Obama Slated to Name Five Openly Homosexual Foreign Ambassadors

reply to post by FlyersFan


Flyers, my friend, I was not referring to you, I'm not even sure how you'd think I was talking about you?

I was referring to Faust100f, of course.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I don't think you'd see either happen. I mean, first, we have absolutely no right to try and coerce or force any other nation to change their internal policies or outlooks on that. I REALLY hope the activists our nation hosts don't push that cause too hard. If we get to trying to force cultural issues instead of the traditional economic and geo-political ones everyone around the world is already sick of? They're likely just to flat ignore the Embassy, Ambassador and the whole lot of us..

As Obama's NSA and other programs are generating open rage around the world, this is about the worst time imaginable to consider telling another country to 'accept who we send whether you like it or not'. Unless of course, making whole new enemies is the point here.

Now having said that...OUTSIDE of the nations that range from hostile to actually executing gays? I'm happy to see this...although making a big point of their sexuality seems out of place to their jobs and positions. It shouldn't hold them back by any means. Not if it's not in violation of local laws of that nation. Heck... I'm sure we've had some gay ambassadors here and there for a long time and before Obama. Openly? Perhaps not...but there, either way. Gay doesn't make a wit of difference to their ability to do the job.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Every president does this. Every administration does this.

The payoff.

But I didn't see any lesbians placed as ambassador.

Obama is obviously a misogynist and a hater. (damned Kenyan communist!)*


*Had to keep the progs happy.

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
Flyers, my friend, I was not referring to you, I'm not even sure how you'd think I was talking about you?

Well .. your post said 'the bigot above' .. and my post was above that.
Nevermind ... the fog of war on the boards.

reply to post by SeenAlot

Originally posted by SeenAlot
Why is this an important verb to the ambassador-ship?

To scare people. The "news" sources that are publishing this angle of this story are conservative and they want to "scare" people into being bigoted against gay people and to fear Obama. It's really very simple. It's an anti-gay hate piece, IMO.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
- It's a good thing that people are not discriminated against for top spots because they are homosexual. that gets a

IMHO.

- It's NOT a good thing that people are given top spots based on who they have sex with in the privacy of their own home. That should be irrelevant. Don't reward people for their sexual orientation - no matter which way it goes. This gets a

IMHO.

- It's NOT a good thing that these people are being rewarded with top spots based on how much money they donated to the Obama campaign. Obama certainly isn't the only one to do with, but he was supposed to be 'hope and change' and 'different' and 'transparent' etc etc but it turns out he's just more of the same .. paying off big donors with top high-paying high-visibility spots. This gets a

IMHO.

The big thing I see with this story isn't so much that there are openly homosexual people getting positions, but more that there is a payoff by Obama of big donors. 'Hope and change' .. not happening. Instead, same ol' same ol' payoff of bundlers and donors. These just happen to be homosexual.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, as you well know. I find it more likely that, since Obama *does* have a lot of homosexual acquaintances (and I would imagine that most of his acquaintances at one point donated to his campaign), he chose from a pool that he was familiar with and versed in their credentials and qualifications, rather than just saying "these people are gay and they gave me lots of money - let's give them a job". If I had to guess, I would say that any of his nominations are very well qualified for the positions, and that was the first criteria considered. But I guess that's just speculation on my part.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama Slated to Name Five Openly Homosexual Foreign Ambassadors

So what?

Lots of aspects to discuss with this story ....

Only if your worldview is stuck in the 19th Century. The rest of us have moved on a bit since then.

- It's NOT a good thing that people are given top spots based on who they have sex with in the privacy of their own home.

Well they're not, so it's OK.

It's NOT a good thing that these people are being rewarded with top spots based on how much money they donated to the Obama campaign.

Proof please.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Now having said that...OUTSIDE of the nations that range from hostile to actually executing gays?.

I have to bring this part of your post because I was thinking along the lines here, yes some countries with closed religious views of homosexuality will execute know or suspicious gays, the same way that they will execute young girls and women.

So how can the government of any of those countries will keep the sexual gay oriented ambassadors from becoming targets to their more radical citizens? that is a big question.

If is true that some of these newly appointees are to be in countries that do not agree with open or any type of homosexuality, this sounds to me like an open challenge and the desirable outcome is actually hostility.

If I am a homosexual or open gay I would not accept a post in a country that do not view my sexual orientations with open mind, right? because I would be putting my life in the line

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's an anti-gay hate piece, IMO.

Nope. You can spin it that way if you like ... but .... nope.

Washington Post - Gay Donors Now Pressing for Top Spots in Obama Administration

Various supporters of President Obama — the ones who pulled out their wallets and turned out their constituencies for his reelection — will soon be coming to call at the White House. ....

Washington Post - The Influence Industry/Obama Top Fundraisers

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay. His overall list of bundlers also includes a number of gay couples who have wed in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was legal.

Cbama rewards big bundlers with jobs, commissions, stimulus money, government contracts, and more

Politico - Top Barack Obama donors net government jobs

The Washington Diplomat - Selling Ambassadorships to the Highest Bidder

On the campaign trail in 2008, President Obama spoke about the need to appoint career diplomats rather than political appointees, but critics say he hasn't lived up to that pledge.

The New York Times

It is the unspoken question on every big donor’s lips: How much do I have to give — really — to get appointed to a desirable diplomatic post by the president?

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Lots of aspects to discuss with this story ....

Only if your worldview is stuck in the 19th Century. The rest of us have moved on a bit since then.

So it's being 'stuck in the 19th century' to believe that an ambassadorship shouldn't be BOUGHT but instead should be earned and it should go to the person best suited for the job? Really? :shk:

It's NOT a good thing that these people are being rewarded with top spots based on how much money they donated to the Obama campaign.

Proof please.

You REALLY just asked for proof that it's not a good thing to be able to buy an ambassadorship?
Really? You must be new here ... (*checking) Yep ...

Originally posted by marg6043
If I am a homosexual or open gay I would not accept a post in a country that do not view my sexual orientations with open mind, right? because I would be putting my life in the line

UNLESS you were a homosexual who wanted to help other homosexuals in those countries by trying to knock down walls and open the eyes of the people in those countries who discriminate against homosexuals. There are some brave people out there who think that way ...

Ambassadors, then they could end up in, oh say...Iran, or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

reply to post by FlyersFan


This may work in more open societies but in Islamic countries its not going to work and will make the more fundamentalist and radical groups angry to the point that attempts on the lives of this ambassadors can not be ignored, what kind of president will do that to those under him, or what kind of person will take a position where they know they will be constant danger.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Nope. You can spin it that way if you like ... but .... nope.

I don't mean your thread is an anti-gay hit piece. I mean the story from Life Site News (and the Washington Post).

Redtic's post above explains it, IMO. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Of course, people who are close to and supportive of Obama are likely to be people who made a lot of money for his campaign. Duh! I'll bet many straight appointees also made money for him. Of course some appointees are going to be women, gay and racially diverse. He promotes diversity. Many of them support him and made money for him. To turn that into a "story" by selecting bits of information here and there is called "spin".

To pick out five people because they're gay and then draw attention to the fact that they raised money for him makes it look like it's news that gay people can "buy" positions in the Obama administration. When the truth is, this is how it works and has worked for many administrations. This is politics in our country.

No hope and change? In some areas, you're correct. In others, I disagree.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
this is how it works and has worked for many administrations. This is politics in our country.

Which I said ... it's just the same ol' same ol' ....
People buying ambassadorships by being bid donors and bundlers.
Mr. Hope and Change ends up being just like the rest.
(no surprise)

Between PRISM and Syria, this matter's why?
Oh because the gender and sexuality of human beings is on the same scale, silly me.

Banks defrauding their customers and causing all kinds of economic strife don't matter, the weather disasters don't matter, fixing the economy doesn't matter, creating jobs doesn't matter... OMG that Commie, Kenyan, Muslim Obama is appointing the gays, quick defend traditional marriage!



ETA: My post isn't a response to the poster, just the story or rather the fact that it is even a story.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Did he name himself?
----
The Down Low

Originally posted by Kali74
Between PRISM and Syria, this matter's why?

- Because selling ambassador positions to high donors and bundlers still matters.

- We are capable of talking about PRISM and Syria and NSA-gate and Benghazi-gate and IRS-gate, and whatever gate comes up next with Obama, all at the same time. Although I do admit that there are so many scandals with this administration it's hard to keep up with.

Originally posted by XLR8R
Did he name himself?
----
The Down Low

He got himself promoted to POTUS .. that's a quick and big promotion from community organizer.
I'll see your WND article and raise you a sodahead photo - click here .
Real or debunked? I have no idea.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Mr. Hope and Change ends up being just like the rest.
(no surprise)

I'm curious, for those decrying the homosexual aspect of this, what would have been the right number of homosexuals to name? 1? 2? 10? Had he picked no homosexuals for these positions, I'm sure there would have been a post by someone asking "where's the diversity, Mr Hope and Change?!?". In other words, he can't win not matter what he does in some people's eyes...