***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to go thru the transcript

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's your problem. I fully disagreed with most of what Huckabee said last night, but I know he won the debate in the eyes of the voter. To me he further is his Christofacist image that I want nothing to do with. But he composed himself well in answering every question, never faltered and gave some impressive rhetoric. It seemed as though all the other republicans were fighting for their lives up there on stage while Huckabee was just shooting the breeze talking about his beliefs and how he loves God and America.

In a televised world words don't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

My pony waaaayyy too slow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't get what you mean there. I thought the pony references were always related to government programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

"my pony too slow" was coined by borodog after he responded to one of those commie pinko "every child should have a pony" posts with a picture of a pony... seconds after I did the exact same thing. It should be noted, however, that my pony was not only faster, it was cuter.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love that saying, there should be a wiki article on it or something.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I've argued before that many of the worst violations of personal liberty (root word of liberal) are currently from the executive branch: War mongering, domestic spying, drug war, etc. President Paul could immediately have an impact in stopping these things. And would do a better job ending them than most of the democratic candidates.

But he would still have a tough time putting an end to public schools, social security, etc. because these would require a democratic or republican congress to pass a bill to be put in front of him. That would be a lot of work to get that many politicians to ignore the popularity of all these programs and put an end to them in 4 or even 8 years.

So a Paul presidency is high reward, low risk for social leaning libertarians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Word, that's pretty much my exact thinking.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've argued before that many of the worst violations of personal liberty (root word of liberal) are currently from the executive branch: War mongering, domestic spying, drug war, etc. President Paul could immediately have an impact in stopping these things. And would do a better job ending them than most of the democratic candidates.

But he would still have a tough time putting an end to public schools, social security, etc. because these would require a democratic or republican congress to pass a bill to be put in front of him. That would be a lot of work to get that many politicians to ignore the popularity of all these programs and put an end to them in 4 or even 8 years.

So a Paul presidency is high reward, low risk for social leaning libertarians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Word, that's pretty much my exact thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has no particular desire to go after social programs anyway. He understands that there's only so much that can realistically be accomplished. Of course, when I say that, I'm not including stuff like the Department of Education, which is pretty much pure bureaucracy rather than social program.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well good for you.

Now let's go to the real world, since your obviously can't take your PC blinders off and consider the point I was trying to make and would rather resort to name calling.

Is it unfair that gays aren't allowed in the military and would they make just as good soldiers as non-gays. Absolutely.

Would they erode unit cohesion? They most likely would because, like it or not, most of the folks in the military would not take well to it. Maybe it isn't fair, but that's what must be done, at least until your rank and file members of the military are more accepting. And that will probably be in 50 years.e

There's more to it than "discrimination"

[/ QUOTE ]

in 20+ of the nato countries gays are allowed to serve and its doesnt seem to be a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not any of those countries. I hate to say it, but Hunter had a point in his answer. It would be great if it wouldn't be a big deal here, but in today's USA, it would be.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be great if it wouldn't be a big deal here, but in today's USA, it would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in tomorrow's USA, it will continue. Unless of course we decide to stop this silliness today.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be great if it wouldn't be a big deal here, but in today's USA, it would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in tomorrow's USA, it will continue. Unless of course we decide to stop this silliness today.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the military isnt a place for social experimentation. Maybe there will be a point in the future where homosexuality is accepted to a degree that it wont be much of a factor in the military. And before you guys start with the comparison to racial things, sexuality brings a whole other factor the equation that race doesnt.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be great if it wouldn't be a big deal here, but in today's USA, it would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in tomorrow's USA, it will continue. Unless of course we decide to stop this silliness today.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the military isnt a place for social experimentation. Maybe there will be a point in the future where homosexuality is accepted to a degree that it wont be much of a factor in the military. And before you guys start with the comparison to racial things, sexuality brings a whole other factor the equation that race doesnt.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the past the military has been on the fore front of integration. I guess once you know that a fellow country man is willing to fight and die for you all the little things like skin tone, religious background and other crap seem to fall into place.

[vulturesrow]

So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[iron81]

Forgive my periodic delusion that The West Wing = Real life, but I'm reminded of a line uttered by the Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:

"You know what, (racial integration) did disrupt the unit. The unit got used to it. The unit adapted. The unit got stronger."

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

My God, that would be awesome.