2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Heald]

Ah that I guess that makes more sense. The press intrusion really has been ridiculous for all of the GOP candidates. As much as I despise Palin, it wasn't necessary for such a witch-hunt to occur around her.

[Dark Sage]

And that would be quite a steal.

But on who's part?

You can bet she'll never propose to raise taxes on the rich.

[Roy Karrde]

But on who's part?

You can bet she'll never propose to raise taxes on the rich.

12 billion dollars? That is NOTHING in terms of Government money.

[Dark Sage]

From what I am hearing: The “suspension” language is simply a legal formality driven by FEC rules. If he says he’s quitting, certainly legal consequences flow from that; if I’m not mistaken, it would render him ineligible for federal matching funds. “Suspending” carries no such implications. Essentially, he’s saying he’s out without saying it legally.

Yes, I agree. Cain has quit.

So now, the GOP frontrunner is an admitted adulterer who has been divorced three times. One who was very critical of Bill Clinton's scandals, if I recall. Not as bad as Cain, who wouldn't even admit his faults, but bad enough.

Please all you GOP supporters, keep supporting Gingrich. He would be a dream candidate for us Democrats.

[Katie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=0PAJNntoRgA

I'm not ashamed to admit I'm part of the 76% majority in our country. But since our children are being kicked out of school when someone finds out they pray, and kicked out of america when someone finds out that they celebrate christmas... I really need to get rid of those gays in the military.

I HATE YOU SO MUCH RICK PERRY. you can disable youtube comments all you want. I hope you noticed the likes/dislikes ratio you smug cocksucker. and take off that carhartt, you're as white-collar as they come. so angry, goddamn.

[Heald]

I'm not really so concerned about his worries that Christianity is under attack (I imagine it is largely unfounded and only being perpetuated by a few hysterical articles in tabloids) but his attacks of gays are pretty disgusting. This is the 21st century, can't we move beyond petty, small-minded hatred? The GOP would do well to drop their attacks on gays. The small amount of voters they'd lose would surely be made up tenfold in those who would otherwise vote Republican if not for their toxic brand.

[Dark Sage]

I have several friends who are either gay or bisexual, which is one of the reasons I side with the Democrats.

They say they are "pro-family", when what they really mean is, they're bigots.

Edit: I also find Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres very funny.

[Roy Karrde]

Umm.. the fuck?

How is this a attack on Gays? I mean I came in expecting a ad that was to slam Gays and be this fire brand type attack. In the end the line was: "There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. "

That isn't saying anything but: Why can people be open about their sexuality in the military, but kids cannot be open about their religion in school?

That really doesn't seem to be a attack on gays but a semi valid but rather irrelevant question.

In more... well relevant news. Obama made one of his first campaign speeches, and it was found that he was pretty much lying through his teeth.

Obama’s claim of the “slowest job growth,” in fact, includes the loss of jobs under his administration. The White House provided as evidence a report on a New York Times blog that was based on gross domestic product data through 2010, or the first two years of Obama’s administration.

The White House also cited a Center on American Progress report on job growth through 2007, which showed monthly job growth of 68,000 jobs during the Bush business cycle. But, since the recession ended, job growth has been even more anemic under Obama — just 40,500 jobs a month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. … [I]t seems odd to keep blaming poor job growth on the Bush tax cuts, especially because Obama himself pushed through a nearly $1 trillion stimulus and took other actions that have affected the economy, for better or worse.

...

Finally, Obama blames the Bush tax cuts for “massive deficits.” It is certainly true that the Bush tax cuts helped blow a hole in the budget. But they did not do it all by themselves. Welooked at length at this issue earlier this year, assisted by new Congressional Budget Office data.

The data showed that the biggest contributor to the disappearance of projected surpluses was increased spending, which accounted for 36.5 percent of the decline in the nation’s fiscal position, followed by incorrect CBO estimates, which accounted for 28 percent. The Bush tax cuts (along with some Obama tax cuts) were responsible for just 24 percent.

Thus it is simply wrong to blame only the Bush tax cuts for the deficits now faced by the country, especially three years into another presidential term.

Kessler misses another problem, which is the massive increase in budgetary and non-budgetary spending by Democrats after taking control of Congress and the White House. The last fully Republican budget, FY2007, spent $2.77 trillion. Democrats took control of Congress and raised annual spending levels in just three years by over a trillion dollars, while tax receipts declined because of the deep recession. On top of that, Obama pushed through an $800 billion stimulus that supposedly was going to restart job creation, and which failed miserably. Blaming Bush for deficits in 2009, 2010, and 2011 isn’t just wrong, it’s a flat-out lie, and a very self-serving lie at that.

[Heald]

Umm.. the fuck?

How is this a attack on Gays? I mean I came in expecting a ad that was to slam Gays and be this fire brand type attack. In the end the line was: "There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. "

That isn't saying anything but: Why can people be open about their sexuality in the military, but kids cannot be open about their religion in school?

That really doesn't seem to be a attack on gays but a semi valid but rather irrelevant question.

The problem I have with the advert is that he seems to be saying that the former should be banned and the latter should not be banned (although according to sources I've checked out since making my posts, praying in schools and Christmas aren't banned, so it's a non-issue anyway).

If he wasn't saying gays serving in the military was a bad thing, then why didn't he just say 'There's something wrong in this country when kids can't pray in schools and Christmas is banned.' instead of adding the whole thing about gays serving in the military. That would have actually improved the advert by a thousand times. It would have appealed to Americans who feel that their religion is being marginalised, but the whole 'gay rights is wrong' vibe he gives off right from the word go (and the immediate implied definition that being Christian means you must be anti-gay) just alienates people who don't feel strongly one way or another about gay rights but don't see themselves voting for someone who holds an uncomfortable position on the matter.

Sure, he didn't outright say 'gays are wrong' but it was heavily implied and the fact that a lot of people are walking away from the advert not thinking that he's a good Christian but some kind of misinformed crazed homophobe is rather bad.

[Roy Karrde]

The problem I have with the advert is that he seems to be saying that the former should be banned and the latter should not be banned (although according to sources I've checked out since making my posts, praying in schools and Christmas aren't banned, so it's a non-issue anyway).

If he wasn't saying gays serving in the military was a bad thing, then why didn't he just say 'There's something wrong in this country when kids can't pray in schools and Christmas is banned.' instead of adding the whole thing about gays serving in the military. That would have actually improved the advert by a thousand times. It would have appealed to Americans who feel that their religion is being marginalised, but the whole 'gay rights is wrong' vibe he gives off right from the word go (and the immediate implied definition that being Christian means you must be anti-gay) just alienates people who don't feel strongly one way or another about gay rights but don't see themselves voting for someone who holds an uncomfortable position on the matter.

I am not getting that, and it may be reading far too deep into it. But it comes off as "Why one and not the other" sort of thing. Now I have no doubt Perry was against the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, but this does not seem to be a ad in which he is getting on a soap box about it, or even attacking gays at all. But more like: "Why are people allowed to express their sexuality in the military, but kids are not allowed to express their religion in school".

Sure, he didn't outright say 'gays are wrong' but it was heavily implied and the fact that a lot of people are walking away from the advert not thinking that he's a good Christian but some kind of misinformed crazed homophobe is rather bad.

True but one has to wonder if the people did not already start with those prejudices against Perry to begin with.

[Heald]

Not that I'm saying Perry is a racist or sexist or fat, but the message would be exactly the same if it was phrased as one of the following:

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when women can vote but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when a black person doesn't have to give up his seat for a white person but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when you can get over 2000 calories of low grade fried beef plus sides for a dollar ninety-nine but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

Just sayin'. I mean we can have women voting and black people on buses and ridiculously cheap unhealthy eats as well as free worship in schools, aye? Oh, and fags with guns shooting Arabs too. How would Rick Perry react if it was a gay who shot Bin Laden?

It doesn't really matter though. As much as I liked parts of Perry, as this campaign has worn on he is increasingly proven himself as a nitwit who puts his foot in his mouth time and time again. I don't really hold much hope for a guy who can't even remember a list 3 items long. Man, I bet he has a hard time at the shops if he needs to get more than bread and eggs. I have very low expectations for him to be facing Obama next year, which is good, because the GOP needs a much better candidate than this clown if they want to beat Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

Not that I'm saying Perry is a racist or sexist or fat, but the message would be exactly the same if it was phrased as one of the following:

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when women can vote but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when a black person doesn't have to give up his seat for a white person but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

or

"You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when you can get over 2000 calories of low grade fried beef plus sides for a dollar ninety-nine but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

True however I do think the phrasing of those are a bit off in compared to one another, as one is talking about open sexuality in a branch of Government in which sexuality should not play a part of life in that branch, while the others are not.

Just sayin'. I mean we can have women voting and black people on buses and ridiculously cheap unhealthy eats as well as free worship in schools, aye? Oh, and fags with guns shooting Arabs too. How would Rick Perry react if it was a gay who shot Bin Laden?

Probably with gratitude? I mean it is a bit of a stretch to say "I don't think people need to be open about about their sexuality in the military" to "I would dislike a soldier's actions just because he was gay".

It doesn't really matter though. As much as I liked parts of Perry, as this campaign has worn on he is increasingly proven himself as a nitwit who puts his foot in his mouth time and time again. I don't really hold much hope for a guy who can't even remember a list 3 items long. Man, I bet he has a hard time at the shops if he needs to get more than bread and eggs. I have very low expectations for him to be facing Obama next year, which is good, because the GOP needs a much better candidate than this clown if they want to beat Obama.

Very true which is why more than likely Romney will be the nominee.

[Dark Sage]

Perry has one thing going for him. He turned down Trumps invitation for the debate that Trump wants to host himself.

But here's the place where the GOP is really in trouble. Gingrich, the front-runner, agreed. Him and Santorum are the only ones who have. Bachmann hasn't replied yet, but everyone expects her to RSVP in the negative too.

I personally wouldn't watch any political debate that Trump hosts if the only competition was a Little Rascals marathon, and I pity the candidate who gets his endorsement.

[mattbcl]

I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

This is the argument, as it should be standing on its own merits: Why is it a person's sexual orientation should be considered to have any measure or impact on his/her ability to perform the functions of a task/job/assignment? Where is the enlightenment that tells an employer (up to and including the armed services) that this subject should matter exactly as much as the applicant's hair color and whether he/she likes to cut a piece of toast across or diagonally?

Logically, it should not.

But that particular argument gets lost in the rhetoric that abounds during election years. If a candidate stands up for gays, he's accused of having no moral standards and he's painted as being unable to say no to his own kids. If the candidate instead says that he does not support homosexuality as a lifestyle, the ramifications are no less dire - he's called a homophobe and a bigot, and he's branded for life as an out-of-touch, intolerant malcontent.

With regards to the Rick Perry ad, I don't necessarily want to think of him being in the latter category, but I do think he's pandering to the people that occupy it. And that's going to turn the rest of the country off. I don't know where in the world he thinks this "war on religion" is happening, besides in the confines of his own mind, but as with anything else, there will be those that stand up and thump their chests and say, "Damn right!" without really thinking it through. This is one of the drawbacks of having a governmental system and a society like that of the U.S.; you're free to think what you like, and you're free to think what someone else tells you to.

Still wouldn't trade it for anything else, though.

[Blademaster]

Christmas > Gays

I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.

[Dark Sage]

And since when do gays not celebrate Christmas?

Those gay and bisexual friends of mine I mentioned sure do. I just got a Christmas card from one of them today.

[mattbcl]

It's worth noting that The Daily What reports that ad is now officially the most "disliked" video of YouTube's history, beating out Rebecca Black's "Friday" video within just 2 days of being posted.

[Roy Karrde]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

[mattbcl]

Interesting point. Do you suppose he generated the ad to provoke the kind of response he's getting and ramp up his visibility? Any number of people have opined that he's a doddering moron, but I don't agree. He had to know it was going to be controversial, and that he would be reviled by the LGBT, liberal, and moderate communities for lending his voice to that script.

[Asilynne]

Now, I haven't seen the vid yet, but from the one line people keep quoting it seems less like its "OMG HAT GAYZ" and more "We should all be able to embrace who we are publicly without fear of ridicule or harassment". I think its great that more and more people in the LGBT community can feel the freedom of being themselves without having to be afraid of what people think, thats what America is all about. But not all Americans enjoy that freedom anymore. It seems to be popular to bash Christians in any capacity, and I remember in High school having to be afraid to let people know because I was brutally harassed, and even in the Christian club that met after school we weren't safe from taunts and people throwing things at us. This is wrong no matter who you are. We wouldn't tolerate it if it were done to minorities, or jews, or muslims, or gays, so we shouldn't tolerate it when its done to Christians, even if we don't believe in the same things.

We should all stand up for every other American's right to be who they are without fear, regardless if we follow the same path.

[Heald]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

I don't really buy this. A video of Perry screaming "FUCKING MEXICANS" into a microphone 50 times with Nyan Cat playing in the background would generate ten times as much publicity as this video but I doubt that would help his campaign.

[shazza]

The parallel between gays serving in the military and kids being incapable to celebrate Christmas was arduously homophobic. Plain and simple. Perry's comparison was insinuating that America has become so backwards that something as absurd as enlisting homosexuals is fine but kids being able to express their freedom is not. He is championing for a return to the 'true' America that has been lost; homosexuals serving in the military is not the 'true' America. You’re blind if you don’t see it.

Perry is fundamentally denouncing expression and freedom in one capacity but advocating another form of expression and freedom.

And it's almost 2012. Wow.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't really buy this. A video of Perry screaming "FUCKING MEXICANS" into a microphone 50 times with Nyan Cat playing in the background would generate ten times as much publicity as this video but I doubt that would help his campaign.

That would constitute more of a meltdown video, like we saw of Howard Dean, this however is more of a campaign message, not a meltdown video, aimed at middle class families, and religious voters. One obviously is a video the campaign wouldnt want to get out, the other isn't. To put it another way, the more attention the left gives this video, the greater the chance the people who are the target audience for this video see it, and embrace it.

In politics the usual rule of thumb for campaign videos is not to give your opponent free advertisement. The left is doing that for Perry, giving him free advertisement. They may disagree with his message, but in the end the campaign video will reach even more voters, many of which it is designed exactly for, than it would have with out the left going ape shit over it. And the Perry campaign does not have to spend a dime.

[mattbcl]

The left is giving it free advertisement the same way Obama flogged McCain's "hundred years" line, the same way McCain flogged Obama's "spread the wealth" line - they don't need to add anything to it, they only need to let it speak for itself. It's self-immolation. My prediction is it will anger far more voters into either staying home or actively voting against him, and those who embrace it will be drowned out.

[Roy Karrde]

The left is giving it free advertisement the same way Obama flogged McCain's "hundred years" line, the same way McCain flogged Obama's "spread the wealth" line - they don't need to add anything to it, they only need to let it speak for itself. It's self-immolation. My prediction is it will anger far more voters into either staying home or actively voting against him, and those who embrace it will be drowned out.

If this were the General Election you would be absolutely right 100%. But this isnt the General Election, this is the Iowa primaries. Meaning that the Liberals and Democrats cannot vote, the Libertarians will vote for Ron Paul, the Moderates and Tea Party supporters will vote for either Gingrich or Romney. And who ever captures the Social Conservative vote will come out pretty strong.

[Katie]

I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

This is the argument, as it should be standing on its own merits: Why is it a person's sexual orientation should be considered to have any measure or impact on his/her ability to perform the functions of a task/job/assignment? Where is the enlightenment that tells an employer (up to and including the armed services) that this subject should matter exactly as much as the applicant's hair color and whether he/she likes to cut a piece of toast across or diagonally?

Logically, it should not.

I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

[kurai]

The parallel between gays serving in the military and kids being incapable to celebrate Christmas was arduously homophobic. Plain and simple. Perry's comparison was insinuating that America has become so backwards that something as absurd as enlisting homosexuals is fine but kids being able to express their freedom is not. He is championing for a return to the 'true' America that has been lost; homosexuals serving in the military is not the 'true' America. You’re blind if you don’t see it.

Perry is fundamentally denouncing expression and freedom in one capacity but advocating another form of expression and freedom.

And it's almost 2012. Wow.

the absolute best one can get from the given quotation would be 'why gay rights but not christian rights', which pretty clearly defines the subordinate group (at worst, you find 'no gay rights, christian rights')...

seems if you want to argue for total equity through the negation of any special treatment you could phrase it a thousand other ways that don't appear to be deliberately offensive?

the worst part is that the quote is a totally false dichotomy (between freedom and restraint), the actual status quo provides freedom on all fronts:

- nothing stops you from opting in to being in the military as a homosexual
- nothing stops you from opting in to prayer at school/celebrating Christmas
- being gay in the military is not mandatory
- praying at school/celebrating Christmas is not mandatory

he is advocating enforced christian morality to restrain others (that is, praying in school is not the same thing as school prayer), not freedom for christians (which is already present, just not in the exclusive state apparently desired by Perry)

as such, he is committing the worst betrayal of america's finest attribute - individual social liberty

[Dark Sage]

More bad news for Perry.

In an interview, he couldn't remember Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name, and had to be helped by an aide to remember it.

How many gaffes is Perry going to make? As Foghorn Leghorn once said, this guy's about as sharp as a sack of wet leather.

[Gavin Luper]

Funny thing is, with those on the left and Perry's own opponents on the right, going after the video so feverishly. They are just giving the video free advertisement. Instead of letting it sink into the either with all the other campaign videos out right now. It gives Perry tons more advertisement, and reaches out to even more voters.

I call bullshit. It gives him tons more advertisement as an anti-homo fundamentalist who is hated rather than considered for the candidacy. Check the like/dislike ratio on the video, mate. The more people who see it, the more who loathe it.

I think Roy brings up a valid point. One does not need to be open about one's sexuality in order to serve in any position, either in the public or private sectors. My grandmother had a delightful phrase regarding this: "I wish homophobes would stop flaming gay people. And I wish gay people would stop flaming, period!" To translate, she had absolutely no issue with anybody choosing how to live their own lives and how to conduct their personal business - she only took offense when they shoved it in the faces of others. I think you would find that a lot of society (including gays) would tend to agree with that position... after all, how do you think they feel when the exaggerated merits of a straight lifestyle are shoved down their throats?

Being open about one's sexuality doesn't mean dancing on a parade float in the military barracks and trying to fuck all the other dudes in the showers. It means when your comrades are discussing their girlfriends and wives back home and ask you, "So, you got anyone special back home?" you don't have to say, "Uhhh ... no" and lie about yourself. You should be free to say "yes, I have a boyfriend" or "yes, I have a husband and two kids and a dog" or "yeah I've got a few dudes I go around with". No different to a straight soldier saying "I have a girlfriend" or "I have a wife and two kids and a dog" or "I've got a few chicks I go around with". I realise nobody would ever really phrase the latter like that, but I'm just making the point. There's really no difference between any of those, and if the case is that heteros can say that and it's perfectly normal and okay but homos can't because they're gay and shouldn't need to be so open about it, then that would be bigotry.

I think Katie is right, and I don't mean to generalise like this and I know it doesn't apply in all cases, but I think it's easy if you're heterosexual to take for granted how much of a non-event it is if a man is in a social situation or meeting new people and says something like, "Oh, you're from France? So is my girlfriend." Conversely, to say "so is my boyfriend" in that same sentence invites anything from mild surprise and/or a flurry of polite or friendly questions, through to comments of "I wouldn't have picked that" or looks of disapproval and disgust, total awkwardness, people screwing up their faces in you, shaking their heads, refusing to shake your hand or if you're revealed as a homo mid-handshake, dropping your hand in disgust and walking away. (That's assuming relatively polite company, ignoring actual problems like homos being threatened, abused, bullied, bashed, and in many countries, imprisoned, beaten or killed.) Anyway, in most situations it is much easier for heteros to mention their significant other and have conversation continue normally than for homos to do the same thing. The amount of times I've mentioned my boyfriend with new work colleagues or friends of friends only to have them be all "OMG DID YOU JUST COME OUT TO ME" is ridiculous. I'm not coming out of anything; I'm completely open about being homosexual.

Anyway, TL;DR version: DADT's repeal was absolutely important, because it means homos can be themselves and talk about their loved ones and lives back home freely, IN THE SAME WAY THAT (MANY) HETEROS DO WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING.

Now, I haven't seen the vid yet, but from the one line people keep quoting it seems less like its "OMG HAT GAYZ" and more "We should all be able to embrace who we are publicly without fear of ridicule or harassment". I think its great that more and more people in the LGBT community can feel the freedom of being themselves without having to be afraid of what people think, thats what America is all about. But not all Americans enjoy that freedom anymore. It seems to be popular to bash Christians in any capacity, and I remember in High school having to be afraid to let people know because I was brutally harassed, and even in the Christian club that met after school we weren't safe from taunts and people throwing things at us. This is wrong no matter who you are. We wouldn't tolerate it if it were done to minorities, or jews, or muslims, or gays, so we shouldn't tolerate it when its done to Christians, even if we don't believe in the same things.

We should all stand up for every other American's right to be who they are without fear, regardless if we follow the same path.

The Rick Perry video contains very thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiment, period. However, I do agree with you, I don't like the Christian or anything-else bashing, either. There shouldn't be this discrimination, either positive or negative. The opportunities and dignities of the world should be no different whether you are homosexual or a Christian, and of course, it should be pointed out that those two groups are not mutually exclusive; there are loads of homosexual Christians. Freedom encompasses both sexuality and religion, and as long is nobody is being hurt or threatened with either of those, they ought to be protected.

I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

Well said, thank you.

[Roy Karrde]

I call bullshit. It gives him tons more advertisement as an anti-homo fundamentalist who is hated rather than considered for the candidacy. Check the like/dislike ratio on the video, mate. The more people who see it, the more who loathe it.

Really? The man is going after the Social Conservative vote, in a closed election. Who is going to hate him? The Libertarians? They will vote for Paul. The Liberals and Democrats? They can't vote in the Iowa Caucus, and if he some how makes it to the Convention, this ad will be long gone as there will be more recent things to run at him with. The Tea Party and Centrist Republicans? They are battling over Gingrich and Newt.

In Iowa, the candidate who locks down the Social Conservative vote, will have a very good showing. And that is who the ad is geared toward.

The Rick Perry video contains very thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiment, period.

Not quite. To quote a local radio show host today: It is pointing out a disconnect, look at what we tolerate, we tolerate homosexuality in the military, but we don't tolerate a kid bringing a candy cane to school with a Jesus message attached to it to give to a buddy in the third grade. There is nothing anti gay, thinly veiled or not, about pointing the inconsistency out.

[mattbcl]

I think you're missing the entire point of why DADT is so fucking horrific. DADT was a band-aid of surrender, saying "well if no one will vote to NOT kick out gay service members, why don't we just never talk about it?" Under DADT being gay in the military was still disallowed. Regardless, no your orientation doesn't matter in your job. That's the point. If you can get fired from your job for accidentally letting slip "Yes, on Christmas my family likes to drive through the neighborhood to look at Christmas lights. Funny story actually, last year my boyfriend - OOPS DISCHARGED" - there is something seriously wrong. Straight people take for granted how often they can mention their significant others. Why should some people have to hide their personal life when sharing your personal life is the norm for everyone else?

It's like disallowing redheads from serving. If you make all redheads shave their heads, no one knows that they have red hair. But why fucking bother? Hair color doesn't matter, attraction doesn't matter. Period.

I haven't missed that point at all. I figured it was self-evident. Of course DADT was a terrible practice, and of course it should have been repealed. But I wasn't talking about that, and even if I was, it looks like you just made my point for me all over again, so why are you yelling at me for not getting it? I was pointing more to the flamboyant element that has at varying times made it their business to interrupt your regularly scheduled program, and not at all to those who just want to live their lives in peace and happiness. I'm completely in favor of everyone being able to share what they will about their personal lives, no matter their orientation. No matter your sexuality, you should be able to practice it with joy, wisdom, and discretion, and anything beyond that is none of my business or anyone else's. I despise those that would make anyone fear being "out", or that would try to ostracize and oppress gays/bisexuals simply because that's what they are. Did I say something to imply I was of any position contrary to or ignorant of these views? If so, I apologize, and perhaps it would be appropriate for me to withdraw from this discussion while I only have one foot in my mouth instead of two.

[Gavin Luper]

Really? The man is going after the Social Conservative vote, in a closed election. Who is going to hate him? The Libertarians? They will vote for Paul. The Liberals and Democrats? They can't vote in the Iowa Caucus, and if he some how makes it to the Convention, this ad will be long gone as there will be more recent things to run at him with. The Tea Party and Centrist Republicans? They are battling over Gingrich and Newt.

In Iowa, the candidate who locks down the Social Conservative vote, will have a very good showing. And that is who the ad is geared toward.

I doubt his end game is to win the Iowa Primaries, though. His end game is the presidency, and if he's most famously known as a complete dick who can't remember a list of three things and is a total homophobe, that's (hopefully) not going to get him far with the broader American public. Well, I sure as hell hope not, but the entire country is thankfully not all as closed minded as a bunch of fundamentalists in one state.

Not quite. To quote a local radio show host today: It is pointing out a disconnect, look at what we tolerate, we tolerate homosexuality in the military, but we don't tolerate a kid bringing a candy cane to school with a Jesus message attached to it to give to a buddy in the third grade. There is nothing anti gay, thinly veiled or not, about pointing the inconsistency out.

Stop trying to delude yourself. Perry's made pretty clear remarks; it's obvious he's against gay rights in general and is a staunch fundamentalist Christian which sadly tends to lean toward the "gays are evil" end of the spectrum. His reference to gays in the military was not some benign, off-the-cuff remark and you know it. It was meant to appeal to a generalised anti-gay sentiment among the voters he's attempting to catch the attention of, and he managed to somehow link the tolerance of homosexuality to the diminishment of religious freedom, which is a fallacy. Even if he were suggesting a simple disconnect, it's quite clear by his comment "there is something wrong with this country" that he thinks the tolerated thing (gays in the military) should not be tolerated, and that the alleged 'not tolerated' thing (kids praying in school) SHOULD be tolerated. (There is no reason why both can't be tolerated; he is simply building a false dichotomy which reflects his own desire for less rights for homosexuals and some kind of fundamentalist theocratic America. Shudder.)

I deeply hope this man never gets anywhere near the White House. If he continues to display himself as this mindnumbingly stupid and offensive, hopefully this is assured.

[Roy Karrde]

I doubt his end game is to win the Iowa Primaries, though. His end game is the presidency, and if he's most famously known as a complete dick who can't remember a list of three things and is a total homophobe, that's (hopefully) not going to get him far with the broader American public. Well, I sure as hell hope not, but the entire country is thankfully not all as closed minded as a bunch of fundamentalists in one state.

His goal right now is winning the Iowa Primaries, from there it is on to the next set of primaries. If he does not have a strong showing in Iowa, then more than likely he is out of the race, thus he is blanketing Iowa right now with ads in the hopes of doing well there. His end game may be the Presidency, but with out winning strong in Iowa, he won't have a chance. Plus like I said, if he were to win the nomination, no one will remember this ad.

Stop trying to delude yourself. Perry's made pretty clear remarks; it's obvious he's against gay rights in general and is a staunch fundamentalist Christian which sadly tends to lean toward the "gays are evil" end of the spectrum.

That is a rather extreme take on the message...

His reference to gays in the military was not some benign, off-the-cuff remark and you know it. It was meant to appeal to a generalised anti-gay sentiment among the voters he's attempting to catch the attention of, and he managed to somehow link the tolerance of homosexuality to the diminishment of religious freedom, which is a fallacy. Even if he were suggesting a simple disconnect, it's quite clear by his comment "there is something wrong with this country" that he thinks the tolerated thing (gays in the military) should not be tolerated, and that the alleged 'not tolerated' thing (kids praying in school) SHOULD be tolerated. (There is no reason why both can't be tolerated; he is simply building a false dichotomy which reflects his own desire for less rights for homosexuals and some kind of fundamentalist theocratic America. Shudder.)

Or you know he is pointing out the latest and most widely known advancement in the last few years in social rights, and noting that the President has advanced social rights for one group of people, while not doing it for another, or even some cases regressing the social rights of another.

[Dark Sage]

I agree with Gavin. And I think that Perry's fellow members of the GOP are, as usual, making excuses, rather than own up to the fact that he did something wrong.

[Gavin Luper]

His goal right now is winning the Iowa Primaries, from there it is on to the next set of primaries. If he does not have a strong showing in Iowa, then more than likely he is out of the race, thus he is blanketing Iowa right now with ads in the hopes of doing well there. His end game may be the Presidency, but with out winning strong in Iowa, he won't have a chance. Plus like I said, if he were to win the nomination, no one will remember this ad.

I think he's rapidly making a name for himself as 1) an idiot who makes really stupid gaffes and 2) a fundamentalist and anti-gay bigot. Is that seriously the kind of person you want to support/defend?

That is a rather extreme take on the message...

No, it isn't. This is not the first time Perry's spoken out and made his position of anti-gay bigotry very clear.

Refer to this recent news item, for example:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-0...tional/3717162

I quote from that article:

But Texas Governor Rick Perry, courting social conservatives as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination to take on Obama in next November's election, accused the president of waging a war on American values.

"This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americans of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong," he said.'

Still going to argue the mention of gays in the "Strong" video was totally coincidental and has nothing to do with a concerted stance of anti-gay bigotry? I call bullshit once again.

Or you know he is pointing out the latest and most widely known advancement in the last few years in social rights, and noting that the President has advanced social rights for one group of people, while not doing it for another, or even some cases regressing the social rights of another.

I certainly advocate equal rights across the board: no discrimination against homos, no discrimination against religions. I don't believe Christianity should be demonised just because of twats like Perry and his ilk. However, while I share any indignation if there is actually any legitimate suppression of freedom of religion going on, I'm yet to be convinced that this has grown into anything resembling a real problem or a widespread issue sanctioned by the law. It certainly isn't, in fact, although every year there do seem to be rumblings.

But far besides all of that, see the above quote, or the video where Perry tells Texan gays that if they don't like not having same-sex marriage, they can go to a different state. He's not just making a point about religious freedom; he's denigrating homosexuals constantly because of 1) his own bigoted beliefs that he clearly loves to demonstrate and 2) he's appealing to assholes who might vote for him. This is crystal clear and you've said yourself he's appealing to social conservatives. Don't try to act like Perry's not an anti-gay bigot here - you're not fooling anyone on this board, and I doubt you're even fooling yourself.

I agree with Gavin. And I think that Perry's fellow members of the GOP are, as usual, making excuses, rather than own up to the fact that he did something wrong.

I concur, and thanks.

[Roy Karrde]

I agree with Gavin. And I think that Perry's fellow members of the GOP are, as usual, making excuses, rather than own up to the fact that he did something wrong.

Oh sure Perry has made mistakes no doubt, and personally if I were running I would never run the ad as I am not a social conservative. But that does not mean one cannot appreciate the political calculus in it.

I think he's rapidly making a name for himself as 1) an idiot who makes really stupid gaffes and 2) a fundamentalist and anti-gay bigot. Is that seriously the kind of person you want to support/defend?

For the evangelicals and fundamentalists in Iowa they will. And right now his team is focused on making a strong showing in Iowa so that they can continue the race.

No, it isn't. This is not the first time Perry's spoken out and made his position of anti-gay bigotry very clear.

Refer to this recent news item, for example:

Still going to argue the mention of gays in the "Strong" video was totally coincidental and has nothing to do with a concerted stance of anti-gay bigotry? I call bullshit once again.

Of course because those remarks have no basis on the ad in question, nor on the utter insanity in taking the simple statement in that ad and stringing it out beyond what it is.

I certainly advocate equal rights across the board: no discrimination against homos, no discrimination against religions. I don't believe Christianity should be demonised just because of twats like Perry and his ilk. However, while I share any indignation if there is actually any legitimate suppression of freedom of religion going on, I'm yet to be convinced that this has grown into anything resembling a real problem or a widespread issue sanctioned by the law. It certainly isn't, in fact, although every year there do seem to be rumblings.

So Obama not reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom while at the same time basing U.S. Foreign Aid dollars on how well countries treat Homosexuality is not putting one over the other, or contributing to the suppression of religious freedom abroad?

But far besides all of that, see the above quote, or the video where Perry tells Texan gays that if they don't like not having same-sex marriage, they can go to a different state. He's not just making a point about religious freedom; he's denigrating homosexuals constantly because of 1) his own bigoted beliefs that he clearly loves to demonstrate and 2) he's appealing to assholes who might vote for him. This is crystal clear and you've said yourself he's appealing to social conservatives. Don't try to act like Perry's not an anti-gay bigot here - you're not fooling anyone on this board, and I doubt you're even fooling yourself.

Again I have no doubt that he is not the biggest Gay supporter, but it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is.

[kurai]

it is surely the height of ignorance to piece together a meaningful interpretation of a candidate's beliefs from multiple sources over an extended period of time. words and phrases do not gain additional meaning from their juxtaposition in reference to each other.

the news item gavin provides does not include the most relevant quote:

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money,"

now we can ponder that this comes from the same person who says, as above, that:

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

what is the result of combining such rhetoric?

for Perry, equal rights for homosexuals, domestically and abroad, are 'special rights'

this is abominable and obviously anti-american

[Roy Karrde]

it is surely the height of ignorance to piece together a meaningful interpretation of a candidate's beliefs from multiple sources over an extended period of time. words and phrases do not gain additional meaning from their juxtaposition in reference to each other.

the news item gavin provides does not include the most relevant quote:

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money,"

now we can ponder that this comes from the same person who says, as above, that:

"There's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

what is the result of combining such rhetoric?

for Perry, equal rights for homosexuals, domestically and abroad, are 'special rights'

this is abominable and obviously anti-american

Is it wrong? Of course, and I completely disapprove of it, but then again I am open to having rights for all sexualities, and not just stop with homosexuals. If we begin to pick and choose who gets rights, it does in a way extend to being special rights.

That being said however, you cannot take one statement, place it against another, and automatically infer the second statement is anti gay.

[kurai]

I think you misunderstand. The 'special rights' remark made by Perry, in the foreign aid example, is the right to not be arrested/tortured/executed by the state, or to be openly discriminated against and assaulted in civil society. This is the aid contingency generated by the new Obama approach which Perry so happily rejects.

This is not "just stop[ping] with homosexuals". It is focusing on a mortal necessity. Living is not a special right. Equality under the law is not special. Perry's remarks thus define homosexuals as inhuman.

I am fairly confident that you can take one instance of vicious anti-gay rhetoric and use this to justify an anti-gay interpretation of a second, slightly more ambiguous statement.

[Dark Sage]

People, there's no point. Roy won't give up. He's the same as any Republican. He will not let anybody but himself have the last word, and won't admit that he's wrong. Just let him have it so we won't have to listen to him anymore.

When all the GOP's faults cause them to suffer a disaster next year, he'll finally shut up.