 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is it time for a gay president?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: mousethief Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:06 AM Doctors are going to have to deny you treatment someday, Firth, because you're just not cost-effective. Think of Obama when you're dying. Unlike what insurance companies do today, you mean? Fortunately they will no longer be able to do it soon thanks to Obama. Sucks for your theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: John P Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:26 AM ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. ichMael is gay. Ooh, this is fun. I don't even need any proof! I don't even need to know him or her! I can just keep saying it over and over again! What a cool world this is! Actually, given the amount of time that ichMael has apparently spent thinking about homosexual sex, we have more evidence that ichMael is gay than that Obama is gay.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Ebbie Date: 03 Jun 10 - 12:42 AM If the Luo are weak and effeminate, aren't you just plain glad that Obama is half white? White surely makes him strong, brave and manly. Like you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: mousethief Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:02 AM So... he's bi? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:22 AM Funny thing. I've had to joust with the regular commercial health insurance companies a number of times over denial of benefits—and won on most occasions, but I had to kick some butt. Never had a problem with Medicare. And then, today, I get this package from Medicare outlining new benefits. No change in premiums, by the way. Sorry Michael. The real world doesn't reflect your forebodings. Take two aspirin and call your psychiatrist in the morning. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Smedley Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:48 AM Speaking as a homo, me and my gang are quite happy to welcome Obama, but the *last* person we want is IchMael!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:17 AM ""No, Don...what I am avoiding doing...and most of you here can't seem to avoid doing it in your political debates...is I am avoiding speaking in absolutes and reducing situations to absolutes. I am recognizing that human beings are complex..."" Yes! You are doing that, but that isn't the whole story is it LH. In addition to expressing your appreciation of infinite greys, as well as blacks and whites, and as you say avoiding absolutes, you absolutely imply that you are the only one here with the sense to do so. We appreciate your ability to sit on the fence for so long without becoming a double act, but, if we all followed your example, there would be no discussion, ever again, about anything except possibly how boring Mudcat had become. Discussion requires that there be two sides. It cannot happen without. Your offer to take the post of arbiter is kind, but unnecessary, as we are capable of rational thought, and (occasionally) of reacting to a better argument by changing our positions. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:21 AM """the agenda of most here is to see "their" side win". Exactly. That is the real agenda most of you constantly pursue in your political debates and other debates, it's self-serving, it's ego-driven, it has nothing to do with fairness, balance or rationality, and when I see you doing it, I let you know about it. And you don't like it one bit."" And of course we ignore you because that is exactly what you, yourself are doing. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: ichMael Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:04 AM Oops. It's this pagethat I've been emailing. Much more current. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Genie Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:56 PM We've already had a gay President. Our 14th President, according to both rumor and his own letters and diaries, was not only single but gay. His paramour was known as "Mr. Nancy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: frogprince Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:56 PM Genie, did you get the wrong number? #14 was Franklin Pierce, married with children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Genie Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:58 PM Yes, I did get the number wrong. For some reason I was thinking Lincoln was #15, when he was #16. The gay President was James Buchanan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: MMario Date: 04 Jun 10 - 02:57 PM frogprince mentioned: #14 was Franklin Pierce, married with children. Neither status precluding his being gay, but granted, he wasn't single. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:15 PM It is time for Winona Ryder to make some more good movies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Genie Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:58 PM Leo, it was #15, Buchanan, I was referring to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:11 PM Just for the helluvit, let me ask ichMael this: Let's assume that the allegation that Barack Obama is gay is true. What difference would it make? Don Firth P. S. And other than homophobes and general nut-balls, who the hell would care? And why should they? P. P. S. Obviously, considering the amount of time and energy that you dedicate to the matter, ichMael, you obviously care a great deal. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Jun 10 - 06:41 PM Dear Ichmael. You have put this nation in a vulnerable position by hiding your true sexual orientation. Please declare your homosexuality immediately so that you will no longer be subject to blackmail. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:25 PM You will note, ichMael, that in the P. P. S. following my post just above, I have used the word "obviously" twice. I just wanted to emphasize how really obvious your concern is. Again, why? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:31 PM Don - I suggested to Ichmael quite some time back that I didn't see what difference it would make to Obama carrying out his presidential duties effectively if he was gay or not...but he did not comment. The problem would appear to be with the reaction of a substantial section of the American electorate, not with Obama's ability to govern. In other words, about half your population would go apeshit if they found out that Obama was gay....and that in itself would make it very hard, perhaps impossible for him to govern. Conclusion: the problem is NOT with Mr Obama! ;-D It's with his electorate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: mousethief Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:45 PM half your population would go apeshit if they found out that Obama was gay....and that in itself would make it very hard You seem to know a lot about what turns Mr Obama on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:17 PM Uh . . . "apeshit." Shouldn't that go on your "does Tarzan screw gorillas" thread, Little Hawk? Just for the record, your comments about the potential reaction of much of the electorate is not exactly a newsflash. Nevertheless, sexual orientation is not exactly an impeachable offense. Tempest in a chamberpot. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:27 PM Re spaghetti sauces: grind some fresh nutmeg on to it. Delicious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Jeri Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:39 PM How could I have forgotten the nutmeg!? ...then add more garlic, some EV olive oil, and cheese. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:49 PM Try some fresh lemons in the spaghetti sauce. Cut them in half and squeeze the juice into your sauce, then float the skins on the sauce as it's simmering.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:25 PM I agree that it's a tempest in a chamberpot, Don. In fact, that was exactly my point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:33 PM Is it time for a gay president to do it with gorillas? Yes it is...just look at Michelle! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:38 PM She looks fine to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:42 PM Little Hawk,(Yo-Ho)..Your slippin' Wink, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Wesley S Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:45 PM How clever GfS. Comparing a black woman to a gorilla. THAT's never been done before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:46 PM No, I'm not, GfS. She looks fine to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:11 PM Little Hawk: "No, I'm not, GfS. She looks fine to me." Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's gorilla! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:17 PM Oh, and Wesley...only a moron would make that into a racist remark!..or try to! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:21 PM I'm not coveting her, I'm simply making an observation. It's Winona Ryder whom I covet, and she isn't married. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Genie Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:33 PM I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Americans who would be freaked out or horribly offended if Obama were gay already hate him (or at least want him out of office) because he's black, because he's "a liberal," because he's a Democrat or all of the above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:33 PM I thought Michelle Pfeiffer was pretty nice....I actually met her and talked with her, in regards to a script, and the 'Women in Films Awards', at the Beverly Hilton. Winona was there, as was Marisa Tomei, Linda Grey, Demi Moore.. and Jule Andrews, and a few others. By the way, Julie Andrews carried, and conducted herself like royalty..a real class act! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: LadyJean Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:40 PM I likd that spaghetti sauce recipe. Lots of onions. That's what's wrong with contemporary cuisine, not enough onions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:41 PM Genie, I think some people (mostly on the left) project an imaginary 'hatred for blacks' to those who just don't like Obama.....and blame those who see him as incompetent, as 'hating' him, just because he is black. I think that is just way of writing off legitimate criticism......okay, you can put your head back into the sand, again..get some much needed snooze. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:44 PM Lady Jean, You are right!..I use a few onions in my sauce...and I suggest everyone do the same! Also try the idea of a can of olives, and using the brine, instead of adding salt...you'll like it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Ebbie Date: 04 Jun 10 - 11:49 PM GfS, you evidently don't know a class act when you see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:03 AM Genie - In regards to what you said in your last post... Yes, that is probably right what you said. But my point is that if Obama was openly revealed in fact to BE gay, then the people who already don't like him would have a lot more ammunition to raise a ruckus about it, wouldn't they? And that would strengthen the opposition to Obama to the point that it would make his job tremendously more difficult than it is now. The American president serves, psychologically speaking, as a surrogate parent figure in the subconscious of most of the American public, whether or not they know it or not. That's why they have so often tended to vote for someone who resembles the strong father figures immortalized in a couple of hundred years of American popular fiction, history, and movies.... Think John Wayne, Lorne Greene, Ronald Reagan, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, John Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Clint Eastwood, U.S. Grant, etc...what the American public really wants when they think of their president is a great big and kind but strong and authoritative "Daddy" in the White House whom they can trust to lead the national family and get tough when the going gets tough. Or they might sometime settle for a tough but fair "Mommy" in the White House (like Hillary or Sarah, depending on your partisan viewpoint)...it's a possibility, given certain conditions. What they absolutely don't want is a "wimp" (male or female) who doesn't get tough when the going gets tough. Some who have suffered the "wimp" label either in or out of office are Jimmy Carter, George Bush Senior, Michael Dukakis, and Adlai Stevenson...and there are few things more devastating in American politics than being labelled a "wimp". Being stupid is acceptable. Being a "wimp" is not! ;-) Now.......it shouldn't stretch your mind too much to recognize that the average American does not picture the nation's surrogate Father figure as a gay man. And I'll tell you why...because about 99% of all the people living in the USA have grown up in a heterosexual family with a father who obviously wasn't a gay man. That's a fact. And what do they subconsciously want for their president? They want someone who makes them feel safe and who reminds them somehow of their own idealized familial origins...which were not gay. Period. This does not mean those people necessarily hate gays (though some of them certainly do)...it means they are more comfortable with the familiar than they are with the unfamiliar. Period. For the same reason, they were reluctant to vote a Catholic into office until finally they did with John Kennedy. Why were they reluctant to do so? Well, it hadn't been done before, that's why. It's always quite hard to get people to shift from the culturally familiar to the culturally unfamiliar....whether it be electing a Catholic president or a female president or a non-White president or a gay president...or giving women and Black and Indians the vote. And the more culturally unfamiliar the scenario is, the longer are the chances against it happening...because people are creatures of habit, and they fear the unfamiliar. The only time they'll opt for a radical change in the familiar is when they have become deeply disillusioned and let down with the normal status quo. That's what happened in 2008 after 8 dreadful years of George Bush, when America voted in "a Black man" (actually he's half Black and half White...but in America half-Black means only one thing in practical terms: it means ALL Black.) That is not so in some other societies, but it clearly is in the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:44 AM Gee Whilikers, Little Hawkman! Your lame premise falters and stumbles before it even gets to the gate. You say: "Think John Wayne, Lorne Greene, Ronald Reagan, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, John Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Clint Eastwood, U.S. Grant" etc, but of those nine men you list, how many became President? Six. Many, many presidents of this country were scarcely what even you would think of as a "great, big, kind, strong, authoritative "Daddy". It gets tiresome to have you pontificate so blithely on what the "American people" want and need. Frankly, my dear, you don't know. And here you say: "...because about 99% of all the people living in the USA have grown up in a heterosexual family with a father who obviously wasn't a gay man. That's a fact". Nay, it is not. 99%? Would that it were so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:45 AM By the way, I was NOT suggesting in that last post that gay people are "wimps". They are, like other people, of all types of personalities, assertive and non-asssertive, aggressive and passive, etc. But I do find it interesting that wimpiness is such a damaging label for a president to be saddled with, that's all, so I talked about that some. (I think, however, that an enormous number of people DO think gay men are wimpy...it's a common stereotype, and has been for centuries.) The main objection most Americans would have rising up in their subconscious about a gay person being president is simply that a gay person does not represent the picture they have in their minds of a surrogate parent for the nation. They're unfamiliar with a gay person in that role, therefore they would feel quite uncomfortable with it. It would not meet their usual expectations, and it would not make them feel safe and secure. And that is the major impediment in the way of electing a gay person as president. I'm not suggesting in any of this that Obama is secretly gay. I have no opinion about that at all, and I don't particularly care either. It's a non-issue to me. What I am talking about is not Obama...but the general reaction of a predominantly heterosexual culture to the idea of electing a gay president. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jun 10 - 01:57 AM Which premise fails, Ebbie? About what percentage of families in America do you think have had heterosexual parents raising children in the last 100 years? I'd say virtually all of them, and that's why I said about 99%, just as a ballpark figure. I've known a number of gay individuals by now. Maybe a dozen or so of them among the tens of thousands of friends and acquaintances I've had in my life, maybe two dozen. I haven't personally known anyone yet who was raised as a child in a gay family...not one. There are some people who have been. Sure. And I haven't happened to meet them. But what guess would you make as to their percentage amongst the general population? My premise is simply that people resist the unfamiliar and they cling to the familiar, because it makes them feel secure. What fault do you find in that premise? There are thousands of different ways of proving it if one wishes to take the time. It's plain freaking obvious. But people here would rather talk about homophobia and hunt around for homophobes, and reduce everything to some extreme position that they can get upset about than just look at something perfectly ordinary and predictable that's plain freaking obvious, wouldn't they? ***** Do you disagree with my premise? I will repeat it. My premise is simply that people everywhere in EVERY society resist the unfamiliar and they cling to the familiar, because it makes them feel secure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:01 AM Ebbie, Julie Andrews was a class act....don't try to flatter yourself! Here, being as you have to bitch, whine and moan over everything I post....and argue, as if you have a great store of knowledge, here's a statement ....just for you,... to take exception to. Now correct me if I'm wrong..ok?...Today where I live, the sky was blue. Okay..Have at it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Genie Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:04 AM GfS, I was in no way accusing all of Obama's knee-jerk opposers of being racist. Read what I said, please. I gave that as one of several 'reasons' why many of Obama's non-left-wing opponents seem to oppose just about everything he does. Some of those "opponents" are blatantly racist (cf. the signs depicting Obama as an African "witch doctor" or as a watermelon-slurping 'Sambo' character or the "Barack, The Magic Negro" parodies aired by Rush Limbaugh) but many others oppose him just because he is not a Republican or because they perceive him as more "liberal" than they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Genie Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:11 AM Hawk, you make some good points. But I think for a lot of Americans the unfamiliar territory of a (closeted) "gay" President is probably no more threatening than that of a (half-) black President or a woman President or (shudder) an openly non-religious President. Interestingly enough, several Republican Congress people who have been revealed to have been involved in homosexual activities even while actively working against "gay rights" seem to have continued to be embraced by their Republican constituents. The only gays whom the right-wingers seem to be dead set against are the Democratic or "liberal" ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:21 AM Ebbie, regarding the 99%...perhaps what you are objecting to in my figure is that many children have grown up in single parent families where the father was not present. That's true. But there was a heterosexual father involved at some point, because that's how their mother got pregnant! There wasn't a gay father raising most of those children I speak of in the vast majority of North American families, and when they think of a father figure, a gay man is not what comes to their minds, a heterosexual man is what comes to their minds. And that was what I was referring to. Most people grow up with a set of heterosexual assumptions in their mind about their future role in life, and that's why having a gay man as president would strike them as very unusual. And if they think it's unusual, then it will make them feel uncomfortable, in most cases, and that's why the odds are stacked against the public voting for a gay president, if offered the choice. Not because of some kind of universal hatred of gays...because it would be very unusual, that's all! I don't dream that either the Republicans or the Democrats ever WILL openly offer them that choice to the public...so I doubt that we'll see my theory get put to the test. ;-) Those 2 parties are in the business of selling a product...the candidate they choose to put in front of the people. They will back the candidate they think will get the most support from the most people. He (or she) is the one who'll get the most campaign funding, and it's campaign funding which wins an election. Obama got by far the most campaign funding in 2008, and he naturally won the election. It was the right moment to offer a seemingly radical "change", so they switched in midstream from the predictable (Hillary) to the seemingly more radical (Obama). You will not see them give that kind of campaign funding to an openly gay candidate, because he or she would be a tremendously hard sell to main street America. They (the Democratic and Republican parties) aren't completely stupid, after all. They always pick someone from their ranks who they think can win. That isn't an openly gay person in the USA, and so far it hasn't been in any other modern nation either. Not once. Not anywhere. That isn't because everyone everywhere hates gays. It's because people are accustomed to having heterosexual leaders at the head of their various nations. Period. And they are mostly accustomed to having men as their national leaders. That's why we've seen only a few women become national leaders in the last hundred years, among a great many men. It's simply cultural conditioning, because women are just as good at leading a country as men are...given the chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jun 10 - 02:31 AM " But I think for a lot of Americans the unfamiliar territory of a (closeted) "gay" President is probably no more threatening than that of a (half-) black President or a woman President or (shudder) an openly non-religious President. Absolutely right, Genie! But I wasn't speaking of a closeted gay president. I was speaking of an openly gay candidate for president. I think the chances of such a person being elected to the highest office would be virtually nil. Interestingly enough, several Republican Congress people who have been revealed to have been involved in homosexual activities even while actively working against "gay rights" seem to have continued to be embraced by their Republican constituents. The only gays whom the right-wingers seem to be dead set against are the Democratic or "liberal" ones. Excellent point, Genie. It's amusing, isn't it? At the end of the day, all that seems to matter to most people when it comes to politics is that their side should win. If they are liberals, that means that the liberal side should win. If they're conservative, it's the other way around. Thus they can easily forgive in people of their own side what they would find utterly unforgivable in the opposition, and that's why both the Right and the Left are riddled with hypocrisy, in my opinion. And that's why I take issue with both of them. (though I am definitely to the Left in my general leanings) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jun 10 - 03:13 AM I was indeed speaking of the very large number of single parent households, LH. Just recently they made public an astonishing percentage. And I agree that the fathers were heterosexual, in the main. GfS, my retort about class referred only to your racist and clumsy remark about Michelle Obama. She is classy- the fact you don't think so says a good deal about you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is it time for a gay president? From: frogprince Date: 05 Jun 10 - 08:31 AM "Is it time for a gay president to do it with gorillas? Yes it is...just look at Michelle!" "Oh, and Wesley...only a moron would make that into a racist remark!..or try to!" GfS Only the vast majority of normal people would see that as racist and sexist at the crassest, nastiest, level. |
