|
|
home blogs about forum contact search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
GOP Debate: 8:00 ET The Republican presidential candidates are holding their latest debate tonight at 8:00pm ET on CNN (web video link) in conjunction with YouTube. Join the conversation on this open comment thread or stop by NB Chat for live discussion. Note: You must be registered and logged in to participate in chats. 
Read comments
Related StoriesMost Emailed Stories
Related Topics | |
Comments Policy
Repub Debate
November 28, 2007 - 21:10 ET by BlondeHey you posters....come on over and join the chat. It's fun!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Differences
November 28, 2007 - 23:34 ET by JimboOn the whole, I think Anderson Cooper did a good job in the sense that he was forceful in keeping the candidate responses on time. He was also effective on ensuring that the candidates actually answered the questions being posed to them.
My only problem is, why couldn’t they have been that efficient during the Democratic cake walk they called a debate??? They let Hillary skate on drivers licenses. They let candidates run obscenely over on their allotted time. They let candidates answer questions completely away from the questions being posed. The differences were startling. Not unexpected, but dramatic.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
I think this You Tube angle
November 28, 2007 - 23:42 ET by JimboI think this You Tube angle was nothing more than smoke and mirrors by CNN to ask the same questions they otherwise wanted to ask.
There must have been millions of those questions submitted. Of course CNN is going to select those questions which they would otherwise have chosen to ask themselves. IN fact, choosing someone firing and tossing around a gun makes their point better than they ever could have done otherwise.
And what does a question of the confederate flag have to do in this debate other than to fan the inference that Republicans are racist??
Lastly, CNN tried to end the debate on a “Pearls or Diamonds” note by asking Rudy about his switch to the Red Sox in the World Series. In reality, it was an attempt to show a Republican flip flop. Rudy handled it well though.
Am I missing something?
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Song
November 28, 2007 - 21:14 ET by timotheI'm sure Romney's not too thrilled about the song. :(
Romney Song?
November 28, 2007 - 21:38 ET by P.J. GladnickWhat song?
The William Hung of TV Pundits
November 28, 2007 - 21:47 ET by Tim GrahamA young Democrat seeks to dismiss the MRC analysis of the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate. If there was a Punditry Idol, this is one of those embarrassing flop auditions.
I googled Leeann Anderson and found...
November 28, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Nortonalec"Leeann Anderson, left, a member of the United Steelworkers Women of Steel, and Mary Sparks, a local union activist trained by the USW, test a doll for lead contaminants at Ms. Anderson's home in Mt. Lebanon."
Same old song and dance.
Nortonalec
We like Duncan
November 28, 2007 - 22:05 ET by charlietexasWe like Duncan Hunter.......I wish more people did. President Hunter....it has a good ring to it, don't ya think????
Charlietexas, I'm with you,
November 29, 2007 - 00:22 ET by USA4freedomCharlietexas,I'm with you, I wish he could get more traction.. He comes closest to what I want.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
USA
November 29, 2007 - 21:07 ET by botgbut of course...........click link for policy statements
GoHunter08
Leon's GOP Debate Analysis
November 28, 2007 - 22:42 ET by LeonRon Paul Domination
That is all...
Gay soldier! Abort!! pull
November 28, 2007 - 22:56 ET by LeonGay soldier! Abort!! pull the chord!! pullllll the chord!!! (*the sad thing is they actually did pull the chord...ha)
Check out that conservative support of the troops! Shouting down a 42 year veteran b/c he's gay. Wow!
I see your true colors shining through. You all only support the troops so long as they believe what you believe. So selfish. So petty.
That scene in tonight's debate was a perfect example of the hypocrisy of all Republicans. What a disgrace. You should all be ashamed of your fellow Republicans and they're BOOOING of an American Veteran!
Sickening.
God bless that man, he
November 28, 2007 - 23:07 ET by JasonCGod bless that man, he never even flinched. He set up his story quite well, too.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC, That was a
November 28, 2007 - 23:23 ET by LeonJasonC,
That was a ringing indictment. Brutal for the Republicans. Booing a veteran is indefensible. Bunch of savages in that Repbulican crowd.
Furthmore, Ron Paul dominated those other chumps. He brought heat. The only candidate that said ANYTHING with any substance. Oh wait actually I forgot the literal interpretation of the Bible question. That was full of substance. haha.
PS 23/6 Hillary Captions for Conservatives. Already they've surpassed Newsbusted by leaps and bounds. Took the liberals 2 weeks to get their comedy show up and running and hilarious. Big surprise.
It's all coming up left these days.
Yes, Leon
November 28, 2007 - 23:28 ET by JasonCI sometimes try to act cagey about my political stance (not often, really), but I'll lay out my cards here; I think leftist ideology is simply more sustainable, more logical, and less rooted in false premises and the Affective Fallacy - the latter of which is, I believe the worst concept that we can allow to infiltrate political discourse - than conservative ideology. I can respect the traditionalism and patriarchal nostalgia of conservatism on some level, but I don't think it works.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Well Stated. Well
November 28, 2007 - 23:40 ET by LeonWell Stated. Well stated.
If you look at the political spectrum over time it has consistently shifted to the left as society as advanced.
What does that tell you?
Thanks. "He was, and is
November 28, 2007 - 23:46 ET by JasonCThanks.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
It tells me you are a propagandist
November 29, 2007 - 00:13 ET by PopularTechAll it tells me is you are a propagandist because no such shifting to the left has occurred.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Isn't the very premise of
November 29, 2007 - 00:17 ET by JasonCIsn't the very premise of this site to fight back against all of the insidious liberalism that has taken hold of Western culture since the mid-60s?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Liberal MEDIA
November 29, 2007 - 02:16 ET by PopularTechIt does not say liberal culture it says liberal MEDIA!
Why do you think conservatives dominate talk radio? Because once you remove all the props you actually have to listen to what they have to say.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
The military is no place for social engineering
November 28, 2007 - 23:25 ET by RJDon't ask, don't tell is the only intelligent way to resolve the issue....
P.S. That cameo question and appearance was a pathetic, pandering set-up by CNN.
P.P.S. Ron Paul dominated? Bwahahahaha! Only a liberal or a libertarian could think that.
OK, indeed, it had a staged
November 28, 2007 - 23:30 ET by JasonCOK, indeed, it had a staged feel.
However....
How does it qualify as social engineering? Why would we want to turn people away from the military based on something so irrelevant? Do you think it would affect the straight troops in some negative way? How is it not discrimination? &c. &c....
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, life in the military has never been, and never will be,
November 28, 2007 - 23:46 ET by RJlike civilian life, and it's a mistake to act as if it is. If you had ever been in the military, you'd understand that being openly gay in the military is not an irrelevant issue.
The main thing to remember is that the need to act together as a close, cohesive unit is paramont, and everything flows from that. Anything that might disrupt it endangers both the personnel and any possible mission.
Really, though it's an issue that absolutely needs to be dealt with by military leadership, not civilians. If they say don't ask don't tell is working, and give us reasons why, we need to accept that instead of enforcing social engineering.
I realize that as a
November 29, 2007 - 00:12 ET by JasonCI realize that as a civilian I have basically no right to critique the military in any possible way, but:
1. I'm going to need clarification on your first 2 paragraphs. How would a gay soldier 'disrupt' the personnel and mission? Why would it be any more damaging than the Otherness that might exist between, say, a soldier from New York and one from Boston. Or just one from the deep south and one from New England? Or those of different races? Why is this element of difference more important?
2. As to paragraph 3, what would be the definition of Don't Ask Don't Tell working? "Yep, no homos came out this week, everything's ship-shape"?
I'm being very serious. How is this not blatant discrimination?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Do you think there would be
November 29, 2007 - 00:16 ET by JimboDo you think there would be effective, clear, and undistracted cohesiveness in a military outfit on patrol for extended period of time, in and out of combat, if that unit was comprised of heterosexual men and women?
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Since they are dedicated,
November 29, 2007 - 00:21 ET by balboaSince they are dedicated, highly trained professionals in charge of protecting America, I would expect there to be no problem whatsoever in a unit with hetero men and women.
Since I am not a veteran,
November 29, 2007 - 00:25 ET by JimboSince I am not a veteran, I'll wait for some of the more distiguished posters to chime in here.
In my opinion, however, I think sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual, creates a distraction that you don't need in a combat situation.
If one of my more qualified collegues tell me I'm wrong, I'll stand by their opinion.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
I don't see why the
November 29, 2007 - 00:30 ET by JasonCI don't see why the intermingling of different genders should automatically suggest a sexually-charged environment.
And besides which, it's not like a gay soldier would likely be mincing around like RuPaul. I've worked with many homosexual individuals, including some stereotypically flamboyant ones, and while I obviously recognize that "working" in the military is an altogether different thing, I don't see why this particular element should be different.
Frankly, it's impossible to ignore the basic aspects of anxiety regarding homosexuality here.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Like I said, I'll defer to
November 29, 2007 - 01:05 ET by JimboLike I said, I'll defer to the actual military veterans to comment here, since that was the point of the question.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Gays in Military
November 29, 2007 - 01:23 ET by Cool ArrowI served with at least 4 gays in a company of 25.
Never worried about all the stereotypical f'rinstances.
They're Americans, and have a right, (and duty at times) to serve with and alongside straights.
If the courts and Congress are going to require equality of the American Public, is there really any reason the same should not be required of the Armed Forces?
That's great to hear. "He
November 29, 2007 - 01:41 ET by JasonCThat's great to hear.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I think they have the right
November 29, 2007 - 02:19 ET by well99I think they have the right to serve but I think things are better left as they are.I know things have changed since I was in but to be truthful all I see is alot of problems.In the Army I was in combat arms so it was all male.If someone didnt stay in the closet they wound up getting hurt.As far as I am concern as long as you do you job I dont care.Still at least back then if you were gay kept quiet about it no one raised a fuss.Also you can bet if it is changed there will be sexual harrassment charges big time.Also that means they have to have co-ed showers because other wise they are discriminateing against straights.Since this is a sexual preference issue.
Things have changed
November 29, 2007 - 02:38 ET by Cool ArrowWhen I was in the Army '71 - '73, there wasn't anybody asking to get the Gays kicked out. Certainly wasn't anything secret about their lifestyles.
I know we had 3 guys get
November 29, 2007 - 03:56 ET by well99I know we had 3 guys get kicked out in basic.As far as a regular unit well there was 1 guy while I was in at Carson.Actually one of my COs was gay but nothing was made of it.He wasnt out in the open though.It was know but no one really cared.
well99, I'm just wondering
November 29, 2007 - 11:53 ET by JasonCwell99, I'm just wondering what you mean when you say those who didn't stay in the lcoset often got hurt.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason
November 30, 2007 - 06:50 ET by well99When I was at FtCarson I had a CO and a private that were Gay.They were not there at the same time.One the private was out in the open about it.He also had a bad habit of running his mouth.Eventually he was put out for being gay.It could be that it was a way to get rid of him because he was worthless as tits on a boar hog.Some people are like that..nothing to do with your preference.Just plain lazy.Now later after our CO pcsed we got a new CO.He came down out of battalion.He did a good job and as far as I know never mention his preferences.The thing is he didnt bring it to work.
Great post Cool. The only
November 29, 2007 - 09:50 ET by LeonGreat post Cool.
The only comparison I can relate to on any level is in sports. I played with several gay guys in football and ice hockey and it was never a problem. As far as I was concerned, if you were good enough to play, then you should play. I wanted to win and I didn't care what the sexual orientation of the guy scoring the touchdown or goal was. In fact, in the heat of the game, it never even crossed my mind.
Who cares what a soldier does when he gest home? Straight male soldiers aren't constantly trying to hit on the female soldiers b/c there is a high level of professionalism that all soldiers are trained to respect. I don't see why it would be any different for gays.
The fact that that veteran was booed was painful to watch. That was some ugly tv.
HE WASNT BOOED BECAUSE HE
November 29, 2007 - 16:40 ET by JimboHE WASNT BOOED BECAUSE HE WAS GAY.
You can ignore the reasons for the booing that continue to be posted, but the fact remains.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
The fact that a veteran
November 29, 2007 - 16:45 ET by fosstenThe fact that a veteran would work for Hillary Clinton is painful to see. That's some ugly career choice.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Jason, you're being naive
November 29, 2007 - 04:05 ET by RJYour questions show a total lack of knowledge about military life...and about male-female attraction, for that matter. No sexually charged environment? Ridiculous. First, you're dealing with a youth-heavy population. Second, the heterosexual problem is strong enough that the Military has many rules against it, both from the male-female aspect and from the up and down the ranks aspect. Third, like it or not, there are many young men who have strong attitudes against homosexuality, and you would have a probable and continuing increase in violent incidents and/or a major reduction in voluntary enlistment, either of which would be disruptive to our military.
As I said earlier, the military is no place for social engineering. It would be stupid to add more layers (a openly third/forth sex if you will) to the mix. The social, functional, and battlefield risks are too great, particularly for a segment that represents no more than 2-3% of society. Further, your continued attempt to apply civilian standards to a military environment is much like forcing one country's culture onto another because "you know better" than the citizens of that poor backward country.
Well, it's late and my brain is shutting down, so that might be a little jumbled, but the basic ideas you asked for are there, regarding why don't ask don't tell is the best way to handle the issue. That's it for now....
Surely you jest RJ
November 29, 2007 - 04:14 ET by Cool Arrow"the military is no place for social engineering"
You could just as easily be describing reasons to keep Blacks out of the Military?
I suggest you rethink.
Nothing to rethink, Cool
November 29, 2007 - 13:39 ET by RJIs that the sum of what you got from my post? I knew there would bleeding hearts who would self-righteously cry about blacks in the military, but that's apples and oranges, because the sexual tension isn't present. Please re-read my post in it's entirety.
1. Why is racial tension
November 29, 2007 - 13:44 ET by JasonC1. Why is racial tension worse than exual tension?
2. What difference does it make if they are "out" or not? Don't ask Don't tell implies that there can be gays in the military, they just have to shut up about it. So, opposition to being open about it seems to be entirely for the benefit of the straight soldiers.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Dumb questions, jason
November 29, 2007 - 14:02 ET by RJEither you're being deliberately specious in order to play an immature game of gotcha, or you're really ignorant of the difference (#1), and still approaching the issue from a civilian perspective (#2).
Either way, your questions are socially driven, not outcome driven, and are not worthy of an answer. Go back, read and absorb my entire post, maybe do a little objective research, and restructure your approach if you want to have an honest discussion.
typical of you RJ. I just
November 29, 2007 - 17:23 ET by JasonCtypical of you RJ. I just wouldn't understand, right? Try me. Because you're evasion is making it more and more clear that it's just about not making the straight soldiers feel uncomfortable.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
sounds like the same
November 29, 2007 - 18:09 ET by crsheddsounds like the same arguments used when truman desegregated the military.
they were wrong then, why would they be right now?
JC: Why would we want to
November 29, 2007 - 23:58 ET by general companyJC: Why would we want to turn people away from the military based on something so irrelevant?
Who turned them away? Bill? The Gen started with "why do you think", a definite liberal slant.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Read the HEADLINE!
November 28, 2007 - 23:41 ET by PawpawNJust in!!
CNN Fails to Mention Retired Gay General’s Endorsement of Hillary
Another Hillary plant. I
November 28, 2007 - 23:56 ET by JimboAnother Hillary plant. I guess that's the price CNN had to pay for asking her a difficult question.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Leon Never Fails To Impress
November 29, 2007 - 00:00 ET by Jimbo"You should all be ashamed of your fellow Republicans and they're BOOOING of an American Veteran!"
Actually, with the exception of “Dr.” Ron Paul, I was very proud of all the Republican candidates. I would gladly take any one of them over any of the Democratic candidates every day of the week. Sorry your side has such a ptiful cast of characters from which to choose.
As for booing the homosexual retired military veteran, there was booing for several reasons, none of which you will acknowledge since it doesn’t fit your narrow mind or view of the situation.
He was booed because he refused to stop after several requests for the moderator to do so.
He was booed because he claimed his question was not answered, when in reality, it was answered, however it was not the answer he would have liked.And CNN was being booed for choosing this individual, above hundreds of thousands of others who could have asked a question in person in an effort to embarrass the Republican panel to advance the liberal ideology of CNN.
Gay soldier! Abort!! pull the chord!!
Uhh... hey asshat...in case you weren't aware, the Republicans werent controlling the technology of tonight's debate. CNN was. So are you suggesting that CNN pulled the plug on the questioner they hand selected themselves?
You really suck at this Leon.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Jimbo, are you saying, gasp, that leon's
November 29, 2007 - 00:03 ET by RJposts are predictably, ideologically, knee-jerk? That his interpretation is unreliable and not worth the time it takes to read?
Seriously, Jimbo, nice evaluation and breakdown of what really went on with that pathetically obvious CNN/gay plant.
Anderson Cooper just said
November 29, 2007 - 00:06 ET by JimboAnderson Cooper just said that CNN had NO IDEA the General was on one of Hillary’s committees, otherwise they would have said so.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Jimbo, 1) Wrong. They
November 29, 2007 - 09:55 ET by LeonJimbo,
1) Wrong. They booed before that. Furthermore, I didn't know you can read minds. You know what each and every booer's motivation was? Whoa. I hear Cris Angel needs a sidekick.
2) The plug pull comment was a joke. Take it easy tiger.
The guy was booed b/c the crowd didn't like his agenda. Republicans only support the troops when they have the same beliefs as them. That's fine, just don't try to pretend that you have unilateral, comprehensive support for the troops. Because as last night evidenced, as soon as a soldier steps out of line, you no longer support him. It's amazingly hypocritical and amazingly pathetic.
Leon
November 29, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Jimbo"They booed before that"
No. They didn't
"Furthermore, I didn't know you can read minds."
But apparently you can, if it involves making your point.
"The plug pull comment was a joke."
I guess everything becomes a joke with you when you are proven wrong and have no other recourse.
Because as last night evidenced, as soon as a soldier steps out of line, you no longer support him.
Talk about reading minds, how do you know what I was thinking?? The fact of the matter is that I didn't care one way or the other until he said his question "wasn't answered" and went on to explain that he felt that way becasue the answer wasnt the one he wanted to hear. Either way, I took exception against HIM... not his military service, his homosexuality, or the troops in the field.
You really suck at this Leon
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Leon, you need to throw out the bad apple before the whole bushe
November 29, 2007 - 17:21 ET by PawpawNLeon, you need to throw out the bad apple before the whole bushel becomes bad!! Would anyone other than a liberal plant a bad apple in a bushel of good apples!!
Does this mean
November 29, 2007 - 00:14 ET by PopularTechSo does this mean the Democrats will go on FOXNews now?
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
What Propaganda
November 28, 2007 - 22:58 ET by PopularTechIf anyone is not aware Anderson Cooper is gay which is why that segment was trumped up so much. CNN's propaganda never ceases to amaze me.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Anderson Cooper is not
November 28, 2007 - 22:59 ET by LeonAnderson Cooper is not openly gay. Now you're just gossiping.
On another note:
Curse that gay soldier! How dare he want fair treatment! How dare he imply that gays won't try to have sex with all of their fellow soldiers!
HOW DARE HE ASK FOR THE SAME RESPECT THAT IS AFFORDED ALL OTHER VETERANS!
when do i get a mike to
November 28, 2007 - 23:17 ET by botgwhen do i get a mike to spout my issue during a Presidential Debate?
GoHunter08
Interesting question botg.
November 28, 2007 - 23:26 ET by LeonInteresting question botg. I was thinking the same thing. I don't know he got one but he rocked his agenda hardcore. And exposed a gaping wound in the so-called unilateral Republican support for the troops.
mostly Leon he exposed a
November 28, 2007 - 23:33 ET by botgmostly Leon he exposed a gaping bias of CNN to present a liberal viewpoint. This was not the stage to grandstand such polemic
GoHunter08
Oh I'm not denying that
November 28, 2007 - 23:41 ET by LeonOh I'm not denying that bias at all.
However, it doesn't change the fact that Republicans booed a veteran.
Where is this veteran's allegiance!
November 28, 2007 - 23:49 ET by PawpawNCNN Fails to Mention Retired Gay General’s Endorsement of Hillary A staged incident..geez, will we get a "oh my God" from you LEON!
they booed a baby killing,
November 28, 2007 - 23:49 ET by red_dragon311they booed a baby killing, woman raping ( or man raping) innocent human killing monster????
thats what John kerry said about the troops right. and thats what hollywood thinks the troops do right, or is that just the right wing troops the gay ones get a pass for gayness
Red dragon311, Great point.
November 29, 2007 - 00:33 ET by USA4freedomRed dragon311,Great point. that is just what Hollywood thinks. Look at all the latest movies!!!!Gay or not.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Immigration, gay general
November 29, 2007 - 00:00 ET by botgImmigration, gay general lead debate battle lines
CNN pushing their agenda
GoHunter08
You are a propagandist
November 29, 2007 - 00:11 ET by PopularTechNo Republican Candidate booed him. Stop trying to use Gay Anderson Cooper's homosexual agenda as propaganda against the Republicans.
Coopers has been exposed and the game is up, you lost.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Popular, I never claimed
November 29, 2007 - 09:56 ET by LeonPopular,
I never claimed a candidate booed him. I specifically said the Republicans IN THE CROWD.
Reading comprehension...the silent assassin.
Oh Really?
November 29, 2007 - 15:41 ET by PopularTechOh so now you know the political affiliations of all the crowd members? Please prove only republicans in the crowd booed him.
It is really said when propagandists like you think you can win points for the gay Anderson Cooper's homosexual agenda by trying to use the military against conservatives. Please it is really pathetic.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Popular, Your hatred for
November 29, 2007 - 18:49 ET by LeonPopular,
Your hatred for Anderson Cooper simply b/c he could possibly be gay is frightening.
Could you please outline the key points of Cooper's 'gay agenda'?
What exactly is the agenda? To turn everyone gay? Why would they want to do that? I don't get it.
What is the agenda? Please tell me.
Are you paid to spread lies?
November 29, 2007 - 22:50 ET by PopularTechI don't hate Anderson Cooper, I said no such thing now go troll somewhere else.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
No name calling tho!!
November 29, 2007 - 00:10 ET by PawpawNAt least no calling him a NAZI, MURDERER, etc., as you Libs call the Pres, VP & other Repubs!!
"However, it doesn't
November 29, 2007 - 00:12 ET by Jimbo"However, it doesn't change the fact that Republicans booed a veteran."
Actually, as it turns out, another Hillary plant got booed.
Poor little Leon. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such an asshat.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
So....your position is that
November 29, 2007 - 00:13 ET by JasonCSo....your position is that he was lying about being a veteran?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
No Jason
November 29, 2007 - 00:17 ET by JimboNo, my position is that you are a troll who has no interest in comprehending what you read.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Well first of all, this is
November 29, 2007 - 00:26 ET by JasonCWell first of all, this is my first post in this thread and second, the syntax of your statement, as a response to Leon's, clearly communicates that he is in fact not a veteran, which neither you or I have any way of knowing, just as we have no way of knowing whether he was a 'plant' of Senator Clinton's, aside from preconceived ideas about what the other side of the aisle does.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Gays vs Alcoholics
November 28, 2007 - 23:28 ET by timotheGays deserve minority rights in the same way that alcoholics deserve rights. Don't see the similarities? Let's take a closer look.
Both homosexuality and alcoholism are unnatural behaviors.
Both have been defined as genetic in origin on one hand and environmental in origin on the other hand.
Both behaviors are excesses and degradation of acts that are socially accepted as normal.
Those that recover from either behavior acknowledge themselves as mentally ill.
Although the alcoholic is much more dangerous to society in the short-term, the acceptance of all sexual behaviors is equally dangerous to society in the long term.
So why exactly should homosexuals be entitled to minority rights? Why shouldn't there be consequences to openly homosexual behavior? Why should our society accept homosexuality as normal when it is clearly not normal? (You can't make babies with it...it's not normal.)
And why don't we ask the Dems in these debates why they think homosexuality is normal behavior when the majority of our nation doesn't think it is normal? (or right)
Both homosexuality and
November 28, 2007 - 23:43 ET by JasonCBoth homosexuality and alcoholism are unnatural behaviors.
By what standard? I'm sure you're getting to that.
Both have been defined as genetic in origin on one hand and environmental in origin on the other hand.
As in, the two hands are mutually exclusive? Any credible study on the topic will express that sexual preference is a result of a massively complex network of stimuli and reaction formation, much of which takes place unconsciously.
Both behaviors are excesses and degradation of acts that are socially accepted as normal.
In what way is homosexuality "excess"? Are you working upon the assumption that gays are inherently more promiscuous? Why degradation? I tend not to see those who get worked up about gay sex mustering the same opposition to consensual but casual heterosexual activity.
Those that recover from either behavior acknowledge themselves as mentally ill.
Basically everything about this statement, as it pertains to homosexuality, is appalingly offensive, but let us begin with the fact that a few incidents of people 'deciding' they're not gay anymore (because it is a 'decision' right?), well-publicized by anti-gay , agenda-pushing zealots with nothing better to do than criticize other peoples' sexual preference, does not prove anything.
Although the alcoholic is much more dangerous to society in the
short-term, the acceptance of all sexual behaviors is equally dangerous
to society in the long term.
Typical paranoid gay panic. At least outline the long-term negative effects of a very small percentage of Americans being openly gay. I can wait...
(You can't make babies with it...it's not normal.)
Ah, there we are. Better start your petition against all married couples who can't, or choose not to, have children.
With respect to the military, why on earth would you want to turn away people whose "disqualification" is based on something so trivial and irrelevant to the interests of the military?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I thought my points were pretty clear
November 29, 2007 - 00:16 ET by timotheBut I'll expand on this one point.
"Both homosexuality and alcoholism are unnatural behaviors."
"By what standard? I'm sure you're getting to that."
Homosexuality is unnatural because you cannot procreate with someone of the same sex. When an overly hormonic male dog humps a man's leg, I guess it's their "natural" response. But their purpose is procreation and their instincts are in total control. Man's instinct to have sex with whatever moves may be "natural" by instinct, but it is not natural because humans control their behavior by their powers of reason. And we have learned that individual rights end where the rights of another begins.
Alcoholic behavior is unnatural for basically the same reason. We, as humans, have the power to think logically and reasonably in certain situations. To continue to drink in situations where drinking should not occur is unnatural human behavior.
Don't get me wrong, gays can do whatever they want behind closed doors. But the moment they ask for minority status or the moment they thrust their ideology into public discourse such as the military, they lose my support. Sexual preference is not a public issue...period. And gay marriage does not deserve the same tax advantages as hetrosexual marriage, no matter how "loving" the gays may be.
And gay marriage does not
November 29, 2007 - 00:23 ET by JasonCAnd gay marriage does not deserve the same tax advantages as hetrosexual marriage, no matter how "loving" the gays may be.
Of course it does, if it is in fact "marriage". The whole point of the fight for gay marriage rights is that it will be recognized as equal to heterosexual marriage.
I understand your comment about ideology being "thrust" into public discourse, but frankly I think its an important discussion. Keep in mind, gay people have been ostracized and shunned for centuries. It's only the last couple of decades that they have even been able to acknowledge their sexuality in a way that doesn't involve secrecy. Imagine if you or I had to pretend not to be straight (I'm assuming you are) every time we left the house. I have no problem with gay people embracing the fact that they can finally express that in some way.
I don't see your point regarding individual rights ending where rights of others begin? I think our discussion is predicated on consensual activity, right?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
No...I never had to hide my sexual preference
November 29, 2007 - 00:35 ET by timotheBut everyone...and I mean everyone, has to hide something about themselves...some character flaw that the world would shame them for if they ever saw it. But no one else gets the political benefits of their shortcomings being exposed like homosexuals. I guess you gotta give credit to the gay community for making their shortcomings a political issue. But I'm going to fight it with my vote and with my keyboard at every turn.
I simply don't agree about legal rights for gay marriage. Sorry.