http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/republican-debate-dadt-repeal-rick-santorum_n_977105.html

Quote :

Republican Debate Audience Boos Gay Soldier Stephen Hill After DADT Repeal Question (VIDEO)

First Posted: 9/22/11 10:45 PM ET Updated: 9/23/11 12:58 AM ET
During the Republican debate Thursday night, host Megyn Kelly dropped a YouTube clip on Rick Santorum: a question from Stephen Hill, a soldier in Iraq who, up until this week, had to "lie about who [he] was" in order to serve in the army.

Santorum provided Hill no succor, saying that the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" injected "social engineering" into the military.

Quote :

SANTORUM: I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell. I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing: to defend our country...

KELLY: What would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill?

SANTORUM: What we are doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That’s tragic. I would just say that going forward we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. That policy would be re-instituted as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was- sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

Of course, the big news of the exchange will once again be about an audience reaction. After Fox cut back from the clip of Hill, several members of the audience were heard, in a shocking demonstration of disrespect for one of our soldiers, lustily booing him. Very sad.

Sidenote: Fred Karger responded to that exchange by telling the Huffington Post, "Santorum is truly nuts. Just Google him. Congress repealed DADT. Federal court found it unconstitutional."

UPDATE: After the debate, Talking Points Memo reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro caught up with Jon Huntsman. When asked about the incident, Huntsman said the booing was "unfortunate." McMorris-Santoro also talked to a Perry representative, who used similar language, calling it "very unfortunate."

Disgusting display. I have no words for this. Well actually I do, but...

All the panalists (particularly Santorum) showed their true colors that night. Not surprised in the least by this dispicable display! How anyone could vote for bigots is beyond me.

They're Republicans. What do you expect?

Fuck 'em. Fuck everyone of those people who booed up the ass with a Christmas tree.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Fuck 'em. Fuck everyone of those people who booed up the ass with a Christmas tree.

With ornaments & lights still attached. Plugged in. In the rain.

Ironic that these people who are so notoriously pro-military/pro-war would actually boo a soldier. All I can do is shake my head and dismiss it as something they would do. And that bullshit, off the rails answer Santorum gave about how sexual activity has no place in the military just shows what a dolt he is.

Anybody watch the Republican debate tonight on CNN?

captainbryce wrote:

Anybody watch the Republican debate tonight on CNN?

No, I had to rearrange my sock drawer.

This is an old debate. Old news. A month old debate is an eon in political life. lol (Not surprised he got booed though. The Crats would've booed if that aborted girl who lived stood up and asked why the laws make what happened to her legal.)

As for the debate last night, nope. I don't typically watch debates of either side.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

(Not surprised he got booed though. The Crats would've booed if that aborted girl who lived stood up and asked why the laws make what happened to her legal.)

That sounds remarkably like a "justification" to me FM.

^^^^Thank God I don't skew my interpretation by how things 'sound' to people. lol (Gee, they never quote the part of the message you want them to. )

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^Thank God I don't skew my interpretation by how things 'sound' to people. lol (Gee, they never quote the part of the message you want them to. )

Then without beating around the bush, what is it that you are actually trying to say here? He deserved to get booed, or he shouldn't have gotten booed?

Neither. lol It's that people get booed and that people boo. Boohoo. lol It's as simple as that. (And also that most people tend to boo.) Boo this, boo that. Somebody boos you? You boo them back. Everyone's got booboo's. Who gives a rat's ass at the end of the day who booed who? Gosh! It's like fretting over being scowled at.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Neither. lol It's that people get booed and that people boo. Boohoo. lol It's as simple as that. (And also that most people tend to boo.) Boo this, boo that. Somebody boos you? You boo them back. Everyone's got booboo's. Who gives a rat's ass at the end of the day who booed who? Gosh! It's like fretting over being scowled at.

If THIS is your answer then its an indication that you've clearly missed the point. It's not about "booing" it's about what the booing was directed at. And clearly that's gone over your head.

Actually, I don't think it has gone over your head because I think you're smarter that you pretend to be sometimes. But it's also an issue that you don't want to show your true colors about and offer a solid opinion on (for fear of being attacked), so you are giving a non-relevant answer to deflect the question. And that's really fine with me. You clearly don't like to risk engaging yourself in conversations that deal with homophobia (which as I've previously pointed out says alot about you).