My wife usually sleeps in, but today, she was already up when I awoke. She watches "Good Morning America" in the mornings, which helps explain why she is uninformed about a lot of the political issues that concern Conservatives.
So, when I walked into our computer room this morning, the first thing that assailed my ears was this:
The clip I saw started at about mark 1:38 on this clip.
Specifically, this:
"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.
OK. So, if you haven't yet heard the "boos" he's referring to, here is the actual clip:
I heard one, maybe two boos. Out of a crowd of over 5,000 people. And, if you didn't catch it yet, watch the clip again. It's blatantly obvious the (possibly) two people who booed didn't boo the soldier.
They booed his question.
The child President undoubtedly knows this. Yet, he stands at the Presidential podium, and perpetuates the Democrat attack machine's (AKA the Mainstream media) lies.
Obama's response to this non-issue is dishonest, irresponsible, and yes, childish.
Here are some other examples of Obama behaving--uh---slightly un-Presidential:
This one is photo shopped, but focus on the fact that he's throwing a snow ball, not on the child. 
This one is particularly childish and dis-respectful.And he has the unmitigated gall to call the Republican candidates un-Presidential!
26 comments:
Obama's got nuthin'. He's got a terrible record, he's got no experience in a leadership role, he's had no experience putting together a functioning team, he's got nothing. Nothing at all.
Accordingly, he's going for name calling, lies, whatever else works other than a record of effectiveness.
And, unfortunately, these childish tactics work to a certain extent. At least, they worked to get him elected 7th grade class secretary.
Obama's got nuthin'. He's got a terrible record, he's got no experience in a leadership role, he's had no experience putting together a functioning team, he's got nothing. Nothing at all.
Accordingly, he's going for name calling, lies, whatever else works other than a record of effectiveness.
And, unfortunately, these childish tactics work to a certain extent. At least, they worked to get him elected 7th grade class secretary.
"They booed his question."
No they didn't. If the question had been asked by Tony Perkins or anybody opposed to the end of DADT, they all would have cheered.
Throwing a snowball? Really? You stopped doing that at age 7?
And at the risk of appearing to blame Bush, W had a great reputation as being a towel-snapping practical joker. If this photo is supposed to prove your point, you really have no point.
The UN picture was one of many. In this one he was waiving at someone. Compare to here.
Apparently you didn't watch the clip of the questioner, Jim. It is plain the boos were directed to the question and not the questioner.
They all would have cheered? If they ALL didn't boo, and only one or two did, what makes you think they all would have cheered if it was a different questioner and a different questioner? You can't prove a negative, Jim.
Liberals always have to re-interpret events to make their favorite stooges into victims.
No, the soldier was not booed - his ideology was booed. But I guess it takes more intelligence than the average liberal possesses to understand such truths.
"the soldier was not booed - his ideology was booed."
What ideology would that be?
Jim,
As if you don't know. He was promoting the homosexual agenda.
"He was promoting the homosexual agenda."
Bullcrap! He was asking if under one of the presidential candidates, would he be able to continue to serve in the military or would they try to get him out.
JIm,
Your point being? He was wanting to know if they would support the homosexual agenda of letting them continue to pollute the military. Yeah, that's promoting the homosexual agenda.
It's over, you bigot.
Well Mark, you seem to be an apologist for this hatred much as Chatfield justifies it in his ministry.
Not very becoming.
When logic and morality fails, always go for the ad hominem attack.
It is not bigotry or hatred to be against an immoral behavior. Those epithets are thrown to marginalize the discussion, to ignore the argument. No one is against the individual, only the behavior he espouses.
Indeed. Listening to the video, one can easily hear no booing as the soldier refers to his homosexuality. The two boos that do occur come after he asks the question. They were clearly booing the question, not the questioner. I've heard a couple of people who attended say they didn't even hear the boos, including a candidate or two. One person who called a radio show said she was a row or two behind the boo-ers and a she claimed not only were there just two or three boo-ers, but the people surrounding them shushed them. But hey, none of this helps the agenda one bit.
By the way, DADT was not a law. It was a mere policy that did not trump the military code which is still in effect. Without DADT, a recruit can be asked if he is homosexual and a positive response can prevent his acceptance into the military. It is clearly stated in the military code that serving is not a "right" to which no one can be denied. One must meet the requirements the military demands and to lie in order to circumvent those requirements can justly lead to court martial and dishonorable discharge. Whether this happens at this point is another matter, but it would take Congressional action to change the military code in order to allow homosexuals to serve. Not a policy like DADT.
"No one is against the individual, only the behavior he espouses."
The only behavior evident in the video was that the questioner was a trained killing machine. Immoral?
He didn't say anything about his behavior nor did he espouse any agenda other than continuing to serve in the military. He may be celibate for all you know.
You bigot.
"They were clearly booing the question, not the questioner."
Booing the question of a US service man sent from the front lines? Wow! Way to support our fighting men and women!
Must be easy being a liberal. All you have to do is label someone a hater and you have eliminated the need to debate -- or think.
Here is a transcript of that moment from Ann Coulter:
"In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq ..."
(No booing.)
"I had to lie about who I was ..."
(No booing -- despite the fact that not talking about your sex life with your co-workers is not lying about who you are. In fact, many Americans manage quite easily to go days and days without talking about their sex lives with co-workers.)
"because I'm a gay soldier ..."
(No booing, although we didn't ask and would prefer that you not tell.)
"and I didn't want to lose my job."
(No booing.)
To recap: So far, a remarkably boo-free interaction.
Finally, we got to the question:
"My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?"
Then there was booing. And for good reason. It is beyond absurd to demand that Republican candidates pledge not to consider altering a recent rule change overturning a military policy that had been in effect from the beginning of warfare until the last few weeks of the 111th Congress.
Of course there was booing for that!
To hear the boy president get all patriotic and defend our troops is so disingenuous that it makes one's jaw drop to his chest! His photo should be next to the definition of "Liar" in the dictionary. He disses the Service Veterans on the Stage. I resent that. He is not worthy to burn their shit.
As usual the anonymous troll "jim" and "daffy" have have jumped on the pile and proved their blind kool-ade drinking stupidity and denial of reality. They are pathetic lost souls. If they were just liberals that would be bad enough. But they are cruel, unthinking purveyors of the hope and change that is destroying our civilization.
I was ashamed when Jimmah Cottah was our president; I can't describe the humiliation I feel at having Barry O'bama, the plucky Irish lad, as our Commander in Chief.
The difference between our Filipino president and his supporters, like the two idiots that hang out here, is that he is not a clueless moron. And that is what makes him so dangerous to the American Way of Life. So it goes.
I heard one, maybe two boos. Out of a crowd of over 5,000 people.
Yep, I noticed that, too, when I first saw the clip.
And Obama played the "event" for all it was worth.
Obama is pandering for votes from the gay voter "bloc." Indeed, he's pandering for votes everywhere he can -- with groups for whom he showed little interest since he first took office.
Hey Jim,
Use a wee bit of common sense instead of calling names. Here is the question booed:
"My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?"
Just what is the "progress" made for homophiles? It is the agenda to promote same-sex behavior as right and normal. This is the behavior-promoting agenda for which he was booed.
Can you even understand English or do you just knee-jerk to name-calling?
"The only behavior evident in the video was that the questioner was a trained killing machine. Immoral?"
Hyperbole much? But using your own words, being a trained killing machine is morally benign. Not right nor wrong. How one uses one's "killing machine" skills is what can be judged as right or wrong.
"He didn't say anything about his behavior nor did he espouse any agenda other than continuing to serve in the military. He may be celibate for all you know."
For his sake, I hope he is celibate, just as all who are not properly married to a member of the opposite sex should be. But by claiming to be a homosexual, he implies an immorality in his desires and as a good Christian like you should know, even lusting is problematic. And indeed, there is nothing "bigoted" in assuming homosexual lifestyle by a professing homosexual. What is equally bigoted is for an enabler like yourself to assume that anyone made the assumption that he is not celibate.
In any case, as he withheld his homosexuality to enter the military, he fraudulently enlisted, just as one would lie on a job application. So THAT was evident in the video as well. Keep in mind that DADT was meant to withhold legal action against a homosexual who kept his "orientation" to himself. A recruiter was encouraged by DADT to not ask about orientation. So the dude lied to enlist.
"Of course there was booing for that!"
By bigots. And any presidential candidate who didn't call them on it tolerates bigots.
"with groups for whom he showed little interest since he first took office."
Hmmm, repeal of DADT? Refusing to defend DOMA?
"It is the agenda to promote same-sex behavior as right and normal."
No it is the agenda of none of your damn business how I live as long as it does not affect the readiness of my military unit.
"Can you even understand English"
Quite well, than you very much.
"For his sake, I hope he is celibate, just as all who are not properly married to a member of the opposite sex should be."
Ah, here comes the Sex Nazi. No sex for you!
"he implies an immorality in his desires"
No, you incorrectly infer that.
"as he withheld his homosexuality to enter the military, he fraudulently enlisted"
Under DADT, how could that be?
"just as one would lie on a job application. "
What job application asks for sexual orientation?
"A recruiter was encouraged by DADT to not ask about orientation. So the dude lied to enlist."
This makes no sense. Want to try it again?
I said,
"For his sake, I hope he is celibate, just as all who are not properly married to a member of the opposite sex should be."
This is standard and traditional Christian teaching, as well as standard and traditional social morality for many, many generations up until fairly recently. But Jim, in his lame attempt to pretend there is more in mind than a sincere longing for a more moral people who adhere to those standards and traditions by their own volition says,
"Ah, here comes the Sex Nazi. No sex for you!"
To Jim, sex is sacrosanct. It is like breathing and eating to those like him who have no moral backbone. To him, to be reminded of righteousness is akin to a call for Nazi-like oppression.
I said,
"he implies an immorality in his desires"
To which Jim amusingly replied:
"No, you incorrectly infer that."
Jimmy-boy. When someone says they are "gay" (by today's corruption of the word), it is correct should one infer that the speaker has a sexual attraction to men. To have an attraction to anyone in a sexual manner is to have the attendant sexual desires for that person. Sexual desire for one of the same gender is immoral, particularly if one identifies one's self as homosexual. I have attractions to women with whom I am not married but do not identify myself by such attractions because it is immoral for a married man to lust after other women. I struggle with my attractions, resist them and disregard them. I do not celebrate them by defining myself by my immoral desires, like homosexuals do.
continuing...
I said,
"as he withheld his homosexuality to enter the military, he fraudulently enlisted"
Jim asked,
"Under DADT, how could that be?"
Maybe you missed the part wherein it was explained that DADT was not law. Clinton had no authority to make such laws as enacting laws are not within his job description. DADT did not lift the military code that forbade the enlistment of homosexuals from service. THAT law has always been and still is in effect and all homosexuals who existed under DADT were still in violation of the military code of justice, and therefor not worthy to serve, as service in the military is not a right to which any are entitled. Thus, his acceptance as a recruit was based on his sin of omission, which is a lie, when he withheld his "orientation" from the recruiter, who had every right to ask under the UCMJ. So, he lied,
"just as one would lie on a job application. "
To which Jim stupidly asks,
"What job application asks for sexual orientation?"
That wasn't the point, chucklehead. The point was that one isn't supposed to lie on a job application if one expects to keep the job when the lie is exposed. DADT, frankly, didn't protect against that possibility, either.
I said,
"A recruiter was encouraged by DADT to not ask about orientation. So the dude lied to enlist."
To which Jim said,
"This makes no sense. Want to try it again?"
It makes perfect sense to one who isn't blinded by an attachment to immoral behavior as an enabler. So I'll type more slowly: Under DADT, the recruiter was encouraged against asking about sexual orientation, as he would have otherwise. Homosexuals know this and their role under DADT is the DT part or, Don't Tell the recruiter that you are a homosexual. IF the recruiter doesn't ask about a potential recruit's orientation, and the potential recruit doesn't tell, they both can pretend there is no military law against the recruiting of homosexuals. But the recruit, by enlisting while knowing that law exists, as most of them most assuredly do at this point, must lie (by omission) to be accepted.
If that's too difficult for you, then keep in mind that there is little possibility that homos trying to enlist were unaware of DADT and why it was instituted. Thus, they HAVE to lie to enlist and be accepted, just as they always have before DADT.
"You can die for your country, soldier, but no sex for you!"
"You can die for your country, soldier, but no sex for you!"
Because nothing is more important in life than getting one's *#@ off. There is no reason in the world, EVER, to deny one's self whatever floats one's boat.
You need some serious help, Jim. Your defense of sex at all costs is as deviant as any homosexual, child molester or goat-lover.
"You need some serious help, Jim. Your defense of sex at all costs is as deviant as any homosexual, child molester or goat-lover."
Pffft.
Post a Comment