President Barack Obama spoke to America’s kidz today at a MTV-sponsored town hall, where young people had the chance to streak in front of the president but totally missed the opportunity. So what did America’s youth want to know from the world’s most powerful person? Whether being gay is a choice and stuff.
“I am not obviously — I don’t profess to be an expert,” explained Obama. “This is a layperson’s opinion. But I don’t think it’s a choice. I think people are born with a certain makeup, and we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love. And that’s why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.”
Speaking of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell! Of which Obama’s attorneys are seeking to keep around.
See, “the difference between my position right now and Harry Truman’s was that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which with a stroke of a pen I can simply end the policy.” Take that! “Now, having said that, what I have been able to do is for the first time get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, to say he thinks the policy should end. The Secretary of Defense has said he recognizes that the policy needs to change. And we, I believe, have enough votes in the Senate to go ahead and remove this constraint on me, as the House has already done, so that I can go ahead and end it.” This man is a miracle worker!
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“Now, we recently had a Supreme Court — a district court case that said, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is unconstitutional. I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve. And they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve.” Not in this answer: whether Obama thinks DADT is unconstitutional. “And so we are moving in the direction of ending this policy. It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now. But this is not a question of whether the policy will end. This policy will end and it will end on my watch. But I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.”
So quit trying to make Obama into a lawless man, left-wing young people.
Paul in Canada
Yup, that’s real leadership!
gregger
President Obama is an opportunist without a back bone. I’m done with his pandering speech. Let’s start with holding all LGBT from all politicians till we are heard!!! FTS!! I will not be a second class citizen!
Devon
The fierce urgency of “meh, I’ll totes get around to it later at some point eventually in the future. Swearzies.”
the crustybastard
You lie!
Ealan
SMH-so disappointed. Under all that big talk, he really is just another politician.
Kaderade
We may as well let the republicans have the presidency back in 2012. Not like this guy is doing anything different than they are these days other than being VERBALLY nice to the homos. Gee, thanks, Mr. O.
jack
Obama is disgusting, he’s really no improvement over GWB.
Kieran
Obama is to the Democrats what Bush Jr. was to the Republicans—a mere figurehead who dutifully reads what is written for him on the teleprompter and obeys what he’s told to do. All of Obama’s education at the best schools in America and he doesn’t “think” sexual orientation is a choice? Are you kidding me? Somebody should ask him when if he decided to be heterosexual.
Chuck
The Senate obviously doesn’t have the votes to repeal it because they already tried and Republicans filibustered. As the Senate is only going to get more conservative for the rest of his presidency, how is this a way to repeal? It isn’t. Quit passing the buck Mr. President.
Stenar
Hillary Clinton for president in 2012!!!
the crustybastard
@Chuck:
Harry Reid postponed the vote on the I Can’t Believe It’s Not Repeal bill to accommodate John McCain’s campaign schedule after McCain had promised to filibuster.
Reid didn’t “try” to pass the bill. He facilitated its implosion by using McCain as the hatchet man.
[img]http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20091207_reid_146x97.jpg[/img]
reason
For all those that are crying about DADT, what are your suggestions? How would you end it? It has to be ended through the congress and they are doing what was required in the compromise to get the votes to end it that way. He is a president not a dictator.
Andy
@reason:
1. Veto all military funding until they include a reversal of DADT.
2. Hold the law to its letter: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html#b
There are five exceptions to following through on DADT. The most vague is “under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale;”
Simply claim every single gay member is in the interest of the armed forces.
3. Claim that the law under which DADT stands interferes with his powers as commander in chief and let it play it out in the courts, if anybody challenges him.
The point is there’s many ways for Barry to be more active on this than just sitting on his ass.
the crustybastard
@reason said, “For all those that are crying about DADT, what are your suggestions? …It has to be ended through the congress.”
No it doesn’t.
It ended the day they lost the case.
Do you not understand what unconstitutional means? Are you unclear about the role of the judiciary?
Educate yourself.
Andrew
We’ve got to take the Democratic party back! We need a Progressive version of the tea party! We need to rise up, tell these DINO’s to GET OUT of the Democratic Party and present a party that believes in it’s PROGRESSIVE IDEALS and is willing to FIGHT for them.
Andrew
If Obama really cared about PROGRESSIVE IDEALS he would have fought to do away with the filibuster (as it is the RIGHT of the Senate to govern itself) and he would have used his influence to pass STRONG PROGRESSIVE legislation! And he would have been awarded by an upbeat and momentous Progressive grassroots willing to back him! Heck, even moderates I’m sure would prefer a President who FIGHTS for what he and his supporters believe in rather than PANDERING to the FASCIST, CORPORATIST, Christian supremacist RIGHT-WING.
soakman
Excuse me, but politicians have to work withing the beurocratic framework. Just because he’s president doesn’t mean he can snap his fingers and change our country into whatever he wants.
He has done a LOT for civil rights since he’s been in office. He’s actually addressed us as a people. And has actually stopped to consider how to promote our rights regardless of whether or not they’re falling into place. We are now a presence in the US. The majority knows we want to be heard and that we have people who are willing to look out for us.
Do NOT compare him to Bush because if Bush were in office, our presence would be relegated to ‘that pansy from high school who played with dolls in the back of the bus. Oh yeah, I remember him. What a queer.”
Change DOES take time, like it or not. Unless you want to fight a bloody revolution and overthrow the government, which I guarantee you we would lose and the country would be left with more hate and resentment than not. Be loud and visible. But also, don’t shoot our allies.
Gary B.
Obama always seems to want things both ways, but by doing that he pisses off everyone. I wish he would just take a stand for what he believes in and follow through with it, even if it polarizes people. People are polarized anyway, and at least something will get done. I’m not sorry I voted for him, as the alternative was worse, but come on man, get it together already!
jason
You know, I got an eerie sense of deja vu when I saw Obama on MTV’s arranged town hall meeting today. I swear I had seen an exact same meeting about two and a half years ago, just a few months prior to the Presidential election. Obama seemed to use the exact same words in relation to DADT. Incredibly eerie….
Daniel
If the Obama Administration wishes to get rid of the policy, why appeal this verdict? And, for that matter, why appeal the pro-LGBT marriage rulings in Massachusetts and California?
You’ll find one explanation here.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/13/92357/007
“The short version,” says the author (“no apologist for Obama”), “is that the US legal system often works in ways that are deeply counter-intuitive. We should not only expect that these cases will be appealed, we should desire that they are. The sky is not falling. We are not doomed. Do not panic about these (or similar) appeals. That’s how the US legal system works. It’s long and slow sometimes, but taking shortcuts isn’t how to win the day.”
robert in nyc
Well, after the mid-term elections are over and assuming the right wingers will have taken back one of the houses, the congressional procedure to get DADT repealed will probably fail. The republicans will filibuster it just as they will continue to do with every piece of legislation that this administration puts on the table, plus…they plan on overturning every piece of legislation already passed. I’m as disillusioned with the Democrats as any one, but I’m not going to stay home on November 2 to allow those republican psychotalkers and tea partyers take us back to the good old days of Bush 43, the culprit for what has brought us to the economic mess we’re in today. Eight years of corruption will take another eight years or more to fix it. It won’t happen over night. None of us should expect miracles in only twenty-two months of this administration.
Brutus
It’s funny — when I read just the quotes and skip over the Queerty snark, this is a speech we should be really happy our President is giving.
Casey
So Obama wants to end DADT through Congress ‘on his watch’.
How the FUCK does the stupid bigot plan to do that after November when he’s lost 1 or more of the Houses.
He’s had 2 years to do something about it.
He has failed miserably.
I’ll not be voting for him in the next presidential election.
A homophobe who says nice things is still a homophobe.
Casey
“when I read just the quotes and skip over the Queerty snark, this is a speech we should be really happy our President is giving.”
How pathetic of you.
Obama is a fucking bigot.
If he had wanted DADT to be over it already would be.
Nice speeches simply don’t cut it any more. Especially when they coming from an opportunistic homophobe who is actively fighting against LGBT rights – POTUS Barack Obama.
All LGBT financial donations to the Democrat Party should cease.
If there is a better option than a Democrat in your voting region, vote for that person – I’ll be voting Green from now on!
Brutus
@Casey: I don’t think you understand what the words “bigot” and “actively fighting against LGBT rights” mean.
the crustybastard
@soakman said, “[Obama] has done a LOT for civil rights since he’s been in office. He’s actually addressed us as a people.
LOL. You’re certainly easy to please.
>>”…don’t shoot our allies.”
We have allies? No. We have well-wishers.
@Daniel:
I read your link and the writer fails to consider two important points:
1. We won
2. On appeal, there’s no guarantee that win won’t be reversed.
If the win stands, in the next case another court is free to apply the prevailing logic of the first holding, and the next is free to apply the prevailing logic of the previous two, and the next is free to apply the logic of the recent three, and so on.
@Brutus said, “this is a speech we should be really happy our President is giving.”
Yeah, because it’s not important what he DOES, it’s important what he SAYS.
[img]http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg/200px-Fingers_and_thumb_in_circle_downward_motion.jpg[/img]
the crustybastard
@robert in nyc:
Dear Robert,
The DNC is very grateful for your support in the upcoming elections. I’m sure you’ll understand that, for strategic purposes, when the party’s going on, you’ll need to keep a “low profile.” Some of our less-enlightened guests are uncomfortable with you people. You know how it is. LOL.
We’ll leave the back door unlocked for you. They’ll probably have some leftovers for you in the fridge, so help yourself. There’s a bathroom in the basement you can use.
Oh, and we really need you to cut us a check for your share of the party, right away.
Tim Kaine
DNC Chairman
Cam
So if he believes that people are born gay, then it is pure bigotry to discriminate against them. End of story.
robert in nyc
No. 27, The Crustybastard…..actually I stopped donating to the DNC a year ago and wrote to Tim Kaine but of course received no reply. I also called to have my name removed from their mailing list. It took several attempts to make that happen.
I’m very disappointed in the Democrats (I’m and independent and either vote Green or Democrat. However, I’m not prepared to let the republicans gain any semblance of power. I’m very selective who I vote for and the democrats don’t get an automatic vote from me either, they’ve taken us for granted for far too long. That’s going to change and they know it. Its all we have to work with. My ideal would be for every gay vote to go to the Greens but that’s not realistic so I deal with the least of the two evils. The republicans want us to stay home on November 2, I refuse to do that, no matter how bad the democrats have been. I don’t want this country to become a banana republic now that the Supreme Court has upended how much corporations both domestic and foreign can donate and remain anonymous. The bulk of those donations will go to the republicans which means they could conceivably be in control indefinitely. The court’s erroneous decision now allows elections to be bought. A very slippery downward slope.
zach
LISTEN TO THESE FOOLS!!MAYBE IF YOU DIDN’T GET 4KD IN THE AS* YOUR BRAIN WOULD BE WORKING WELL ENOUGH TO THINK.BASTARDS!
Shawn
Well… Guess what? If you have a problem with President Obama, don’t go out to vote. Let the Republicans take control of the Congress and the Senate and then see where DADT and DOMA go. It’s very clear what their stance is on those laws.
I really think some of the people on here need to use their brain. It’s really ridiculous that so many gays on here bitch and complain the moment there is any type of progress. A District court judge in California deemed DADT unconstitutional… NOT THE SUPREME COURT.
I really can’t help but laugh because this site is a war zone. Instead of rallying together to make sure these unconstitutional rulings are overturned, you all are sacrificing President Obama as if he signed the damn laws into effect. Get over yourselves….
the crustybastard
@robert in nyc:
Democrats raise more corporate money than Republicans. They don’t need whatever pittance you used to send. However, you can do one thing that corporations can’t do (yet). Vote.
You’ve acknowledge that voting Green would be a vote in your own, and your community’s interest, and would send the message to Democrats that progressives are defecting and they need to correct their course.
But you’re gonna be manipulated by the DNC into voting “lesser of two evils” instead.
Gosh, how pragmatic!
robert in nyc
Well, Crustybastard, the Greens don’t stand a chance of becoming a third party posing a threat to the democrats or republicans. There’s only one Green in the house, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. I don’t see every gay voting Green when you have a lot in the Log Cabin group who’d never defect. Believe me, it pains me at times that I vote for some democrats knowing their dismal performance and the progressives in their party have been ignored of course (Obama is not progressive by any stretch of the imagination), but I just can’t imagine having the republicans running the store because we’ll get nothing, absolutely no progress on anything to do with equality. That will happen if we don’t vote for democrats. It would be different if the economy were booming, there were no wars, then I wouldn’t even be voting for them. Until that changes, I can’t allow right wingers to relegate us to permanent discrimination and inequality if they ever seize power for any length of time.
the crustybastard
@Cam:
You apparently missed the part of the quote where God is “now in the mix” as far as military service.
Evidently, God has specifically notified a lot of the faithful that it’s totally cool to “love” gays into second-class citizenship by act of Congress, or plebiscite.
Religion. It’s not personal, it’s politics.™
the crustybastard
@robert in nyc:
And what have you gotten from Democrats in the last couple of decades as far as equality?
I’ll tell you exactly what you’ve gotten: <b<sold out. Over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
I’m not going to go over every law and every state amendment, but I challenge you to find a single instance where Democrats as a party stood unified on a gay rights issue. On the contrary, they permit whatever defections are necessary to get discrimination accomplished, again and again.
This is not merely allowed, it is rewarded.
Why? Because your dumb gay rights aren’t important to them, and they won’t be as long as you’ll keep allowing them to act like it.
Look around you, man. By maintaining this status quo, you are ALREADY allowing right wingers to relegate us to permanent discrimination and inequality.
Doing the same thing over and over will not get you a different result. That’s not my opinion, that’s like the Second Law of Obviousdynamics.
the crustybastard
@Shawn:
Pop Quiz.
I sue you in federal court for $1 million for publishing stupid shit on the internet. The federal judge decides in your favor, saying I get nothing.
I maintain that you still owe me $1 million because I’m not bound by that federal judge’s ruling because it didn’t come from the Supreme Court of the United States.
I am:
a. Correct
b. Insane
ewe
If he doesn’t end it on his watch during his first term, he in not getting my vote for a second one. And that includes marriage equality too.
robert in nyc
Ewe, he won’t be able to repeal DADT if the republicans take control of one of the houses after November 2. As for marriage equality, you can forget about any democrat running on that in the next campaign. Obama made it quite clear in 2008 that he does not support it. Its political suicide for a democrat to run for the highest office in the land touting marriage equality. This isn’t Canada, the UK and elsewhere, where they can because religion there has a hard time meddling in the political process. Its a litmus test in America, a candidate has to declare his religious belief system even if its not mandatoryor a requirement, otherwise he or she doesn’t stand a chance of running let alone winning. I can’t imagine an atheist running for the presidency, can you? Religion does play a part in our system. I’ve not heard one president omit any reference to a deity when addressing the nation, have you? Even at the opening of Congress, a religious invocation is offered. This doesn’t happen in most western societies, only here.
ewe
@robert in nyc: so true. Vote Third Party. Keep your dignity.
gregger
I have to ask how many of you people responding understand that the President and the DoJ are NOT OBLIGATED to appeal the Federal Courts ruling on either DADT or DoMA.
The current occupant of the Oval Office is doing what he can to “keep a voting base” What this man doesn’t understand is he is loosing his main voting base trying to appease people with with mentalities and IQ’s in the 50’s.
robert in nyc
Obama should be reminded that in Loving v. Brown, it didn’t need a congressional act to legalize interracial marriage. This is nothing more than delay tactics to do nothing and to appease the GOP and their extremist followers in the tea party. Politics as usual.
reason
@robert in nyc: You should be reminded that Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board were supreme court decisions. It wouldn’t be wise to grant a lower court the power to set federal policy, as in the case of DADT. Would you want lower courts in conservative strongholds of Mississippi to set federal policy, it undermines the entire system?
reason
@Andy: His name is Barack, what are you a kindergartner? Attaching DADT to the funding of the military is exactly what the congress has done. Following the spirit of the law is exactly what the changes that were implemented earlier this year are doing. They can’t be in good discipline, order, and moral granted the law states that conduct to be in opposition to those things. If he claims they interfere with his ability to run the military he still cant ignore the law, if he does so he will be impeached by the incoming house so fast that Bill Clinton’s head will spin. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional they will adhere, but while they haven’t they will continue to pursue appeal through the Congress.
reason
Further more, opening the gateway for lower courts to set federal policy will enable those courts to curve executive power at the whim of a hyper-partisan judge.
the crustybastard
@reason:
So you think it’s more likely they’d remove a sitting president from office for his good-faith effort to follow a court order before they’d remove a hyperpartisan district judge who is pulling decisions out of his ass?
Gosh, you’re so provocative.
reason
@the crustybastard: I was answering the statement that Andy made, which was not alluding to the court order. I was merely stating that if Obama brazenly tried to skirt existing law he would be impeached, they impeached Clinton for lying about oral sex for crying out loud.
If you think that the GOP doesn’t see this as a hyper-partisan judge that is “pulling decisions out of his ass,” then your gravely mistaken. Letting lower court judges set controversial wide-ranging federal policy is a very dangerous concept. This happens to be a policy I want to see struck down, but I wouldn’t want a lower court judge striking down hate crimes legislation, federal environmental laws, health care, and other things just because a GOP President and a partisan attorney general feel it is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court was created for a reason, if DADT is decided at that court fine. There is a lot of things that the Supreme Court has decided that I don’t agree with, but I accept it granted the decisions were made at the apex of the judicial system. I support striking down this law at the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress.
reason
@the crustybastard: Regarding one of your other post, the idea that Obama would be acting differently if this had an impact on him is dead wrong. Before he was elected he has stated his preference for legislative action over judicial action. He said that one of the tragedies of the civil rights era was an over reliance on the court system instead of pursuing legislative change. He doesn’t believe the courts are as effective with distributive change as the legislative process.
The Artist
Leave my President alone bitches! Rome was NOT built in a day. PEACELUVNBWILD!
Queer Supremacist
He sure is acting uppity to his gay superiors.
He gay-bashed his way through South Carolina to appeal to that homophobic provincial Aunt Esther “Fred-Sanford-you-is-da-devil” crowd. I predicted this years ago. Welcome to the fold of the Obama haters, everyone.
He’s a racist, a stealth homophobe, an anti-semite, a Muslim-loving KKKristian, pro-Palestinazi, anti-western, a neo-Mussolini corporatist tyrant, and a hypocrite.
Impeach Obamussolini! End the Illegal Occupation of the Oval Office! (But impeach Biden, Reid, and Pelosi first).
This government’s powers need to be stripped to the bare minimum. I don’t want my healthcare in the hands of some fundamentalist Southern Baptist redneck cracker breeder from Alabama (Box Turtle Bulletin had a good essay on this before the “Health” “Care” “Reform” bill was shoved through like an unlubed cock up America’s ass) any more than I want him deciding whom I can and cannot marry. Nor do I want them to have any right to dictate what I can and cannot put into my body. Nor do I want any of my income extorted by the state to pay for failed social programs that do not pull poor people out of poverty, enable our ghettos, and discourage private charity from helping those in need. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right to warn us about this in the 1960s. The only thing I want the state to do is destroy states (no more “Nation Building” unless you are prepared to make the sacrifices to do it right, which may take generations) that threaten or attack us and prosecute criminals.
I have already been denied multiple civil liberties because of my sexual orientation and I will not have anymore, so there’s no way in Hell I’m voting Green (they should be called Watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside). I will vote Libertarian until the GOP purges the goyim. Democrats are mad with power and Republicans are cowards.
robert in nyc
Queer Supremacist, Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for two illegal wars. On 9/11, Bush was cozying up to Saudi sheiks in Washington DC and while all airports were under lockdown, they were quietly ferreted off back to Saudi Arabia.
If you don’t want government involvement in your life, then you’ll have to forgo medicare when the time comes for you to sign up, forgo social security, dismantle the military, police, public schools, fire departments, public libraries, FDA, CAA, CIA, FEMA, HUD, all government programs,the list is endless. In order to privatize them, how do you pay for theses services? Lowering or elmininating taxes? Where would the money come from to fund all of them? I don’t see any corporations eager to take them over. Where would you go for health care for instance if you couldn’t afford the soaring cost of health insurance or your employer refused to provide it or couldn’t afford to?
If anyone’s a racist and homophobe its your darlings Rand Paul and his bigoted father Ron. Both against marriage equality for starters and xenophobes to boot as well as anti-semites.
reason
@Queer Supremacist: And your mad with insanity. I am in full support of regulating what people put in their bodies, granted the insane turn violent when the drugs hit their system. Then they start infringing on my rights. I don’t want to live in a society were I have to use my loaded gun on a frequent basis, test my water before I drink it, grind the lower class under my gears to live a decent life, pass people dying in the streets from illness, and turn away swarms of people begging me for money to eat. Places that you describe already exist; I will personally pay for your one-way ticket to Somalia, it should be your paradise.
reason
@robert in nyc: One unjustified war, both legal. The Saudis face the same threats from the people that bombed us as we do. The Saudis also provide instrumental information for us to carry out wars in that region, they have been a steadfast ally since President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz bin Saud meet on a ship.
You are completely correct on this libertarian mecca that some people are dreaming of. I think the libertarians should have an option to opt out of all government services, and we should stop taxing them. We should then strip them of all the protections and services provide by the government. Let them fight the corporations from dumping toxic sludge on their properties without the use of our legal system. Let them find their own way to transport themselves, if they drive on government roads they should be shot. House on fire, their problem. Bank decides they are not giving them their money, they can figure it out. Hurricane comes and destroys their property and insurance company bails, price of freedom.
robert in nyc
Reason, I concur with your summation. What they are doing is voting against themselves in the long run, much like the teapartyers, many of whom support the abolition of social security, medicare and many of them are recipients of both, including some in the GOP party. A lot of them get a deluxe health insurance plan paid for by the federal government, yet they’re not complaining about that, they just don’t want the rest of us to have it because that would be socialized medicine. I wonder how many of them have refused it compared to those who haven’t? Plus they get lifetime federal government pensions once they retire….another socialized program that they’d rather not talk about. Hypocrites, all of them. Teapartyers and Civil Libertarians are classic examples of the dumbing down of America. They’ll screw up once they gain control, I guarantee it, then turn around and blame the democrats of course. They haven’t even taken responsibility for the past 8 years under Bush, they ignore it because that’s what they want to go back to which is what will happen once they regain control.
Queer Supremacist
Are you fucking kidding? Bush was to libertarianism as Barry Manilow is to heavy metal. Domestic discretionary spending rose under his watch more than under any president since LBJ. But Afghanistan and Iraq got what they deserved. Islam is as much a cancer as Christianity, and that’s all the justification for war with all nations where that vile anti-gay hate group is in control. There was at least one weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and its name was Islam. The war was legal and justified—and the same arguments Bush made were made by Democrats including Bill Clinton during his cursory bombing of Iraq in 1998 to distract from his impending impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice—but did not go far enough. Just removing the governments in those illegitimate terror states was treating the symptoms, not the disease. However, I support Islamic dissidents, and if you gave two shits about the people in those countries you claim were victims of illegal western imperialism or some such History 101 bullshit, you would too. The people in those countries are victims of abuse of government power in the name of a fanatical religion.
@lack of reason: I’m glad you and Robert in En Why See admit to your fascism. And that “move to Somalia” talking point is SOOOOO original. The places where that parade of horribles you whine about occur are places where government makes it harder to get people out of poverty. Look at India. Then look at Hong Kong. Where would you rather live if forced to choose between the two? Hell, I’d rather live in Hong Kong than many American cities.
At the core of all totalitarian ideologies, including your own, is a belief that adults can not be trusted to make their own decisions about any part of their lives.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the private sector might be able to do things better because if they were not having profits extorted from them to prop up failed social programs, they could afford it? For example, if an insurance company was forced to pay for people it couldn’t afford to cover, it would eventually go bankrupt, and then—surprise, surprise—they wouldn’t be able to continue to offer services to anyone.
As for your feeble defense of drug laws: the War on Drugs is the one illegal, unjustified war I want to see ended immediately, and those who fought it prosecuted for war crimes against innocent people who consumed a substance that it’s probably not a good idea to consume, but harmed no one but themselves. It’s no more a success than Prohibition was.
And if you don’t want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. There’s a number of self-defense classes you can take if you don’t feel safe. But if you believe that a firearm can protect you against a gay bashing, you should be allowed to use one IF YOU CHOOSE.
And many of those public services you gush over are provided on local and/or state levels; the Constitution deliberately left those things to the local and federal level. And they still don’t do a very good job. The US Postal Service is authorized by the constitution, but if they ceased to exist, Federal Express and UPS do the same thing and do it far better. Even Obama said “it’s always the post office that’s having problems.” The socialist lie that “only government can provide roads/clean water/fire/etc.” is just that a lie. Even a social democracy like Sweden has private roads. Personally, I don’t have a problem with sales taxes, as long as they are reasonable. Everybody pays their “fair share” that way, unlike income taxes, where even if they were regressive the rich would pay more in actual dollars and cents. Or people could pay for voluntary services.
Rights are not granted by the government. All human beings are born with them. Government can choose to infringe upon them or not. When government treats people like children, they will act like children. They remove the incentive to act like adults. This is why leftists failed to make the case for gay equality to the right, because they don’t understand classical liberalism. Leftism has failed gays, just like it failed blacks, hispanics, Jews, and women.
As for your anti-big business rhetoric, most large corporations support regulations as long as they benefit them and make it hard for small businesses, which make up the majority of business in this country, to compete. People are leaving California and other left-leaning states in droves because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because it is impossible for small businesses that provide jobs to stay afloat. They can’t stay afloat because they are being taxed at a rate that only big corporations can afford to pay. Does it even matter if gay marriage is legal if you can’t put food on your table to feed yourself and your husband?
The private sector has given us the personal computer, the telephone, the moving picture, the airplane, the automobile, hearing aids, the washing machine, . They make the drugs that keep PWAs alive, and they got the ball rolling because of protests by ACT UP, which didn’t get one dime from the government. There, the private sector succeeded where the public sector failed. Most major corporations are ahead of the government where domestic partner benefits are concerned. And most capitalist countries have far better environmental records than communist ones. The public sector has given us war, discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation, the destruction of minority communities in a misguided attempt to right wrongs that government helped create (i.e. Jim Crow), burglary of hotels, wiretapping, and anti-gay dictatorships propped up with foreign aid dollars taken out of our pockets.
If you support the government regulating what it puts in your bodies, then you have made the same case homophobes used to keep gay sex illegal until the Supreme Court declared a state-by-state network of bad laws unconstitutional. A bad argument does not become good when you apply it to something else. Typical Obama lover: he uses the same arguments against gay marriage that racists used against interracial marriage, which would have prevented his birth. Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, and Perry v. Schwarzenegger were acts of a co-equal branch of government removing laws that were inconsistent with the Constitution. You and other leftist tyrants have no credibility to argue for gay rights because the fight for gay rights is a fight for freedom and liberty, concepts you do not support. You are one of the people Benjamin Franklin said would trade liberty for security. You deserve neither, and you will get neither.
And I have done more to help those in need just by giving food to a homeless person than you have probably done in your entire life. If someone is in need of help, do you ever help them? I doubt it. I’ve grown up around hypocritical tyrants like you my whole life. They complained about poverty and trashed the free enterprise system from the comfort of their McMansions which banks loaned them money to purchase, whose mortgage payments are made possible by their private sector jobs, and their children Tweeted junior-high-school fight-the-power rhetoric on their iPhones. They’re champagne socialists. I don’t know what your socioeconomic status is, but you’re just like them. You don’t care about poor people. You just hate rich people.
And by the way, I hate Ron Paul because he’s an anti-Israel isolationist who blames the victim for the crime where Islamic terrorism.