Boos Heard At GOP Debate After Gay Soldier Asks About 'Don't Ask'

[Anonymous]

Booing the soldier and applauding executions. The debates are doing the DNC's job for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no! They weren't *booing*. They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades. I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers. But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.

Listen to the video. They are clearly booing. It's only a handful. And then when Santorum esentially states he will reinstate DADT, there is huge applause.

The GOP, however, has given the military the best pay raises. Also, the GOP tends to fund the most number of defense projects. This means better equipment to the troops.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1 " border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Horseshit. "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops." This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe. As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit. The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well. As do very rich people in general. Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft. Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class. You do the math.

Actually, I did post evidence, however the link is broken - but you could have copied and pasted it into your browser to see it instead of just blasting of nonsense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

Second, although defense contracts do line the pockets of defense contractors, they also provide the troops with better technology. MRAP comes to mind immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet. I know, I've worn them in combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar#Armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Helmet

Look at the pdf files for the payraises by year. The biggest payraises were during Republican years. You do the math.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/historicalpay.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/historical-military-pay-rates.html

I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no! They weren't *booing*. They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades. I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers. But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.

Listen to the video. They are clearly booing. It's only a handful. And then when Santorum esentially states he will reinstate DADT, there is huge applause.

The GOP, however, has given the military the best pay raises. Also, the GOP tends to fund the most number of defense projects. This means better equipment to the troops.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1 " border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Horseshit. "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops." This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe. As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit. The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well. As do very rich people in general. Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft. Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class. You do the math.

Yes, LOTS of money to build fancy weapons but how about supporting the actual people doing the fighting and not just well-to-do contractors?

Who do you think is using those fancy weapons? Contractors?

And why does everyone think contractors are well-to-do? You do realize they are jobs like every other, right? That the upper echelon (i.e. CEOs, COOs, etc) make a lot of money, middle managers make good money, and so forth--just like everywhere else.

A general makes about $180,000/yr in base pay alone. THen you add in all the allowances, which are not taxed. $36,000/yr Housing. COLA. No withholding for medical, which is free. It all comes out to a lot more take-home than you'd think.

It doesn't necessarily make up for some of the lifestyle aspects, but it's a very good living, especially since you get a huge retirement.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:The support within the military for Bush over Kerry was just amazing. We need a book, "What's the Matter with the Military?" Of course, somehow the incompetent Kerry campaign failed effectively to educate everyone that his "flip-flopping" was actually his true support for military members and families, as opposed to empty platitudes.

It makes sense if you think about it. In 2004, we were heavily involved in 2 wars. The last thing you want is a change in direction. That mindset had changed by 2008 when everyone was plain sick and tired of the war.

I don't think that adds up to "makes sense." "Is understandable," maybe. I understand, as you describe, that you have to invest yourself very fully in that job, so it's more difficult to get enough perspective to ask the bigger questions. I also understand that the military is all about unquestioning obedience. While those factors can create understandable effects, they don't always makes sense.

In the case of Bush/Kerry, or more accurately Rep/Dem, at that time the Dems were certainly supporting better pay & benefits for the military. And that's aside from the obvious, that a Rep administration drove us into a war that made the lives of service members and their family members much more difficult.

[Anonymous]

BY the way, a huge percentage of defense contractors are or were military. It's not as if there is some huge disconnect between the two--you need the expertise of one to do the other.

--former Navy officer, current defense contractor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read this morning that a blogger who was in the audience said that it was only one person booing and that the other people around him tried to shut him up. So it's distressing that even one person thought this was okay to do but at least there were other people who in the audience who tried to do the right thing. At any rate, I hope that the average person watching this understands now how damaging homophobia has been to our society and be more reflective about this in the future. It was really quite shocking that even one person thought that this would be acceptable behavior - but then I think that attitude has been encouraged within certain segments of our society.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/23/the_truth_about_the_boos.html

It really is amazing how quickly these social issues tend to turn when they hit a breaking point. The GOP has spent decades trying to marginalize gays and lesbians, and to institutionalize homophobia. But as soon as DADT is repealed suddenly it's "shocking" that even one GOP debate-goer would think this is acceptable behavior.

Just a quick question: Why on Earth wouldn't GOP debate-goers think this is acceptable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this morning that a blogger who was in the audience said that it was only one person booing and that the other people around him tried to shut him up. So it's distressing that even one person thought this was okay to do but at least there were other people who in the audience who tried to do the right thing. At any rate, I hope that the average person watching this understands now how damaging homophobia has been to our society and be more reflective about this in the future. It was really quite shocking that even one person thought that this would be acceptable behavior - but then I think that attitude has been encouraged within certain segments of our society.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/23/the_truth_about_the_boos.html

It really is amazing how quickly these social issues tend to turn when they hit a breaking point. The GOP has spent decades trying to marginalize gays and lesbians, and to institutionalize homophobia. But as soon as DADT is repealed suddenly it's "shocking" that even one GOP debate-goer would think this is acceptable behavior.

Just a quick question: Why on Earth wouldn't GOP debate-goers think this is acceptable?

I saw the video, and it is more than one, but only a few. Anyway, it is unacceptable because he's a veteran. They are suppossed to support the men and women in uniform.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I saw the video, and it is more than one, but only a few. Anyway, it is unacceptable because he's a veteran. They are suppossed to support the men and women in uniform.

More than just a veteran. He is active duty in a war zone. None of the candidates even thanked him for his service.

[Anonymous]

Like 10:12, I also thought there were only a few booers, and it may have been microphone placement that overemphasized it. But Santorum's answer sounded like gibberish to me, as though repealing DADT gave gays special rights to have sex that straights don't have. I don't know whether it was intentional demagoguery or just ignorance.

The crowd's cheers for that answer bothered me, but did not surprise me. The fact that his performance was praised by some of the political writers shocks me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no! They weren't *booing*. They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades. I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers. But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.

Listen to the video. They are clearly booing. It's only a handful. And then when Santorum esentially states he will reinstate DADT, there is huge applause.

The GOP, however, has given the military the best pay raises. Also, the GOP tends to fund the most number of defense projects. This means better equipment to the troops.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1 " border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Horseshit. "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops." This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe. As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit. The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well. As do very rich people in general. Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft. Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class. You do the math.

Actually, I did post evidence, however the link is broken - but you could have copied and pasted it into your browser to see it instead of just blasting of nonsense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

Second, although defense contracts do line the pockets of defense contractors, they also provide the troops with better technology. MRAP comes to mind immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet. I know, I've worn them in combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar#Armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Helmet

Look at the pdf files for the payraises by year. The biggest payraises were during Republican years. You do the math.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/historicalpay.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/historical-military-pay-rates.html

I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

Your link showed that overall defense spending has skyrocketed under various GOP administrations. It shouldn't be necessary to hold your hand and explain to you that a rise in overall defense spending has nothing to do with payraises. Also, it's funny that you don't define "Republican years". My guess is that your definition would be extremely, ahem, "flexible."

Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet.

This may be the dumbest argument I've heard so far. Your incredibly hacky Heritage Foundation graph shows something on the order of a $300bn /year increase in the overall defense budget. And you're trying to make the argument that this was largely a function of adapting Kevlar to protective uses. As opposed to massive numbers of bloated, unnecessary weapons systems (like nuclear attack subs, and cripplingly expensive and redundant aircraft) and private defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's funny, because this is exactly how the racket works: spend billions and billions on exotic weapons systems, and sprawling mcmansions in NoVa for modern day robber barons who run the major defense contracting companies--while shortchanging the actual troops in the field--and when anyone bats an eye, you point to kevlar helmets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, LOTS of money to build fancy weapons but how about supporting the actual people doing the fighting and not just well-to-do contractors?

Who do you think is using those fancy weapons? Contractors?

And why does everyone think contractors are well-to-do? You do realize they are jobs like every other, right? That the upper echelon (i.e. CEOs, COOs, etc) make a lot of money, middle managers make good money, and so forth--just like everywhere else.

A general makes about $180,000/yr in base pay alone. THen you add in all the allowances, which are not taxed. $36,000/yr Housing. COLA. No withholding for medical, which is free. It all comes out to a lot more take-home than you'd think.

It doesn't necessarily make up for some of the lifestyle aspects, but it's a very good living, especially since you get a huge retirement.

I'll tell you who's not using them - the kids I know who are going into the military because it beats unemployment. Who are poorly educated and who won't be hired by a government contractor upon leaving the military and who are never going to rise to the level of general. If the military works for them, I'm fine with that but it's ridiculous to talk about a general's salary and assume that's an adequate way of comparing military salaries to those of government contractors. --- from a government contractor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this morning that a blogger who was in the audience said that it was only one person booing and that the other people around him tried to shut him up. So it's distressing that even one person thought this was okay to do but at least there were other people who in the audience who tried to do the right thing. At any rate, I hope that the average person watching this understands now how damaging homophobia has been to our society and be more reflective about this in the future. It was really quite shocking that even one person thought that this would be acceptable behavior - but then I think that attitude has been encouraged within certain segments of our society.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/23/the_truth_about_the_boos.html

It really is amazing how quickly these social issues tend to turn when they hit a breaking point. The GOP has spent decades trying to marginalize gays and lesbians, and to institutionalize homophobia. But as soon as DADT is repealed suddenly it's "shocking" that even one GOP debate-goer would think this is acceptable behavior.

Just a quick question: Why on Earth wouldn't GOP debate-goers think this is acceptable?

I saw the video, and it is more than one, but only a few. Anyway, it is unacceptable because he's a veteran. They are suppossed to support the men and women in uniform.

Wrong. They support "the troops" up to the point that "the troops" support the conservative culture war. That's why the booing was so revealing. The mainstream GOP position is that a gay soldier is undermining "our troops."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, no! They weren't *booing*. They were yelling, "Support the trooooooops!"

Anyway, the GOP has shat on the military for decades. I mean, aside from placing little magnetic flags on their bumpers. But they've been effective at playing "culture war" so the subset of the military that is very young, very southern, and very rural tends to just not think about it very much and pull the lever for the "Dixie/Country Music" party.

Listen to the video. They are clearly booing. It's only a handful. And then when Santorum esentially states he will reinstate DADT, there is huge applause.

The GOP, however, has given the military the best pay raises. Also, the GOP tends to fund the most number of defense projects. This means better equipment to the troops.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1 " border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Horseshit. "Most number of defense projects" has no bearing whatsoever to "better equipment for the troops." This is the sort of thing that only someone who knows *nothing* about the military would believe. As far as "the gop...has given the military the best pay raises", that also smells like horseshit. The fact that you've merely parroted it rather than providing any evidence leads to the conclusion it's a partisan article of faith rather than a rationally held belief.

Under the GOP, defense contractors do very well. As do very rich people in general. Generally speaking poor and lower middle class people get the shaft. Most of the troops in the field are lower middle class. You do the math.

Actually, I did post evidence, however the link is broken - but you could have copied and pasted it into your browser to see it instead of just blasting of nonsense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

Second, although defense contracts do line the pockets of defense contractors, they also provide the troops with better technology. MRAP comes to mind immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP
Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet. I know, I've worn them in combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar#Armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Helmet

Look at the pdf files for the payraises by year. The biggest payraises were during Republican years. You do the math.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/historicalpay.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/charts/historical-military-pay-rates.html

I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

Your link showed that overall defense spending has skyrocketed under various GOP administrations. It shouldn't be necessary to hold your hand and explain to you that a rise in overall defense spending has nothing to do with payraises. Also, it's funny that you don't define "Republican years". My guess is that your definition would be extremely, ahem, "flexible."

Also the helmet. From the 1980s to 2005, it was Kevlar. Kevlar was mostly effective but heavy and ackward to wear. The USMC now uses the lightweight helmet thanks to defense initiatives and procurements. It is much lighter and more effective than the Kevlar helmet.

This may be the dumbest argument I've heard so far. Your incredibly hacky Heritage Foundation graph shows something on the order of a $300bn /year increase in the overall defense budget. And you're trying to make the argument that this was largely a function of adapting Kevlar to protective uses. As opposed to massive numbers of bloated, unnecessary weapons systems (like nuclear attack subs, and cripplingly expensive and redundant aircraft) and private defense contractor waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's funny, because this is exactly how the racket works: spend billions and billions on exotic weapons systems, and sprawling mcmansions in NoVa for modern day robber barons who run the major defense contracting companies--while shortchanging the actual troops in the field--and when anyone bats an eye, you point to kevlar helmets.

The funny thing is, there have been numerous scandals in the ex- Soviet Union where just this dynamic has played out. Funny how when the numbers get big enough, the difference between Us and Them starts to disappear. War profiteers are the same wherever you go, and it's the kid on the front line who gets screwed. That's the way it's always been.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not parroting. I've been in the military for 19 years, so I think I have a better grip on the facts than you do, and it is supported by all evidence.

I didn't serve in the military, but I pay attention to the news. I remember that in the early years of the Iraq war soldiers were buying their own body armor and using "hillbilly armor" on humvees.

[Anonymous]

Pretty good representation of your average GOP primary voter:




Ancient, and wearing a cheap simulacrum of patriotism.