pathetic about telling you elected official how you feel in a townhall meeting? If your drunk and out of line you'll get thrown out..unless of course your at a union rally.

If the "Affordable Care Act" you are refering to is also known to all as "Obamcacare".... I recall the "Tea Party Movement" had not been created when BO and his cronies were trying to stuff another expensive entitlement program down our throats , despite all the polls that said most americans were against it. What you saw at those Town Hall meetings weren't union thugs.. They were pissed off Americans. The dog didn't like the dog food.

The Tea Party movement was created in the aftermath of those Healthcare Townhall meetings, by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Polosi

Where you been Doooove? Out celebrating the Bills victory over the Pats?

Pathetic? If that a is question then the answer is no...It wasn't pathetic. What's so pathetic about telling you elected official how you feel in a townhall meeting? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Can you not read? I was commenting on whirlaway's claim that "shouting down your opposition is pathetic".

Whirlaway said the Tea Party was pathetic, not me.