Obama Slated to Name Five Openly Homosexual Foreign Ambassadors

reply to post by XLR8R


Well I will have to be a bit skeptical on this one, yes it seems kind of close and cozy, but my husband spend one year in the middle east, (Saudi Arabia) during the first gulf war, he remember that males in this area will hold hands while waking in the streets and around to show friendship and comradely.

Something that he himself was exposed to when his Saudi friends will also hold his hand while doing business.

Funny and awkward (for my husband) but a well known practice, also the kissing on both cheeks. (face)

Originally posted by redtic
In other words, he can't win not matter what he does in some people's eyes...

He could win and be Mr. Hope and Change FOR REAL if he didn't sell the positions to the big donors and bundlers. Appoint those who show the best qualifications .. not the ones that show the biggest open wallets.

Daniel Baer.. lol

Does he have a handsome beard?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by redtic
In other words, he can't win not matter what he does in some people's eyes...

He could win and be Mr. Hope and Change FOR REAL if he didn't sell the positions to the big donors and bundlers. Appoint those who show the best qualifications .. not the ones that show the biggest open wallets.

So you are saying he MUST only appoint people who didn't donate big, regardless of their qualifications? What if, just maybe, the people he appointed WERE actually qualified? I mean, can you prove your point in any way, by naming some people you know for a fact are more qualified who didn't donate big?

reply to post by marg6043


I'm a bit lost on what the controversy is here, especially after looking around the net on this topic. It appears he appointed an openly gay Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa in 2009. So it's not even a new thing here. Altho more of them. I am a little annoyed that it seems THAT is the reason they're selected. It seems a bit weak for reasoning ..and I'll just assume the media is focusing on it to the exclusion of other factors.

Now if he appointed a gay Ambassador to Saudi Arabia or another very conservative Middle Eastern or African nation, I think it's more shooting himself in the foot for having any effective relations with that nation than anything else. It's no different than appointing a female Ambassador to an extreme nation. They just aren't going to respect and work with who they can't respect... We ignore and play games with that at our peril, not theirs.

Something tells me though, in most of the nations where being gay is SO severe that it would pose a danger to the life of a full rank Ambassador? Simply being American is already a high priority issue for threats to them, right? I'm not sure how much this adds to that. Again it just makes diplomacy there a 'why even bother' proposition, IMO.

i]reply to post by FlyersFan

- 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.

So by my count there are roughly 300+ Ambassadors for the USA..
en.wikipedia.org...

And he is potentially naming 5 who are gay?

AND???? What's the issue?

Statistically, he is still far below the percentage of the US Population that is Gay, why do you think thier sexual orientation played a part in thier selection???

Think he is the first President to name a gay Ambassador? Or just that he didn't demand they lie about themselves, like past Ambassadors?

Are you aware it is widely assumed that Amb. Chris Stephens who was killed in Benghazi way gay? Most in DC inner circles know the same.

Was he given the position because of his orientation?

reply to post by FlyersFan


But the article isn't about selling positions.
The article is about gay people being put in positions of power.

Is selling these positions bad, not abnormal but yes bad... but the author doesn't give a hoot about that, just that gays are being appointed.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I am a little annoyed that it seems THAT is the reason they're selected. It seems a bit weak for reasoning ..and I'll just assume the media is focusing on it to the exclusion of other factors.

The media is indeed excluding other factors:

1. Only ONE of the five have been nominated. The others are, at this time, "expected" or "slated" to be nominated.
2. Other ambassadors have also been nominated and are "expected" to be nominated, but they are ignored in favor of highlighting the gay ones.
3. There is no indication that any of these ambassadors have been or will be nominated BECAUSE they are gay.
4. The idea that ~5% of the population “handed Obama the election” is laughable. See?

Obama is known to encourage diversity in his administration, including many minorities and women. He promised to do so. So, yeah, some of the old white men that resemble Congress are gone and have been replaced with diversity. But he also replaced Hillary with an old white man. So, I don't think he's picking people BECAUSE they are diverse, but that certainly enters into the equation.

Originally posted by Indigo5
AND???? What's the issue?

Did you read the thread? The issue is that he's selling Ambassadorships.
Just like everyone else has. No hope and change ... just more of the same.

Originally posted by Kali74
But the article isn't about selling positions.
The article is about gay people being put in positions of power.

The first article is about homosexual people being put in ambassadorships because they were high donors/bundlers via the gay issue. The other articles backed up that ambassadorships are sold ... by this administration and others ... going to big donors and bundlers.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, I don't think he's picking people BECAUSE they are diverse, but that certainly enters into the equation.

He picked them because the are major donors/bundlers.
1/6 of the major donors/bundlers are gay according to the articles.
(Washington Post reported that)

Again .. it's about selling the position .. which they all do ... and it's about the lack of 'change'.

I agree Op. good daily topic.
Now why don't these people just squash
those feelings down and stay in the closet like republicans
or Shepard from FOX does?

shocker!!, that this "article" comes a Christian fundamentalist website....lock your doors, the homosexuals are coming!!!

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

Actually no contrary to what some like to think the world is not so enlightened or evolved.

Many countries have issues it's not just here.

I hope that he names them to Muslim nations.

That way he can spread his message of tolerance to others.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for the note on #1. I thought it was just me but I kept looking for 5 nations to identify here and only came up with one, over and over. Not just me then...

On #4? Yeah. I hear ya. It's something that I've said things here and there about but not really pushed too much for the fact our nation is about 50/50 split. A lot of folks don't seem to want to accept that ..on both sides.. for what it means and truly indicates. If small groups can be 'blamed' then only small groups need be defeated. If it's realized and accepted to be the split that it really is? Uh Oh.... We *HAVE* to find a way to work together and the reality leaves no choice whatsoever in the long term. It's depressing to see how far the people across the nation are from even facing that, let along making peace with it to find solutions that work beyond just sounding good.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He picked them because the are major donors/bundlers.

Again, correlation does not imply causation. Unless you can prove that there were people who donated less that would have been better nominees for the jobs, it's just your opinion. To me, it seems natural that strong supporters of the President and his positions would be very active in raising funds for his election.

And if you wanted the thread to be about the bundling/fundraising issue, seems you could have included that in your title. It's not necessary (in the Political Madness forum) to match the title of the sensational "news" story. You could have called it: "The Influence Industry/Obama Top Fundraisers" (even though that article's title is actually "The Influence Industry: Same-sex marriage issue shows importance of gay fundraisers") ...

This thread concentrates on the gay issue because that's "hot" right now. The right wants people to think Obama is somehow bad because he supports diversity, including the gays.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unless you can prove that there were people who donated less that would have been better nominees for the jobs, it's just your opinion.

Oh comeon ..... he sold the positions. Everyone has done it before him. He's continuing to do it. It's obvious. Is the hopeium haze still really thick out there in the New Mexico mountains and you can't see it?

if you wanted the thread to be about the bundling/fundraising issue, seems you could have included that in your title.

1 - I used the title of the first article just as it was. That's encouraged around here, ya' know?? If YOU would have used a different title .... that's on you. I used the title from the first article and that's just fine.
2 - In the opening post I included multiple other stories about ambassadorships being sold to donors/bundlers.
3 - You are trying to deflect and make this out just to be a gay thing. It's not.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Is the hopeium haze still really thick out there in the New Mexico mountains and you can't see it?

You know how I hate the personal crap. I don't do it to you, I don't expect it from you. I'm done.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Link doesn't work.