On Sunday’s edition of ABC’s This Week, Presi
dential candidate Herman Cain apologized for not speaking up when audience members booed gay soldier Stephen Hill. Well, sort of. What he actually said was that, “in retrospect, because of the controversy and the different ways it was interrupted,” he would have responded if given the chance again.
“Well, the thing that’s being overlooked is that, in the heat of a debate, when you have exactly 60 seconds to answer any question, you know, taking that time to try and figure out why they were booing… I happen to think that maybe they were booing the whole “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” repeal more so than booing that soldier. But we didn’t know that.”
Below is live, unedited footage from the debate. (Okay, its a classic Simpsons bit, but it’s soo apropos.)
timncguy
Hey Queerty, your journalism (or lack thereof) is showing again. What’s with the quotes in the headline around the words that Cain never said? You understand what quote marks are for, right?
Little Kiwi
Herman Cain might be one of the most shameful suck-ups in the history of American politics.
Everything about him is embarrassing.
the crustybastard
“Look, the Republican presidential pool can’t reflexively do the right thing, or even process information quickly enough to appear to do the right thing.'”
Mr. Cain, do you think that somehow reflects well on you? Because my teenager can â
“Maybe they weren’t booing THAT gay soldier particularly. Maybe they were booing the IDEA of gay soldiers GENERALLY.”
Okay, Herm. Are you sure you want to keep talking?
christopher di spirito
Herman Cain is much angrier at Gov. Rick Perry for having a hunting ranch named Niggerhead and has said so.
The gay thing, not as much.
Politically Incorrect Thug
Look at the clip from the debate. When the soldier identifies himself as gay, no one in the audience boos. It isn’t until he asks what the Republican candidtates will do to repeal DADT that the boos (three, count ’em, out of an audience of over 5,000) are heard, so obviously it was a political reaction rather than one of disdain for homosexuals. Funny how liberals are always saying, “So-and-so doesn’t represent me just because he’s a liberal,” but 3 people in a crowd of 5,000 boo and it’s an instant indictment of the Republican Party. There’s got to be some consistency, or else we’ll never be taken seriously. Funny how 3 boos from the right can cause gay-world panic, but the threat of Muslims to kill us just for existing goes suspiciously under-reported. I guess that’s what we call political correctness—and good luck with that when it comes down to brass tacks.
Little Kiwi
Oh, Thug. Your need to lie to yourself is obvious to all.
You voted for John McCain. Who was against repealing DADT. And gays adopting. And supports Prop8-style bans on gays marrying.
“Funny how 3 boos from the right can cause gay-world panic, but the threat of Muslims to kill us just for existing goes suspiciously under-reported.”
Funny how 30,000 Americans die in this country every year from gun violence, and people like you are still talking instead about MUSLIMS.
“Thereâs got to be some consistency, or else weâll never be taken seriously.”
You mean how you come on here every day to find a way to criticize “Liberals” for not doing enough for LGBT Equality, when you yourself voted for the McCain/Palin ticket that actively ran a campaign of anti-gay rhetoric?
You’re right. We dont’ take you seriously.
But keep convinving yourself that it’s not about “disdain for homosexuals” – whatever you need to do to convince yourself that your family doesn’t resent calling your gay-ass Son.
Stephen
@timncguy:
The headline is making light of Herman’s comment, smarty.
Little Kiwi
P.I.T. i notice you only ever comment on Equality when you think you can use it to slander “liberals”
it’s just so sad. Listening to gays complain about “leftist liberals” is like listening to Ann Frank complain about attics.
you voted for McCain/Palin. Clearly, you don’t really mind anti-gay rhetoric or bigotry or institutionalized prejudice. After all, you voted for the ticket that ran on an anti-gay platform.
we liberals aren’t the ones surrounded by anti-gay idiots – that’s you and your chosen party.
Michael
Herman is a vile man in more ways then one.Sadistic lunatic just like the rest of these republican’ts.
Politically Incorrect Thug
@Little Kiwi: Yes, but most of those who die from gun violence are urbans black males . . . which, it seems, makes Obama the biggest violator or victim out there.
@Michael: Michael, my man: my opinion of Cain is that he’s a smart businessman, but in the end, he’s just unqualified for national politics. How, might I inguire, does this make him a vile, sadistic lunatic? (don’t get me wrong, I don’t support the man, I’m just curious about your position).
Michael
@Politically Incorrect Thug:
I mean that mainly because of his stance on gay rights my friend.Considering hes basically spitting in the face of his grandaughter who is also gay.I just never have understood that part of it I mean if you have someone in your family who is gay then why would you then bash people who are gay and attempt to infringe on their rights?Its hypocritical and sad to say the least.
Little Kiwi
P.I.T. – we get it, you’re also a racist. big shock there.
People like you complain about the “threat of Islam” rather than address the reality that 30,000 people die in your own country every year from gunviolence. It’s a fact you choose to ignore. And that fact that you instantly spun that into an “anti-black and anti-Obama” position speaks volumes.
we get it. you only care about LGBT Equality if it allows you to criticize “liberals”, you care more about the “threat of Islam” than about American-on-American gun violence stats, and you have a problem with black people.
congrats.
the crustybastard
@Little Kiwi: “Funny how 30,000 Americans die in this country every year from gun violence…”
The mere repetition of an old lie propounded by an anti-gun advocacy group doesn’t make that lie a fact.
Per the National Institute of Justice, “Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075.” [http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm] Brady Handgun Control, Inc. deliberately inflated the actual worst-case figures by a whopping 43%. How did they do that? They counted suicide, accidental deaths, lawful defensive shootings, and every death of unascertainable intent as “gun violence.” That’s like counting every fatal automobile accident as a vehicular homicide.
I know you love to toss around the term “intellectually dishonest.”
You’re soaking in it.
Little Kiwi
my bad. “fire-arm related deaths”
there. doesn’t change the fact that more people die in this country from guns than from “the threat of Islam”
but hey, keep ignoring. you’re more than free to be a culture of people who defend your right to own and carry a gun more than you work on creating a culture where people won’t feel a *need* to act upon that right.
bang bang.
the crustybastard
@Little Kiwi:
Evidently it will surprise you to learn that only a miniscule percentage of Americans carry guns, meaning this culture of not feeling the need to exercise one’s right to carry has already been manifestly realized. Has been the case for some years now.
Movies are pretend.
Little Kiwi
oh, ok.
blame me for growing in a country with a disproportionately lower rate of gun-related deaths. i didn’t realize your numbers were something to be proud of. my mistake!
đ
the crustybastard
@Little Kiwi:
So you’re blaming Canada for your intellectual dishonesty? That hardly seems fair.
Well, don’t worry, I won’t tell Canada. They’re otherwise such nice people, and that would just make them sad.
Little Kiwi
Yes. I’m blaming Canada for making me think that tens of thousands of deaths, and many more injuries, related to guns was a bad thing.
the crustybastard
@Little Kiwi:
C’mon. Take a little personal responsibility for your intellectual dishonesty. It’s not Canada’s fault you can’t discern that guns are used legitimately for defensive purposes.
I bet I could find lots of Canadians who don’t consider it “a bad thing” when a woman uses a firearm against her attacker.
Little Kiwi
No, you’re completely right. What I perceived to be a problem with gunviolence (forgive me, gun-related deaths) is, apparently, not a problem at all.
I was completely unaware of the fact that it was actually a case of women repelling attackers> thanks for clearing it up – i will never again assume that America has a gun violence problem.
the crustybastard
@Little Kiwi:
Once again, you give an absolute SEMINAR in presenting a series of logical fallacies as if it is a coherent logical argument.
That you also congratulate yourself for doing so makes it all the more entertaining. Thanks for that.
Have a super day.
Little Kiwi
No, I completely agree with you. It turns out that America doesn’t have a problem with gun-violence, at all. I truly stand corrected, thanks đ
just sayin
The soldier, thankfully, isn’t dead – and nobody, anywhere is claiming he is. Except the ‘journalists’ at Queerty, judging by your HEADLINE.
Mav
Dead gay soldier? He looked pretty lively to me. Didn’t know we were deploying gay zombies on the front lines now, but hell, you knew when they passed DADT repeal it was only a matter of time before the undead started demanding rights too.
We’re here, we eat brains, get used to it!