@Conservatives

Jushiro · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:10 pm

Spaghetti monster bless Canada

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:46 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

Zaryi wrote:

Please don't keep trying to defend these people though Jubber (and Eturnal when he catches a whiff of this).

I'm not going to boo a serviceman in another country. I'm not going to boo a gay guy for being gay, either. While I don't entirely support some of the government decisions on this matter nor I don't like being told I have to accept homosexuals life style choice as the 'new norm', I'm not going to be some outspoken cunt at a public event in protest of DADT. I don't go out in public and protest/advocate any issue... that's just not really my thing. Just because it's not my thing doesn't mean I'm going to tell them they're wrong for protesting (I feel like I said this when people were protesting the Muslims in Orange County). Just as the gay guy can openly admit he's a gay soldier thus showing his support for DADT, I think it's only fair that the audience could show their lack of support for DADT by booing.

What I find interesting is the attention this is getting. Why is it suddenly bad to boo in protest? Is the dialog closed? Is this a taboo subject now? Does it make a difference that he's gay and a soldier? What if he was just gay... or just a soldier... or even if he was a straight guy living state-side working as a teacher? I know liberals for a long time were protesting the wars in the middle east... and I know gays can dance down the street hoping that the general public will say, "Hey, those guys are bumping dicks while being painted as rainbows... ya know, I think they're totally swell and I accept them", as a way of protesting against the status quo. Hell, when people would protest Bush during speeches or throw shoes at him during events I remember people on the left kinda cheering and giving attaboys. But, the moment you take a gay and put him in the middle east, and have him go public the week DADT is repealed... then it's OMG SHITSTORM EVIL REPUBLICANS ARE PROTESTING!

I might not agree with the way they protest, what they're protesting against or when they decide to protest (sometimes protests are just plain stupid like sailing yourself through an Israeli naval blockade) - that's their right and I'm not going to hate on them (or anyone) for doing it... unless, of course, it turns violent or something... then I'd probably blame the people who are violently protesting.

Cutting through the wall of text with one simple irrefutable point: if he were JUST A SOLDIER it would be the popular mores that disrespecting him in that way would be un-American.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:13 pm

I really think people are making mountains out of this mole-hill. Some people boo and it's the end of the world even though the people that are so upset are the same people who've protested the ideology of those that did the booing. Protest, counter-protest. Agree or disagree. Who gives a damn, really? They were speaking their minds about DADT just like you guys are speaking your minds against the people in the crowd - you don't have to like it or agree with it but they're not 'wrong' for doing it.

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:34 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

I really think people are making mountains out of this mole-hill. Some people boo and it's the end of the world even though the people that are so upset are the same people who've protested the ideology of those that did the booing. Protest, counter-protest. Agree or disagree. Who gives a damn, really? They were speaking their minds about DADT just like you guys are speaking your minds against the people in the crowd - you don't have to like it or agree with it but they're not 'wrong' for doing it.

Because it's hypocritical and way outside the bounds of good taste. Not to mention that by booing, they are impeding his freedom of speech.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:05 pm

Again I ask why this is even an issue. Ideally we'd all be conscious of others and their feelings when exercising our first amendment right to say whatever the hell we want but truth of the matter is there isn't a law which prohibits what they were doing. They weren't starting riots, screaming fire in a theater or threatening anyone... they were booing. Many more people in the audience booed when Rick Perry said illegal immigrants should be granted in-state tuition yet out-of-state legal residents can't get that same break. Where's the outcry over that?

Quote:

they are impeding his freedom of speech.

No they're not. He said what he said in the video. The Boos came afterwards and it was done by a handful of people. Seriously, I can make out maybe four different voices doing the boos. Also, it's not like they cut him off mid-sentence and started booing him down... and the fucking thing was recorded and posted to Youtube.

Re-watch the video and listen carefully next time.

Edit: No point in double-posting the video.

Azelma · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:23 pm

Jushiro wrote:

Spaghetti monster bless Canada

/thread

Dvergar · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:19 am

Quote:

Why is it suddenly bad to boo in protest?

You conservatives need to lose this victim mentality.

If the video was of some civilian asking about dadt I would expect some boos (actually, in a civil debate I would expect people wait until the candidate voices his position, but I know dey jus hate dem queers so much) and nothing would have come of it. Everyone knows the conservative position is that gays shouldn't have equal rights. It's just telling watching people who claim to be freedom lovers, real Americans, and the only true patriots boo a soldier (who at the time the clip was shown could be have already been killed defending his country).

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:01 am

Dvergar wrote:

You conservatives need to lose this victim mentality.

Really, I don't know how we have time for it what with all our duties being bigots, racists, and/or homophobes who hate the poor and are actively trying to make them die while forcing our religious views down other people's throats and cuddling with shady businessmen. I mean, it's not like anyone here is unfairly characterizing anyone's actions to mean what they want them to mean (despite the meaning being more than obvious) and then lumping us in with those people whether we agree with them or not.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Dvergar · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:10 am

It's disappointing that you guys are defending the actions of the people booing an active soldier.

'No no no, see it's ok that they are saying he's a second class citizen. He's gay, and that means more than anything else he could do in his life. So what if he wants to put his life on the line to defend this country, he might like a dude so we need to let that queer know he isn't wanted around here. Maybe he'll think about that the next time he's getting shot at or hit with an ied. It's like when we booed Martin Luther King Jr. Sure he was a pastor, but he was also a nigger! Being a nigger is way more important than anything else you might do in life, so it's totally ok to boo him.'

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:21 am

Then again, we probably have time to play victim, because we've gotten so good that people can be racists for thinking homosexuality is wrong and being against it, regardless of what feelings they might have about black people. Thanks for clearing that up for me. That's nothing at all like what you've been saying about how those people have to hate soldiers because they hate gays and are completely incapable of making any distinction between the two just because one of them happens to be both. Don't pretend that's not what you're doing, because you're own words betray your thinking:

Dvergar wrote:

Booing him simply because he is gay.

You obviously understand what those people were expressing, whether you care to admit it or not, and this disingenuous "though I clearly understood what was being said and why I'm going to pretend it was something entirely different and build my case off that instead because it's easier to argue that way" is beneath your dignity...or at least I'm of the opinion that it is.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Usdk · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:35 am

I don't see how being a soldier should shield you from being something else someone finds wrong.

I mean if he were to fuck a horse, no one would be cheering him just because he's a soldier.

I'm not saying gay is wrong blah blah blah. I just don't see how being a soldier should make whatever it is you're doing wrong ok to do. (not saying being gay is wrong, but people disagree with it. being a soldier and an X should not shield you from the disdain that X deserves, no matter what X is.)

I like soldiers and all, but i also understand that a good deal of them are total shitbags, for various reasons.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:08 am

Quote:

You obviously understand what those people were expressing, whether you care to admit it or not, and this disingenuous "though I clearly understood what was being said and why I'm going to pretend it was something entirely different and build my case off that instead because it's easier to argue that way" is beneath your dignity...or at least I'm of the opinion that it is.

You're strawmanning. You read at least some part of my post, but only quoted part of it to misrepresent my argument.

Quote:

I'm not trying to make it into anything. This is a party that deifies soldiers and here they are booing one who is at this very moment putting his life on the line in Iraq. Booing him simply because he is gay.

Booing someone just because he's gay is no surprise, conservatives embarrass America on a weekly basis. Acting like super-patriots then booing someone who is serving and has done nothing wrong, I guess that shouldn't be surprising given the group we're talking about.

Your argument reflects your thoughts that it should be totally ok and acceptable to hate someone simply for being gay. Not that you might feel that way, but it should be acceptable for others to feel that way. Not "well it happens and it's not right", but "no, they were just booing because he was a fag and they aren't really people anyway".

mazeltov · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:49 am

Jubber has already proven his only use to the human race will be his organs when he dies. Then again he's probably not an organ donor because without a kidney you can't get into heaven.

HERPDERP

Aestu · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:04 am

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:08 am

Dvergar wrote:

You're strawmanning. You read at least some part of my post, but only quoted part of it to misrepresent my argument.

Quote:

I'm not trying to make it into anything. This is a party that deifies soldiers and here they are booing one who is at this very moment putting his life on the line in Iraq. Booing him simply because he is gay.

I quoted what was relevant. Adding the rest back in doesn't change the fact that you very clearly understand why they were booing him and are purposely saying it was for another reason.

Dvergar wrote:

Booing someone just because he's gay is no surprise, conservatives embarrass America on a weekly basis. Acting like super-patriots then booing someone who is serving and has done nothing wrong, I guess that shouldn't be surprising given the group we're talking about.

Your argument reflects your thoughts that it should be totally ok and acceptable to hate someone simply for being gay. Not that you might feel that way, but it should be acceptable for others to feel that way. Not "well it happens and it's not right", but "no, they were just booing because he was a fag and they aren't really people anyway".

And the people that were booing think that anyone that won't embrace their point-of-view is a fucking embarrassment, so your complaint basically is that they're doing what you're doing, just in the opposite direction? In their eyes, the idea that he "has done nothing wrong" does not compute.

Your argument reflects your thoughts that it should be totally ok and acceptable to expect everyone to believe exactly the things you believe and nothing else. Not that you might feel that way, but it should be acceptable for others to feel that way. If they want to be the sort of asshats that are so hung on up on where someone else wants to stick their genitals that they're willing to make a public spectacle of themselves, I could give less than a fuck. What I'm not going to do is be so vindictive in the throes of my petty moralizing that I'm going to make what they're doing out to be anything other than what they're doing just so I have more reasons to think of them as asshats. If not endorsing homosexuality is such a terrible thing, I shouldn't have to look for extra shit to pile onto their scorecards to make the point...that alone should be enough.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

@Conservatives

Who is online