GOP debate audience boos active duty Marine

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I tend to disagree - I think elections are generally about turning out bases - but setting that aside...

I agree with you that the GOP needs to win back Reagan Dems, but right now they are doing everything they can to alienate them...

Local elections are almost entirely about turning out the bases. Once you move away from local election, it's less about the bases and more about the ever growing Independents and those who are only slightly aligned with either party. Obama didn't win because he excited the Dem base, he won because he got the Independents. Bush won the same way, although you could argue that both Gore and Kerry lost the Independents as opposed to Bush actively winning them.

Obama's biggest challenge will likely be Romney - Perry looks likely to talk himself out of contention as the more people see him the more they realize he's a clown. How the Independents view Obama and Romney will determine that election, not who gets whose wackos out more.

I agree on Perry.

With regard to independents, you and I have been round and round on this - we differ, and that's fine.

[BlueHen86]

THAT right there? THAT is the thinking of Dems in 2004 getting behind Mr. Milquetoast, John Kerry.

What happens when a base is uninspired? They stay home, and while you could argue that Obama's base will be uninspired... his jobs bill is already rallying the base... and that was just his opening salvo for the campaign... his base will be there in end, given his skills as a candidate.

You are again reading what you want to read. 2004 was an entirely different beast.

Of course Obama's base will be out to vote. Do you think the left wing nut jobs and the blacks are going to stay home? No way.

It is the middle ground that will win this election.

So, if the right gets their base out by using proven fear tactics that Obama is a commie and a vote for third party is a loss, then each base is out. Do that through the back door, though.

The Repubs need to gain the middle votes...and they can't do it while pandering to the far right. So, dump the crap and get to the meat of the election...Obama has failed miserably with job creation (the new jobs bill is a joke), Obushma has pandered to special interests and Wall Street, Obushma is involved in three wars - two of which he personally added to the problem and our debt, and Obama's failed policies are adding to our economic woes.

There are so many independents ready to dump Obushma...cater to them instead of some right wing nut job and Obushma will lose.

I think the problem is that the GOP has two bases, one which focuses more on conservative issues, and one which focuses more on Christian issues. If they can get a candidate that appeals to both they can win, otherwise we're looking at 4 more years of Obama.

[BlueHen86]

Local elections are almost entirely about turning out the bases. Once you move away from local election, it's less about the bases and more about the ever growing Independents and those who are only slightly aligned with either party. Obama didn't win because he excited the Dem base, he won because he got the Independents. Bush won the same way, although you could argue that both Gore and Kerry lost the Independents as opposed to Bush actively winning them.

Obama's biggest challenge will likely be Romney - Perry looks likely to talk himself out of contention as the more people see him the more they realize he's a clown. How the Independents view Obama and Romney will determine that election, not who gets whose wackos out more.

I agree on Perry.

With regard to independents, you and I have been round and round on this - we differ, and that's fine.

I'm inclined to agree with GF here, but I don't think the independent voters turn out in big numbers next year. If I had to guess right now, I'd say Obama wins and it's a low voter turnout.

[Vidav]

And so goes another political discussion. Gannon, forget it. TTBF is the know it all in all things politics.

dude - when you talk about banking - and Z is in on the convo - do you get sand in you vagina about it when he drops his careers worth of experience in to the conversation?

It all depends on if they agree or not.

[JohnStOnge]

It's questions like THESE that piss off those of us (and we are VAST in number) who couldn't care less about the vast majority of the "social" issues they (the candidates AND the moderators) seem so **** fixated on. Fix the damned COUNTRY and leave the morality to the individual. DADT was repealed. Good. It was the right decision. Move on to the ACTUAL issues.

I think you're wrong. I think a substantial majority does care about "social" issues whether they be on one side or the other.

I don't know about DADT. But I do think a very good argument can be made for limiting the military to one sex and one orientation. And of course the obvious choice would be heterosexual males.

Of course that would never fly because we don't do anything in this country anymore with an eye towards the best and most effective workgroup. Egalitarianism is woven into everything.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, "conservatives" didn't make this an issue. "Normalization of Homosexuality" activists made this an issue.

[Bronco]

-
I see that Santorum who was on stage didn't hear any boos and yet the email I received from Moveon.org said "the crowd Booed" as in everybody booed... That's strange
---

Santorum condemns booing of gay soldier

Wash Post Afternoon Fix ^ | 09/23/2011 | Chris Cillizza

In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum commented on the reaction to a question from a gay soldier at last night’s debate. “I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” he said. “I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. ... But certainly had I, I would’ve said, “Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.”

[BlueHen86]

It's questions like THESE that piss off those of us (and we are VAST in number) who couldn't care less about the vast majority of the "social" issues they (the candidates AND the moderators) seem so **** fixated on. Fix the damned COUNTRY and leave the morality to the individual. DADT was repealed. Good. It was the right decision. Move on to the ACTUAL issues.

I think you're wrong. I think a substantial majority does care about "social" issues whether they be on one side or the other.

I don't know about DADT. But I do think a very good argument can be made for limiting the military to one sex and one orientation. And of course the obvious choice would be heterosexual males.

Of course that would never fly because we don't do anything in this country anymore with an eye towards the best and most effective workgroup. Egalitarianism is woven into everything.

I think you're wrong. I don't care if two guys in San Diego want to get married, if a woman in Alaska want's to have an abortion or if a gay person want to join the military. Those aren't issues that are hurting this country. Here's a newsflash: we've had gay's in the military since the revolution and we've done just fine.

I do care if we elect people that spend frivolously or enter us into wars unwisely. We have real problems facing us these days, the stuff you mention is trivial. But hey, great job bringing up egalitarianism again, you are consistent.

[AZGrizFan]

It's questions like THESE that piss off those of us (and we are VAST in number) who couldn't care less about the vast majority of the "social" issues they (the candidates AND the moderators) seem so **** fixated on. Fix the damned COUNTRY and leave the morality to the individual. DADT was repealed. Good. It was the right decision. Move on to the ACTUAL issues.

I think you're wrong. I think a substantial majority does care about "social" issues whether they be on one side or the other.

I don't know about DADT. But I do think a very good argument can be made for limiting the military to one sex and one orientation. And of course the obvious choice would be heterosexual males.

Of course that would never fly because we don't do anything in this country anymore with an eye towards the best and most effective workgroup. Egalitarianism is woven into everything.

And I think YOU'RE wrong. On so many levels.

John, I spent 22 years in the military, and there were guys on my ship, in my unit, in my barracks, etc., that were gay. Everybody knew it. NOBODY cared. Sure, maybe the occasional redneck would make a wisecrack. But in reality, all anybody wanted was for everybody to do their fucking jobs. I really don't care who someone decides to sleep with in their off hours. And I'm here to tell you, the VAST majority of the military personnel I came in contact with felt the exact same way.

So, go ahead and make your "argument"...I'm here to tell you, homophobes like yourself are a rapidly dwindling group.

[JohnStOnge]

John, I spent 22 years in the military, and there were guys on my ship, in my unit, in my barracks, etc., that were gay. Everybody knew it. NOBODY cared. Sure, maybe the occasional redneck would make a wisecrack. But in reality, all anybody wanted was for everybody to do their **** jobs. I really don't care who someone decides to sleep with in their off hours. And I'm here to tell you, the VAST majority of the military personnel I came in contact with felt the exact same way.

So, go ahead and make your "argument"...I'm here to tell you, homophobes like yourself are a rapidly dwindling group.

With all due respect, I do not consider anecdotal observation such as you are describing reliable in terms of establishing that "NOBODY" cares about working in close quarters with homosexual members of their own sex. If you show me the results of a scientific poll designed so that there is assurance that there is no bias towards having people answer in an "acceptable" manner then I'll believe it. I'd be especially interested in information on how people would feel if it became clear that a homosexual member of their own sex is attracted to them. I may not have been in the military but I have been in a job where I was in close quarters with a homosexual who was apparently attracted to me and it was not comfortable. Actually in that same job there was also a woman who was apparently attracted to me in a situation where the feeling was not mutual and that wasn't comfortable either.

I don't have a scientific poll either but It is very reasonable to believe that there is a difference in a group dynamic where sexual attraction is present and one in which it is not. In fact I think it's kind of ridiculous to think otherwise.

I agree that people who understand that homosexuality is an abnormal condition are decreasing as a proportion of society. That is because there has been a decades long propaganda campaign to marginalize them. It includes stuff like inventing an insult word (homophobe) in order to attempt to shame people away from speaking the truth on the matter. But it doesn't work with me. I may be part of a dwindling group. But I'm right.

Call me "homophobe" all you want. I recognize the word for what it is and it has no impact on me.

[JohnStOnge]

I think you're wrong. I don't care if two guys in San Diego want to get married, if a woman in Alaska want's to have an abortion or if a gay person want to join the military. Those aren't issues that are hurting this country. Here's a newsflash: we've had gay's in the military since the revolution and we've done just fine.

Do you not think it is obvious that there are people on both sides of those issues and care about them? Take the abortion issue, for instance. There are obviously a large number of people who want it to be illegal and a large number who want it to be legal and a candidate's position on the matter is a factor in their decision process. I would be very willing to bet that if you had a poll with the following multiple choice question, those that answer "I don't care either way" would be in the minority:

Question: Which of the positions below best describes your position on abortion?
A. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
B. I think abortion should be legal and a matter of choice on the part of the woman involved.
C. I don't care either way.

Same with homosexuals in the military. If a candidate stands up and unequivocally states that he or she is in favor of homosexuals openly serving in the military some people are going to be more likely to vote for him or her and some people are going to be less likely to do so. I think that those such that the likelihood won't be changed at all will be in the minority. Or if a candidate unequivocally takes the opposite position. Same thing.

In fact, frankly, I think you guys are showing that you do care about social issues through your responses. It's just that you're on a particular side. To me when you say "I don't care..." you're saying people shouldn't care. And that's taking a position on the issue. I also think your reaction shows that the position a candidate takes on a social issue like homosexuals in the military does influence the likelihood that you're going to vote for that candidate.

So it's kind of like you guys are saying you don't care about social issues even while you're clearly showing that you do through your own comments.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW it's not just homosexuals. I do not think that the motivation for having women in the military is to have the best possible military either. I think it's egalitarianism. And I think it is pretty self evident that some level of problems associated with sexual interaction and attraction occur as a result of having both heterosexual males and heterosexual females serving in the military. Those problems would not occur if women didn't serve in the military.

Now, it doesn't mean our military doesn't function well. Because of our technology and probably also because of our military training and education approaches it is by far the most effective military in the world. But it could very well be that it's not as effective as it would be if women weren't in it.

[kalm]

Egalitarianism is a human quality unless you read the New Conk Pejorative Dictionary or Conservipedia. It really is getting difficult keeping up with all the new definitions.

[houndawg]

And so goes another political discussion. Gannon, forget it. TTBF is the know it all in all things politics.

Give it up, Hen. You've met someone who is superior to you in these things. You had good run until about '06, then most passed you by. You're now a poli board also-ran. Live with it.

Pretty soon he'll be telling us how he walked six miles to school in the snow...uphill both ways...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Give it up, Hen. You've met someone who is superior to you in these things. You had good run until about '06, then most passed you by. You're now a poli board also-ran. Live with it.

Pretty soon he'll be telling us how he walked six miles to school in the snow...uphill both ways...

Six miles? no. uphill both ways? oddly enough... yes - at least in elementary school. our house was on a hill - the street was at the bottom of a hill - and the school was atop another hill... (granted - it was about .1 miles away - but it did include an uphill stretch both ways...) and, I grew up in Minnesota - so, yeah - lot's of snow. have a nice day.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

John, I spent 22 years in the military, and there were guys on my ship, in my unit, in my barracks, etc., that were gay. Everybody knew it. NOBODY cared. Sure, maybe the occasional redneck would make a wisecrack. But in reality, all anybody wanted was for everybody to do their **** jobs. I really don't care who someone decides to sleep with in their off hours. And I'm here to tell you, the VAST majority of the military personnel I came in contact with felt the exact same way.

So, go ahead and make your "argument"...I'm here to tell you, homophobes like yourself are a rapidly dwindling group.

With all due respect, I do not consider anecdotal observation such as you are describing reliable in terms of establishing that "NOBODY" cares about working in close quarters with homosexual members of their own sex. If you show me the results of a scientific poll designed so that there is assurance that there is no bias towards having people answer in an "acceptable" manner then I'll believe it. I'd be especially interested in information on how people would feel if it became clear that a homosexual member of their own sex is attracted to them. I may not have been in the military but I have been in a job where I was in close quarters with a homosexual who was apparently attracted to me and it was not comfortable. Actually in that same job there was also a woman who was apparently attracted to me in a situation where the feeling was not mutual and that wasn't comfortable either.

I don't have a scientific poll either but It is very reasonable to believe that there is a difference in a group dynamic where sexual attraction is present and one in which it is not. In fact I think it's kind of ridiculous to think otherwise.

I agree that people who understand that homosexuality is an abnormal condition are decreasing as a proportion of society. That is because there has been a decades long propaganda campaign to marginalize them. It includes stuff like inventing an insult word (homophobe) in order to attempt to shame people away from speaking the truth on the matter. But it doesn't work with me. I may be part of a dwindling group. But I'm right.

Call me "homophobe" all you want. I recognize the word for what it is and it has no impact on me.

So homosexuality as abnormal - but wanting to diddle little girls (so long as they are the opposite sex I would presume) is perfectly normal?

I've got a word I'd call you, but it ain't homophobe...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I think you're wrong. I don't care if two guys in San Diego want to get married, if a woman in Alaska want's to have an abortion or if a gay person want to join the military. Those aren't issues that are hurting this country. Here's a newsflash: we've had gay's in the military since the revolution and we've done just fine.

Do you not think it is obvious that there are people on both sides of those issues and care about them? Take the abortion issue, for instance. There are obviously a large number of people who want it to be illegal and a large number who want it to be legal and a candidate's position on the matter is a factor in their decision process. I would be very willing to bet that if you had a poll with the following multiple choice question, those that answer "I don't care either way" would be in the minority:

Question: Which of the positions below best describes your position on abortion?
A. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
B. I think abortion should be legal and a matter of choice on the part of the woman involved.
C. I don't care either way.

Same with homosexuals in the military. If a candidate stands up and unequivocally states that he or she is in favor of homosexuals openly serving in the military some people are going to be more likely to vote for him or her and some people are going to be less likely to do so. I think that those such that the likelihood won't be changed at all will be in the minority. Or if a candidate unequivocally takes the opposite position. Same thing.

In fact, frankly, I think you guys are showing that you do care about social issues through your responses. It's just that you're on a particular side. To me when you say "I don't care..." you're saying people shouldn't care. And that's taking a position on the issue. I also think your reaction shows that the position a candidate takes on a social issue like homosexuals in the military does influence the likelihood that you're going to vote for that candidate.

So it's kind of like you guys are saying you don't care about social issues even while you're clearly showing that you do through your own comments.

the 80% of American voters who support gays in the military also have an opinion on this. you can blame your position as a member of an ever-dwindling fringe on "propaganda" if you'd like - if it makes you feel better about your bigotry and prejudice... but it doesn't make you any less full of shit. the VAST majority of people who have served (on this board and elsewhere) support letting them serve openly - because they've already been serving, and with distinction since (as was said above) the revolution. All that matters to the vast majority of our military personnel is what Z said "do you do your fucking job?" if yes - welcome aboard, if no - gtfo. THAT is the essence of what America is about - judging a person on the content of their character.

[native]

But you aren't really the majority in the GOP... and even if there are a lot of people who think like you (and I know there are) - your demographic doesn't vote nearly as consistently as the Christianists... (who comprise a VERY big part of the base - and are crossed at great peril)

While it might be what they ought to do in terms of the right damn thing... politically, strategically and especially tactically... they can't - for fear of incurring the wrath.

And that's where you just go off the deep end. Sure the GOP has their wackos in it, and they are just as unsavory and hard to stomach as the wackos in the Democratic party are. Both groups are mean, uncompromising, and entirely sure that they are absolutely right and good and moral and that their opposites in the other party are truly the opposites in every way (i.e. bad and immoral). But neither group really represents anything close to the majority in either party and the majorities in both parties are very much more in line with the ever growing group of Independents out there who really just tune out this crap as the insignificant noise that it is.

Sure, wackos in the Iowa caucuses and some of the early primaries vote based upon stuff like this, but those are people so entrenched in the tit-for-tat political gamemanship that they end up focusing on that rather than the big picture of what they are even voting for. But in the end, the real primaries that matter come later and they aren't ruled by side issues like these.

And if the "Christianists" were as powerful as you make them out to be for the GOP, how does a candidate like Mitch Romney, who championed a state provided universal health care and is a Mormon of all things, have as much growing momentum as he seems to have? He should be DOA if those groups were as all powerful as they are made out to be. Just like in the Democratic party, there are far more level headed people and more importantly, people that don't see politics as some type of game where winning at all costs matters most, who really end up deciding elections. The wacko bases on both sides are just things to talk about while we wait for the main event.

Yup.

[BlueHen86]

I think you're wrong. I don't care if two guys in San Diego want to get married, if a woman in Alaska want's to have an abortion or if a gay person want to join the military. Those aren't issues that are hurting this country. Here's a newsflash: we've had gay's in the military since the revolution and we've done just fine.

Do you not think it is obvious that there are people on both sides of those issues and care about them? Take the abortion issue, for instance. There are obviously a large number of people who want it to be illegal and a large number who want it to be legal and a candidate's position on the matter is a factor in their decision process. I would be very willing to bet that if you had a poll with the following multiple choice question, those that answer "I don't care either way" would be in the minority:

Question: Which of the positions below best describes your position on abortion?
A. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
B. I think abortion should be legal and a matter of choice on the part of the woman involved.
C. I don't care either way.

Same with homosexuals in the military. If a candidate stands up and unequivocally states that he or she is in favor of homosexuals openly serving in the military some people are going to be more likely to vote for him or her and some people are going to be less likely to do so. I think that those such that the likelihood won't be changed at all will be in the minority. Or if a candidate unequivocally takes the opposite position. Same thing.

In fact, frankly, I think you guys are showing that you do care about social issues through your responses. It's just that you're on a particular side. To me when you say "I don't care..." you're saying people shouldn't care. And that's taking a position on the issue. I also think your reaction shows that the position a candidate takes on a social issue like homosexuals in the military does influence the likelihood that you're going to vote for that candidate.

So it's kind of like you guys are saying you don't care about social issues even while you're clearly showing that you do through your own comments.

I never said that I didn't care about those issues. I said I didn't care how people that I have never met made choices related to those issues. People should have choices, I don't care which choice they make.

You don't think people should have choices, you think everyone should think and act like you do.

In terms of threats to this country, which I care alot about, gays in the military and abortions are trivial issues. They would be low on my to do list of things needed to fix the country. We shouild be more ficused on jobs, the debt, spending and wars right now.

[89Hen]

And so goes another political discussion. Gannon, forget it. TTBF is the know it all in all things politics.

dude - when you talk about banking - and Z is in on the convo - do you get sand in you vagina about it when he drops his careers worth of experience in to the conversation?

Banking is not very partisan.

[native]

Do you not think it is obvious that there are people on both sides of those issues and care about them? Take the abortion issue, for instance. There are obviously a large number of people who want it to be illegal and a large number who want it to be legal and a candidate's position on the matter is a factor in their decision process. I would be very willing to bet that if you had a poll with the following multiple choice question, those that answer "I don't care either way" would be in the minority:

Question: Which of the positions below best describes your position on abortion?
A. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
B. I think abortion should be legal and a matter of choice on the part of the woman involved.
C. I don't care either way.

Same with homosexuals in the military. If a candidate stands up and unequivocally states that he or she is in favor of homosexuals openly serving in the military some people are going to be more likely to vote for him or her and some people are going to be less likely to do so. I think that those such that the likelihood won't be changed at all will be in the minority. Or if a candidate unequivocally takes the opposite position. Same thing.

In fact, frankly, I think you guys are showing that you do care about social issues through your responses. It's just that you're on a particular side. To me when you say "I don't care..." you're saying people shouldn't care. And that's taking a position on the issue. I also think your reaction shows that the position a candidate takes on a social issue like homosexuals in the military does influence the likelihood that you're going to vote for that candidate.

So it's kind of like you guys are saying you don't care about social issues even while you're clearly showing that you do through your own comments.

the 80% of American voters who support gays in the military also have an opinion on this. you can blame your position as a member of an ever-dwindling fringe on "propaganda" if you'd like - if it makes you feel better about your bigotry and prejudice... but it doesn't make you any less full of ****. the VAST majority of people who have served (on this board and elsewhere) support letting them serve openly - because they've already been serving, and with distinction since (as was said above) the revolution. All that matters to the vast majority of our military personnel is what Z said "do you do your **** job?" if yes - welcome aboard, if no - gtfo. THAT is the essence of what America is about - judging a person on the content of their character.

It's not 80%, but it is a majority, which was reflected in the audience at the GOP debate - disingenuous thread title and hyper-hysterical posts notwithstanding.

[AZGrizFan]

dude - when you talk about banking - and Z is in on the convo - do you get sand in you vagina about it when he drops his careers worth of experience in to the conversation?

It all depends on if they agree or not.

[mainejeff]

All you hear from the crowd is booing - No way in knowing how many - but as Jon said - the real problem is that not ONE candidate on that stage dare call it out and insist that they not jeer a man serving his country.

That's because it was two people.

You always have had a hard time facing the realities of your party.

[Vidav]

Do you not think it is obvious that there are people on both sides of those issues and care about them? Take the abortion issue, for instance. There are obviously a large number of people who want it to be illegal and a large number who want it to be legal and a candidate's position on the matter is a factor in their decision process. I would be very willing to bet that if you had a poll with the following multiple choice question, those that answer "I don't care either way" would be in the minority:

Question: Which of the positions below best describes your position on abortion?
A. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
B. I think abortion should be legal and a matter of choice on the part of the woman involved.
C. I don't care either way.

Same with homosexuals in the military. If a candidate stands up and unequivocally states that he or she is in favor of homosexuals openly serving in the military some people are going to be more likely to vote for him or her and some people are going to be less likely to do so. I think that those such that the likelihood won't be changed at all will be in the minority. Or if a candidate unequivocally takes the opposite position. Same thing.

In fact, frankly, I think you guys are showing that you do care about social issues through your responses. It's just that you're on a particular side. To me when you say "I don't care..." you're saying people shouldn't care. And that's taking a position on the issue. I also think your reaction shows that the position a candidate takes on a social issue like homosexuals in the military does influence the likelihood that you're going to vote for that candidate.

So it's kind of like you guys are saying you don't care about social issues even while you're clearly showing that you do through your own comments.

I never said that I didn't care about those issues. I said I didn't care how people that I have never met made choices related to those issues. People should have choices, I don't care which choice they make.

You don't think people should have choices, you think everyone should think and act like you do.

In terms of threats to this country, which I care alot about, gays in the military and abortions are trivial issues. They would be low on my to do list of things needed to fix the country. We shouild be more ficused on jobs, the debt, spending and wars right now.