U.S.A. Threatened With Most Overtly Ant-Gay President In History

[tombkk]

I mean, the last time we had fascist right wing idiots in charge, the UK wound up in a ridiculous Iraqi war.

The last time you had fascist right wing idiots in charge the UK had a gormless arse-licking poodle for a Prime Minister.

The last time Germany had fascist right-wing groups running the country ended in 1945.

Let's be realistic here and don't blow things out of (current) proportions. While things are not perfect yet, much has improved over the last decades.

[endure]

I mean, the last time we had fascist right wing idiots in charge, the UK wound up in a ridiculous Iraqi war.

The last time you had fascist right wing idiots in charge the UK had a gormless arse-licking poodle for a Prime Minister.

The last time Germany had fascist right-wing groups running the country ended in 1945.

Let's be realistic here and don't blow things out of (current) proportions. While things are not perfect yet, much has improved over the last decades.

Funnily enough it was the arse-licking poodle who did a lot to improve the lot of gays in the UK. His big problem was that he just couldn't stop himself getting involved in wars which the country (i.e. us) didn't want him to.

[LeCharivari]

The problem is that the president of the US is the most powerful person in the world. And therefore, it would be fair and correct if he or she is elected by the population of the whoe world, rather than only by the Americans. Think about it.

OK, thought about it -- no offense but...that is truly one of the dumbest, most absurd ideas I've ever heard.

Yup, let's be realistic here and admit that the idea really was both dumb and absurd - as well as totally unnecessary as the US's interference in other people's affairs (such as in Afghanistan and Iraq) is largely dependent on having sufficient arse-licking poodles around to make up a coalition of the billing. Whether we like it or not, those arse-licking poodles are ones that "we" (and I use the term collectively) elected.

[Jingthing]

Well, now, the republican nomination race is gelled to be a two man contest -- Perry vs. Romney. Currently Perry leads.

[LeCharivari]

Well, now, the republican nomination race is gelled to be a two man contest -- Perry vs. Romney. Currently Perry leads.

Maybe I missed it ..... which of these two is gay?

[Jingthing]

Well, now, the republican nomination race is gelled to be a two man contest -- Perry vs. Romney. Currently Perry leads.

Maybe I missed it ..... which of these two is gay?

You're thinking of Bachmann's husband.

[Osprey]

<br />Bad rebbe! Bad rebbe!<br /><br /><br /><br />But he's gone now and was hardly the leader of the free world, as Americans so delightfully describe our presidents. <br /><br />Right now, we've got a live threat on our hands, the Rick Perry character. Actually if ANY republican gets elected (ignoring the oddball Ron Paul who has no chance) it will be a huge setback for gay rights in America just based on even one potential right wing supreme court appointment alone.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Ron Paul is about the only sane person running for the POTUS. The rest of the republican contenders are a bunch of religious nuts and Obama is in bed with the banksters and Wall Street.Ron Paul is the greatest defender of liberty and freedom and has dedicated his life to that end.I would suggest you educate yourself before you refer to Senator Paul as an oddball.

What more rights to gay people really need as we have almost all the freedoms we require in most advanced countries.What further freedom or rights to you require ? The real threat to gay rights in the US is the continuing financial melt down which could result in the present fascist becoming more authoritarian and then be prepared for real restrictions and not only for gays.

[Jingthing]

The main equality thing we are looking for in the US now is federally recognized gay marriage. Ron Paul? Why waste time talking about someone who has zero chance of even being nominated? In any case, some of his positions are very loony indeed.

[Osprey]

<br />Bad rebbe! Bad rebbe!<br /><br /><br /><br />But he's gone now and was hardly the leader of the free world, as Americans so delightfully describe our presidents. <br /><br />Right now, we've got a live threat on our hands, the Rick Perry character. Actually if ANY republican gets elected (ignoring the oddball Ron Paul who has no chance) it will be a huge setback for gay rights in America just based on even one potential right wing supreme court appointment alone.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Ron Paul is about the only sane person running for the POTUS. The rest of the republican contenders are a bunch of religious nuts and Obama is in bed with the banksters and Wall Street.Ron Paul is the greatest defender of liberty and freedom and has dedicated his life to that end.I would suggest you educate yourself before you refer to Senator Paul as an oddball.

What more rights to gay people really need as we have almost all the freedoms we require in most advanced countries.What further freedom or rights to you require ? The real threat to gay rights in the US is the continuing financial melt down which could result in the present fascist becoming more authoritarian and then be prepared for real restrictions and not only for gays.

[Jingthing]

BTW, Perry has crashed badly in popularity, but I expect Cain, another homophobe, the current flavor of the month to crash badly as well soon, so I still expect basically a Romney vs. Perry nomination battle.

[Osprey]

<br />The main equality thing we are looking for in the US now is federally recognized gay marriage. Ron Paul? Why waste time talking about someone who has zero chance of even being nominated? In any case, some of his positions are very loony indeed.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Why don't you head to Brokeback mountain and hide out there as judging from your avatar you would fit in nicely. For most civilized countries gay marriage is a non issue. If you would educate yourself on Ron Paul you may get from him what you are looking for. The nonsense you Americans continue with such as warmongering fiscal irresponsibility and celebrity worship needs to be brought to an end as the US has become the truly evil empire. Gay marriage in the Amerikan Empire is a non issue for the rest of the world's citizens.

[Ijustwannateach]

^Do you even know who is pictured in that avatar? He was a much greater American than Ron Paul by far. In any case, we (or perhaps it is more accurate to say, *I*) discourage personal sniping here in the gay subforum.

Ron Paul is the greatest defender of liberty and freedom

I've heard that many of his followers are not necessarily so gung-ho on the same freedoms and liberties for people of darker skin, or of gayer disposition, as he apparently must be, being the 'greatest defender' of freedom and all; but he always manages to keep a safe distance from them and maintains plausible deniability- but does not exactly dissociate himself or tell them clearly to change or leave his camp.

In any case, this subforum and thread is about gay content primarily, not political demogoguery, so unless you have something SPECIFIC further to say about Ron Paul's specific stance on gay rights- not his lack of a stance- or something more specific to add about why civilised countries, like Afghanistan, aren't concerned about gay marriage; while barbaric ones, such as Norway, are- then I figure this little side-detour in the topic has run its course.

[Osprey]

^Do you even know who is pictured in that avatar? He was a much greater American than Ron Paul by far. In any case, we (or perhaps it is more accurate to say, *I*) discourage personal sniping here in the gay subforum.

Ron Paul is the greatest defender of liberty and freedom

I've heard that many of his followers are not necessarily so gung-ho on the same freedoms and liberties for people of darker skin, or of gayer disposition, as he apparently must be, being the 'greatest defender' of freedom and all; but he always manages to keep a safe distance from them and maintains plausible deniability- but does not exactly dissociate himself or tell them clearly to change or leave his camp.

In any case, this subforum and thread is about gay content primarily, not political demogoguery, so unless you have something SPECIFIC further to say about Ron Paul's specific stance on gay rights- not his lack of a stance- or something more specific to add about why civilised countries, like Afghanistan, aren't concerned about gay marriage; while barbaric ones, such as Norway, are- then I figure this little side-detour in the topic has run its course.

Hi justwannateach,

Sorry for the abrasive bit however I firmly believe Ron Paul is greatly underrated mainly because the MSM have a policy of deliberately not covering him and this leads to misguided comments with people referring to him as an oddball. I don't think it is a waste of time talking about Ron Paul because people may think he has no chance of getting the nomination but that remains to be seen. He has previously run for President as a Libertarian and he has spent over 30 years in the senate. Also his views on sound money ie gold and Wall Street are refreshing Below I enclose the Wikipedia entry for Ron Paul's stance on gay issues which speaks for itself.

Same-sex marriageIn a

with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.

Don't ask, don't tellIn the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

^[200]

Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.^[199]

Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.^[201]He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.

Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under theFourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

^[

²⁰²

^]

[endure]

[Jingthing]

Ron Paul, that's one republican we don't have to worry about being president. So he defended the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws did he, based on his tin foil hat state's rights pseudo-religion? Thankfully, he is getting very old, as are most of the rationalizers of anti-gay laws in the US.

Paul isn't an oddball because the media says he is. He is because he is. Nothing against oddballs per se, especially if they're cute, but they don't get nominated to run for president.

Also, get real. American gays don't vote for ANY republican. It's like Jews voting for Nazis. Only the crazy self-hating ones would.

Next ...

Edited October 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[Osprey]

Ron Paul, that's one republican we don't have to worry about being president. So he defended the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws did he, based on his tin foil hat state's rights pseudo-religion? Thankfully, he is getting very old, as are most of the rationalizers of anti-gay laws in the US.

Paul isn't an oddball because the media says he is. He is because he is. Nothing against oddballs per se, especially if they're cute, but they don't get nominated to run for president.

Also, get real. American gays don't vote for ANY republican. It's like Jews voting for Nazis. Only the crazy self-hating ones would.

Next ...

Hi Jingthing,

I know may American gays who do vote republican and some of them living in San Francisco. Your remark that " thankfully, he is getting very old " is a very sad attack on a very brilliant man of high intellect and in fact a man who is in the running for POTUS. I would respectfully suggest you keep your powder dry and reserve it for attacks on Romley, Palin, Perry, Obama etc. The excerpt from Wikipedia which I posted is a factual record and are non emotional statements on Ron Paul's views on homosexuality. I am afraid it seems you have fallen into the trap of Democrats pro gay... good , Republicans anti gay... bad. I respectfully suggest you don your tin foil hat and have a good laugh.

Kind Regards

[Jingthing]

Palin isn't running.

The old comment was about the demographics of anti-gay politics in America. It's dying out. The young are for equality overwhelmingly.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[Osprey]

<br />Palin isn't running.<br /><br />The old comment was about the demographics of anti-gay politics in America. It's dying out. The young are for equality overwhelmingly.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

So let's call a truce and go for Barney Franks for president and Dick Chaney's daughter for VP .

[Jingthing]

So let's call a truce and go for Barney Franks for president and Dick Chaney's daughter for VP .

Barney Frank would be a massively more credible candidate than Pizza Man Cain, but he isn't running for president and wouldn't have a chance if he did.

However, Russ Feingold would be much better. Maybe next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

Edited October 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, you were certainly specific, Osprey, but your post gives me at best the impression of a mixed record on gay rights. In any case, the thread is about the likely winners, which I agree seem more and more to be either Romney and/or Perry, both of whom are easy to justify describing as religious whackjobs. Paul may be a teeny tiny amount to the left of them on the basis of constitionality, but he's hardly making a strong personal statement on the issue. It is, in fact, sad to me that the best chance gays might have in the case of a Republican victory is Ron Paul, even though it is almost impossible odds against him being the candidate. Perhaps he can push whoever becomes the actual candidate slightly more away from right wing, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I think whoever wins the nomination will be solidly right wing but the US will still breathe a sigh of relief that it's not a total freakjob like Bachman, who is possibly the most unelectable candidate of all.

The sad thing is that even an Obama re-election will mean another right wing government, by pre-Reagan standards of right-wing. It's just that the Democrats are sane, non-religious right wing nutjobs compared to the insane, demogogue right wing nutjobs we see in the Republican party.

[anotheruser]

What about the 'separation of church and state'? In the UK we actually have an Established church - the Church of England is the 'official' church and its unelected Bishops take part in making the law in the House of Lords but we never get the hysteria over religion that you get in the US

The vast majority of Americans believe in God and identify with a religion. You can't say the same thing about the vast majority of Europeans.

Hello? Ever heard of the Vatican? Over a BILLION members? Or Protestantism in Northern Europe?

Have you ever been to Poland? Europe is run by religions to an extent you are unwilling

to see.

[Osprey]

Well, you were certainly specific, Osprey, but your post gives me at best the impression of a mixed record on gay rights. In any case, the thread is about the likely winners, which I agree seem more and more to be either Romney and/or Perry, both of whom are easy to justify describing as religious whackjobs. Paul may be a teeny tiny amount to the left of them on the basis of constitionality, but he's hardly making a strong personal statement on the issue. It is, in fact, sad to me that the best chance gays might have in the case of a Republican victory is Ron Paul, even though it is almost impossible odds against him being the candidate. Perhaps he can push whoever becomes the actual candidate slightly more away from right wing, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I think whoever wins the nomination will be solidly right wing but the US will still breathe a sigh of relief that it's not a total freakjob like Bachman, who is possibly the most unelectable candidate of all.

The sad thing is that even an Obama re-election will mean another right wing government, by pre-Reagan standards of right-wing. It's just that the Democrats are sane, non-religious right wing nutjobs compared to the insane, demogogue right wing nutjobs we see in the Republican party.

In a final defense of the aging Senator Ron Paul, libertarian , defender of individual freedoms ( inclusive of gay rights ), advocate for sound money and a return to a gold standard , medical doctor and possibly the greatest American of our times I will leave you with the ancient Greek proverb ;

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

[Jingthing]

Definitely NOT the greatest American of our times! Gold standard? Mary, pleeeeze.

(Advocates of returning to the gold standard, BTW, are closely linked to right wing extremists.)

Edited October 24, 2011 by Jingthing

[Osprey]

Definitely NOT the greatest American of our times! Gold standard? Mary, pleeeeze.

(Advocates of returning to the gold standard, BTW, are closely linked to right wing extremists.)

If you actually red the American constitution it clearly states the Gold & Silver are the only legal monies allowed and congress have the sole authority to issue . Read the " Creature from Jekyll Island " for enlightenment. And just to prepare you ; we will be going back to a gold standard when the dollar crashes next year. That's why gold is currently at $ 1,650 per troy oz. which equates to a 94% devaluation of the dollar versus gold since Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971. To sneer at ( Argumentum ad hominem ) a gold standard demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of economics and a monetary system that has served the world for over 5,000 years and served America admirably up to 1971. So the current digital dollar is not worth the paper it is not even printed on and hence the GFC. Anyway this is another topic so if I was an American which thankfully I'm not , it would be Ron Paul for POTUS.

Other opinions are always refreshing and stay dry in the flood !

[Ijustwannateach]

The subforum is REALLY not about American politics, generally, except as it relates to gay people, and I'm going to have to ask for the topic to remain centred on gay-related issues or else the thread will be closed. Several off-topic messages deleted.

In belated response to something Osprey said above, though:

If you (Osprey) or other straight viewers think that gay people have all the rights that straights do, you apparently have never, as a potential straight married person:

1. filed a tax return and claimed benefits for having a spouse

2. made a will to that favoured your spouse, especially over the objections of your biological 'family' of record

3. gone to visit your sick spouse in hospital, or wanted your spouse to visit you in hospital, especially over the objections of your biological 'family' of record

4. tried to share credit, debt, or insurance

5. tried to adopt children

6. made a large capital purchase that was protected by laws respecting the spouse

ALL of these things are RIGHTS which are available to married straight citizens of most English-speaking nations that are not universally available to the main spouse in a gay couple.

I *know* people (and so do all the gay members of this subforum, I bet) who have had their families refuse the right of their long-term gay partners to visit them in hospital, or who have even had the hospital itself refuse to allow ANYONE who couldn't demonstrate blood ties or marriage status to visit. That's probably the most painful situation resulting from the above, but there are many others (which I will leave up to the hopefully fertile imaginations of our straight viewers).

Then again, people who ostensibly scorn government regulation wouldn't want or use those things, anyway, right?

[Jingthing]

It now appears more clear that in the fight for the right to fight to dump Obama, the two remaining front runners are Romney and Gingrich. Both of course with strong anti-gay rights positioning, but rather less disgusting than the likes of Cain, Santorum (google it), and Perry. Romney due to his history of flip flopping is likely the least offensive of the two, and of course, remains the most likely to be nominated. Which means of course if he wins, expect supreme court justices from either to delay legal federal gay marriage for at least 50 years, but on the other hand, I wouldn't worry about a move to criminalize us.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

So the Rick Perry is on his last legs, so what does he turn to? Why, gay bashing, of course! So predictable. Well, at least this one won't be president. President Obama's response to Perry recent "strong" ads -- we don't respond to candidates from struggling campaigns. Priceless!

Game over, man!

It's all over Twitter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsrPxSaLKWY&feature=related

Heck, if it's all over Twitter ...

Edited December 9, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Hillary for President?

[Jingthing]

Hillary for President?

It's not in the cards for 2012. Contrary to popular republican myth, Obama has an excellent chance to win. So there is zero chance he would step down from his nomination coronation. As far as 2016, well maybe it depends on how she ages and whether you believe her when she says she's done with political campaigning.

Looks like Perry is getting some major league blowback for his bigotry. Bravo and Adios Ricky!

“You know, I`d like him to take a look at the statistics about children who kill themselves because they`re gay and they`re bullied,” O’Donnell said in response to the ad. “The bullying starts right there with presidential candidates. It`s wrong, it`s sinful and it`s destroying the nation. It really is. Gay people are part of the fabric of America; they have been of every country and every animal species and kingdom. People have to wake up and get with the program. This is not the 1950s. So Rick Perry, shame on you.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/1211/Rosie_ODonnell_to_Rick_Perry_Shame_on_you.html?showall

Edited December 10, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Hillary for President?

And please don't take this seriously!!!