It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: 50 percent say they'd support openly gay U.S. president

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright

reply to post by neo96
 


Okay well if you're not believing what you say, or saying what you believe, that makes a conversation problematic. Here was your comment from above that sparked the exchange-


i wont support a gay president main reason being he will be a liberal


One of us is confused. Carry on, I'll go elsewhere.


This also confused me after reading his subsequent posts.

Not all gays are liberals, and all liberals are pansy quacks, but not all pansys are quacks, and all quack gays are not liberal pansies, but not all liberal pansys are quacks, and not all pansy quacks are liberal gays.

See what I mean?




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
How strange. I just went to the site and all polls are opened for voting except this one. I found it on page 8.

Also, why is there a discrepancy in the 'before vote submission' image polls and the 'post vote submitted' image poles?

For instance, I just took this one and my vote was 'just another vote speaking out.' Prior to submitting my vote, that option received almost 30% of the vote. However, after voting, my option was only at 4%.

Example:

Before voting:


After placing my vote:


It was like that for several other of the polls. The result stats were different from the pre-vote stats.

Between that and this being the only poll that is not opened to voters, there is something off about this.

Is this just me? Is anyone able to submit a vote on that?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Between that and this being the only poll that is not opened to voters, there is something off about this.


Yup ... like I said in the previous page this is at best an informal poll from which, other than the premise for an interesting conversation, there's nothing of real worth to be gleaned from.

ETA: Internet Polls/Surveys

[edit on 30 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
So very wrong!
I specifically said at least those at rallies thereby distancing myself from generalizing.

that was my sole purpose in saying speficially those at rallies at least.


And then the point of bringing "those rallies" into the conversation was...




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


If BH was talking about a specific subset of "homophobes" then me responding with a specific subset of homosexuals the issue with that is........



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Is what? A defense for a subset of homophobes to be justified about their homophobia towards a subset of homosexuals?

Back to the labeling. I think I understand your point and I hope you understand mine. It's the entire thrust of this thread. Putting someone in a category which is large enough to encompass a vast variety of people all of whom can be further categorized by an ever increasing number of subsets does absolutely nothing in terms of making any type of qualitative judgment about any specific individual. "Would you support an openly gay US President?" Dumb question containing insufficient data for an informed response.

The only possible piece of value you can garner from the responses is the number of people ready to reject an otherwise qualified individual for a completely irrelevant criterion.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


yeahright: boiling this thread down to its essence.

how many ways can i say i hate gay people and they should not be considered humans? i don't know, but i was just wondering if i was at a party and someone asked me that, i would wonder about it and maybe other people would, too. would you? what would you say if someone asked you about that? oh, that's interesting. 'cause i know some people would tell them to keep their freakin' mouths shut. but i woudn't say that.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


It's not irrelevant, it's irrelevant or at least should be to americans
but not to the rest of the world as sos37 pointed out.

a gay president having peace talks with muslims is not an irrelevant topic, it very much has substance.

Unfortunately our roads are not paved with cotton candy with unicorns giving you a ride to the end of the rainbow.

we don't live in a perfect world!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


You're free to use whatever criteria you choose when considering an appropriate candidate for President. I for one, give -0- thought to how it will play to the rest of the world.

We've had a number of Presidents who were considered to be the devil incarnate in parts of the world. Didn't bother me a bit.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

It's not irrelevant, it's irrelevant or at least should be to americans
but not to the rest of the world as sos37 pointed out.

a gay president having peace talks with muslims is not an irrelevant topic, it very much has substance.


Except for the fact that the point sos made is flat out wrong!

There are muslim countries which don't allow women to drive, see them as inferior, stone them, jail them for being raped, does that mean we shouldn't elect a woman president to appease them?

There are a plethora of behaviors, not to mention prejudices, which have different moral interpretations cross-culturally/globally, are we as a nation to satisfy their capriciousness?

ETA: This is in many ways the same fallacious argument that is often made by bigoted parents to justify their prejudice when they say: "I won't let my daughter marry a black man to protect her from other bigots in society." You know, the old I'm doing it for your own good approach.

[edit on 30 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 
My impression, from reading a few posts and the flame-bait threads, is that you are an articulate bigot. You evade the T&Cs by acting disingenuous. Prejudice is off-set by linking to news articles. This technique allows you to seed more prejudice whilst being appropriately at arm's length.

I'll happily take a 'warn' or points deduction. Any mod can penalise me on this post.

'Deny Ignorance' is open to interpretation, I honestly think members that post repeated threads generating prejudice aren't good for the community.

Back in the land of 'on topic'...ignoring the fact that the poll isn't credible...why care if a President is gay? Other members have already said it several times...it's the quality of the character of the President that matters.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
My impression, from reading a few posts and the flame-bait threads, is that you are an articulate bigot. You evade the T&Cs by acting disingenuous. Prejudice is off-set by linking to news articles. This technique allows you to seed more prejudice whilst being appropriately at arm's length.


How does that have anything to do with this thread?
Oh it doesn't, you just chose to shoot the messenger
I am not a bigot but you are definately a non-ad hominem poster

since your post is completely off topic why don't you make a thread about it

V2V me the link and I will defend my stance on how I am not a bigot.
Go ahead I dare you!
Or let me guess you had time to make this post but don't have time for that thread right?

Or you just won't make the thread because you won't be able to defend your stance.

I know exactly where I stand and know that it is far from bigotry.

go ahead, make the thread if you have the cahonas!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Before voting:


The above image (pre-vote) was taken at a point in time, early in the voting process and doesn't change. The text below it would have to change all the time if it were updated with each vote.



After placing my vote:


The above chart is the accurate results of the voting at any given time. It's updated with each vote.

I voted and the "after vote" numbers changed.

Does that make sense?


[edit on 3/30/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


It seems to me that, by your logic, the only people we should be voting into the President's office are straight, Muslim men.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bosko
 


Yes, to really appease the Muslim world (which we all agree is the most important thing - to keep them from attacking us and stuff) We should elect a straight, Muslim president. According to some, we have.
The Muslim world should be just pleased as punch!

/sarcasm



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Fine. Make your jokes and laugh without even considering that this could be a serious threat. If a gay president is ever elected, there WILL be a foreign relations fallout and then I'll be the one saying "I told you so."




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join