Friday, September 23, 2011

GOP Debate Audience Boos Gay Soldier

Ideas are priceless. Beliefs are worthless.

I don't like to play the "what if the OTHER SIDE did it!!??" game, because it's mostly pointless; but sometimes it's pretty damn stark. Can you imagine what might've happened if, during the 2008 Democrat primary, a member of the military asked a question of a candidate and was BOOED by members of the audience? Every single candidate would've had to cut TV spots denouncing the action, and we'd still be knee-deep in repeats of it as "proof that The Left HATES soldiers!!!"

Here's the clip from the most recent GOP debate, as a gay soldier calls in from Iraq with a question assigned to Rick Santorum (hilariously placed directly beside a giant "Google" logo) about repealing DADT:



Listen to (some) in the audience boo the soldier, THEN listen to damn near the whole room wildly cheer Santorum's rambling, ridiculous "social engineering" response.

At the end of the day, there are two kinds of people in the world: Thinker and Believers (and before anyone asks, that is NOT code for "atheists and religious people," I'm talking about broad intellectual approaches to life not specific ideologies.) So long as American "Conservatives" are beholden to the "B" side over the "T" side they are unfit to hold lawmaking authority, and this is Exhibit A.

Hat-tip Jeff Wells

24 comments:

Mads said...

Fuck santorum and fuck those people who boo'ed a soldier.

They fucking suck, and I wish they'd be drafted for their behaviour.

alexandrite said...

Yes all those filthy liberal lies brainwashing America into thinking that gay people shouldn't be persecuted and excluded... How dare they inflict that kind of social engineering on Americans...

soldierhawk said...

I'd love to leave a more coherent comment, but I'm too busy gagging into my keyboard.

How dare they. Just...how DARE they?

Roberto Rivera said...

This is what happens when people infer their beliefs on the law. The law should be a neutral body to benefit all in order to stabilize society. When people who create the law do this they wind up creating an unfair and unbalanced system. Oh and being gay is a culture not just about sex.

Mveculous said...

Santorum didn't so much miss the point as run away from the point screaming. Apparently repealing DADT give gay soldiers free reign to sprint down the halls of the bases just fuckin each other left and right.

Audrey said...

Ahem.
http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com/2011/09/truth-about-booing-at-debate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SunshineStateSarah+%28Sunshine+State+Sarah%29

"The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc."

Sylocat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sylocat said...

@Audrey

Interesting that S.S.S.'s blog post focuses on the claim that it was "just 2 or 3 people booing" and yet makes no mention of the fact that I heard a lot more than 3 people cheering when Santorum promised to reinstate DADT, and claimed that any discussion of non-heterosexuality was tantamount to an explicit discussion of sexual acts.

Pat said...

OK, Mr. Santorum, but fair is fair. If your reasoning for reinstating DADT is that sex in general has no place in the military, then no soldier should be allowed to ever mention or imply their sexual orientation. If gay soldiers can't say or imply that they are gay, then straight soldiers can't do the same. Reading a copy of Playboy? Out. Looking at a picture of your wife? Out. Talking to another soldier about your family? Out. It's only fair. We wouldn't want anyone to have special treatment, right?

That's assuming, of course, that you actually meant a word you said.

RenardeRousse said...

I'm right there with soldierhawk about the gagging, but it was comforting when they showed the audience during the disgusting applause for Santorum, and you could see a good chunk of the audience just sitting there, not moving, looking pretty upset. This reminds me of the health care moment when an audience member cheered for someone without insurance to die while in a coma.

David (The Pants) said...

He's right: There is no place for sexual activity in the military. But straight people do not sex it up in the army regularly anyway, right? Who cares. He's also right that sex(ual orientation I presume) is not an issue. In context, he's wrong, but out of context, that quote sounds okay at face value.

He's fucking wrong that letting gays have EQUAL rights is the same as SPECIAL TREATMENT. "Special treatment" would involve elevating minorities above majorities in some respects. And last time I fucking checked, equality makes people equal, not better. This isn't Animal Farm, Rick.

Benfea said...

I especially love the "special rights" argument they keep pulling out of their collective posteriors.

No, you dumb [bad word], asking for equality is not asking for "special rights"; it is asking to end the special rights of the majority.

Yet somehow, ending the persecution of a minority counts as "asking for special rights everyone else doesn't get" on whatever planet conservolibertarians come from.

Eodrid said...

How incredibly disingenuous to claim that DADT doesn't make sex an issue, and that repealing it is "going to recognize a group of people, and give them a special privilege." Was it opposite day, or is Rick from the bizarro universe?

The military repealing its mandatory discrimination against gays and lesbians isn't "social experimentation", its catching up to the rest of the country.

Mads said...

Ok so it seems it was just 2-3 guys doing this.

It could theoretically be democrat activists trying to provoke these kinds of reactions. It seems like a pretty good idea, too.

It probably isn't, but these 2-3 guys certainly made their impression on bob.

They're still assholes, either way.

James said...

No offense, Bob, but is there a reason you keep deleting my posts about how Gary Johnson was the only candidate to denounce the booing of Stephen Hill?

Ryan said...

The statistics make me doubt that most Republicans oppose gay soldiers in general or hate them enough to boo one of them in specific. But they don't hate bigotry enough to stop associating with the party that represents it, either.

James said...

Regardless of whether it was 2 or 2000 assholes, anyone who booed Stephen Hill, a man risking his life for the military, is pure scum.

Ryan said...

...for example, the whole audience erupted in cheers at Santorum's cowardly, hypocritical response to the question ("sex has no place in the military...DADT was not social engineering, but getting rid of it was...the military's only job is to defend the country....being allowed to serve while gay is a 'special right'). Ugh. Makes me want to take a shower, just watching that.

biomechanical923 said...

Most military barracks I've heard of don't have private bedrooms.
Defenders of DADT justify that they want to maintain unit cohesion by preventing gay soldiers from jumping in each others bunks in front of everybody.
Which really is a waste of time, since they could do the same thing with a simple "no sex allowed for anybody" rule.

James said...

Gary Johnson condemns booing of Stephen Hill, apologizes for silence on stage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/gary-johnson-gay-soldier_n_978710.html

David said...

In reflection of Bob's theory towards the end, I have a theory quite similar. What I see with the current political divide is that liberals want a president who is smarter than them and conservatives want a president who is as smart as them. The conservative viewpoint is that a president who is as smart as them will never be over their heads on a policy or decision. This allows them to keep a watchful eye on the president's actions. The liberal viewpoint is that a president who is smarter than themselves will make better and more informed decisions in policy.

As to Mr. Santorum, his idea of DADT is that of a communist idea presenting equality on a blank slate. The problem with this, just as in communism, is that people are not blank slates. Given the stereotypical ideas of a gay person, other soldiers may default to believing someone is straight if they do not act within those preconceived notions. The default setting within society is default to straight. If there were no preconceived notions about sexuality then Mr. Santorum's idea of DADT would make more sense; though still somewhat discriminatory.

Arturo said...

I had to stop watching when he interpreted the question as "Why can't gay people have sex in the military?"

Phildog said...

Why should straight soldiers have the exclusively "special right" to talk about their love lives with their friends and co-workers?

God, and the shear stupidity of the audience. If sexual behavior shouldn't be an issue in the army, they why allow for DADT to make it an issue?

patrick.b.healy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.