When You Let Gay Philly Activists Into the White House

[mettech]

"...Last Friday, an attaché of important gay people from Philadelphia made a trip to Washington D.C. as invited guests of President Barack Obama for the White House’s first-ever gay pride reception. There, they danced to the sounds of a Marine Corps band; they dined on crab cakes and canapés; they hand-delivered letters from concerned citizens like this 18-year old who has had four people close to him gunned down, and noted rhyming raconteur CA Conrad; and some of them took advantage of photo opportunities to give the late President Ronald Reagan the middle finger...."

 

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/06/22/gay-activists-give-ronald-reagan-finger-white-house/

[RangerM]

It's more indicative of the childish nature of many "activists" on the left than whether they are gay or not.

 

The fact that they're gay would only serve as a justification (to many on the left) for their complete lack of respect for the place they were visiting.

[Happy Gilmore]

But remember, we're supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs. But just don't expect them to be tolerant of others.

 

Liberals at their finest

[napfirst]

But remember, we're supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs. But just don't expect them to be tolerant of others.

 

Liberals at their finest

well said

[the_spaniard]

Totally uncalled for gay or straight.

 

But yeah, christian conservatives are known for their tolerance of others, right? So long as you are white. Straight. And oh yeah, Christian. Its one of the things I actually respect Romney for. Sticking in there while his own party went through all the other candidates as they tried to pick "anyone except the Mormon". It was quite hilarious. And sad.

 

Tolerance, indeed. There are clearly intolerant people on both sides. :reading:

[cal50]

....too bad a lightning bolt could not stike at that same instant.

[napfirst]

Totally uncalled for gay or straight.

 

But yeah, christian conservatives are known for their tolerance of others, right? So long as you are white. Straight. And oh yeah, Christian. Its one of the things I actually respect Romney for. Sticking in there while his own party went through all the other candidates as they tried to pick "anyone except the Mormon". It was quite hilarious. And sad.

 

Tolerance, indeed. There are clearly intolerant people on both sides. :reading:

Why do you feel the need to bring christians into this thread?

[grbeck]

A bunch of activists showing their true colors...hardly shocking.

 

What is more alarming than an childish gesture by those without any class is the mindset that the boy (unintentionally) reveals in his letter:

 

I cannot fully blame the boys or the alleged murderer, Axel Barreto. The boys were looking for a fight with Barreto’s stepsons over an argument that began on Facebook—and yes, I do understand that if a group of boys wanted to fight your sons, any father or mother would seek to protect his or her own. But what I do not approve of is that now people are too quick to pick up a gun and begin opening fire to resolve their problems. They were only kids. There is no way to justify that murder, whatsoever, at least in my opinion.

 

Think of the education both sides had. If the boys were well-educated and raised in a neighborhood other than the Badlands, they may have not been so quick to resort to violence during an altercation. They would have had better problem-solving skills. If Barreto received a better education, he might have known that violence is not the way. The Philadelphia School District does not know what effect it has when they have to make cuts on budgets or teachers. These are the long-term effects. Violence, murder, stupidity.

 

You don't "receive" an education...you take affirmative steps to take advantage of the FREE, PUBLIC EDUCATION that all Pennsylvania youths, including those who live in Philadelphia, receive courtesy of the taxpayers. The Philadelphia School District spends far more, per-pupil, than other districts in the Commonwealth, and it is still a mess.

 

If "Barreto" and "the boys" had been more interested in bettering themselves than hanging with their buddies, this whole incident could have been avoided.

 

Spending more taxpayer money isn't going to solve their lack of motivation, or preference for violence over calculus.

 

And, interestingly enough, the poverty of the main actors didn't prevent them owning a computer to start the argument on Facebook in the first place.

[NLPRacing]

From the article:

 

UPDATE 6/22 9:30 p.m.: According to Fox News, the White House has issued a statement rebuking some of the behavior described in this article: “While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Most all do. These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”

 

Some so called "activists" from both the left and right can and will act inappropriately at times. I doubt this is the first or last time somebody will be caught acting like an idiot at a White House function.

[the_spaniard]

Why do you feel the need to bring christians into this thread?

 

Should I have just stuck to conservatives? I was merely illustrating that christian conservatives (from my experience) can be just as intolerant as these fools.

[napfirst]

Should I have just stuck to conservatives? I was merely illustrating that christian conservatives (from my experience) can be just as intolerant as these fools.

again why bring it into this discussion?....

[Mark B. Morrow]

Stupid and childish to be sure, just as disrespectful as some activists on the other side have been toward President Obama. Funny how I didn't hear any of the Republican "Leaders" addressing the crowds holding these signs condemn the childish behavior right in front of them.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[grbeck]

Choosing a candidate or a position on an issue inevitably means being deeply embarrassed by some of the people on the same side, whether you are on the left or the right.

[xr7g428]

just as disrespectful as some activists on the other side have been toward President Obama.

 

So in your opinion those protest signs equal the behavior of guests invited into the White House? Wow...

[cal50]

So in your opinion those protest signs equal the behavior of guests invited into the White House? Wow...

 

 

Separate issues but only a liberal mind can link the two so one is suppose to offset the other yet they are not directly connected.

The irony is the liberal mindset is suppose to be more inclusive and forgiving.

 

(As long as you agree with them)

[RangerM]

So in your opinion those protest signs equal the behavior of guests invited into the White House? Wow...

I've often wondered if those dismissing the situation would have felt differently if Bill had been a principal and Monica a student-teacher, and the setting was their child's school.

Edited June 26, 2012 by RangerM

[Mark B. Morrow]

So in your opinion those protest signs equal the behavior of guests invited into the White House? Wow...

 

Both actions are silly, childish and disrespectful and say much more about the people making the gesture than their target.

[grbeck]

Both actions are silly, childish and disrespectful and say much more about the people making the gesture than their target.

 

I've always said that how you act when you think no one is watching is the real test of character.

 

The sign-carriers you posted did this in PUBLIC, and the people in the White House wanted their photos taken while they flipped the bird to former presidents.

 

They all strike me as the relatives that you avoid - at all costs - during family gatherings, so that you won't be subject to a diatribe on the hot subject of the day.

 

The man in the middle photo you posted looks like a real barrel of fun... you see him coming, and you head to the wine-and-beer table just to get through the conversation/diatribe/screed.

Edited June 26, 2012 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

But remember, we're supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs. But just don't expect them to be tolerant of others.

 

Liberals at their finest

 

I'm going to suggest that once a majority of conservatives are tolerant of homosexuality that this type of thing would happen less and be frowned upon much more vehemently, but there's no denying that there is very little tolerance on the part of conservatives so you can expect that people will openly mock conservative icons as revenge for the lack of respect and tolerance afford to them.

 

And you have to take into account the historical context of what Reagan's administration meant to homosexuals, who first contracted the HIV/AIDS virus and were basically abandoned by President Reagan and actively attacked by the christian base that supported him. I doubt that many in the gay community will ever forgive the Reagan admin for it's failure to step into the AIDS/HIV issue in a stronger way and to put pressure on it's supporters to tone down anti-gay rhetoric involving AIDS deaths. While i can understand what they did and why, it is apparent that it was the wrong situation to do such things and was clearly disrespectful towards the White House and the fact that they had been invited to be there.

 

In the end is the act of disrespect towards Reagan and the White House a greater crime than Reagan and his admins reluctance to become involved in the AIDS issue because of political interests?

[grbeck]

In the end is the act of disrespect towards Reagan and the White House a greater crime than Reagan and his admins reluctance to become involved in the AIDS issue because of political interests?

 

Making a policy decision regarding a disease is not a "crime." Last time I checked, the people who contracted AIDS did so because of their own actions, not because of anything the Reagan Administration did. Unless administration officials were holding a gun to people's head and forcing them to have unprotected sex.

 

It was certain elements of the gay community that vehemently resisted closure of the bath houses and other spots where many people contracted the disease in the first place. Perhaps, instead of wailing about the Reagan Administration, they should have acquainted themselves with the concept of personal responsibility and taken these steps on their own to curb the spread of the disease. That, of course, is called "growing up and acting like an adult."

 

Which, judging by the posted photos, certain activists from Philadelphia have yet to do...

 

Grown-ups take responsibility for their own actions, instead of wating for mommy, I mean, the taxpayers, to do things for them.

[Langston Hughes]

Making a policy decision regarding a disease is not a "crime." Last time I checked, the people who contracted AIDS did so because of their own actions, not because of anything the Reagan Administration did. Unless administration officials were holding a gun to people's head and forcing them to have unprotected sex.

 

It was certain elements of the gay community that vehemently resisted closure of the bath houses and other spots where many people contracted the disease in the first place. Perhaps, instead of wailing about the Reagan Administration, they should have acquainted themselves with the concept of personal responsibility and taken these steps on their own to curb the spread of the disease. That, of course, is called "growing up and acting like an adult."

 

Which, judging by the posted photos, certain activists from Philadelphia have yet to do...

 

Grown-ups take responsibility for their own actions, instead of wating for mommy, I mean, the taxpayers, to do things for them.

 

While you have valid points concerning the attitudes and problems with the gay community that doesn't let Reagan off the hook for making a monumental mistake concerning AIDS/HIV. I'm not making the case that Reagan was the sole cause nor that his lack of action and involvement was the reason that AIDS is still an issue today but rather that he let the intolerance of his voters effect the actions he took concerning a major societal health issue. Clearly the fact that there was no political will to cure or handle the outbreak left many more vulnerable. One author discussing the issue mentions that Legionaries disease received 9 times the funding AIDS did during the 80's while having only 50 reported deaths compared to thousand's for AIDS.

 

In the end it was the actions of many that leave us with AIDS as a threat to not only but our children's lives and one of those people will unfortunately be Ronald Reagan.

[RangerM]

You may not appreciate the source, LH. But the points remain valid.

“Good riddance to Reagan,” Virginian Jared Hermann told me hours before the 40^th president’s death. “He deserves what he gets and more.” Fellow demonstrator Ian Roberts opined, “You just wish the worst on him that you can possibly wish.” A strange man named David Barrows pronounced, “We need to clap when he dies.”

 

On June 5, 2004, I spoke to these International ANSWER protestors outside of the house Reagan once called home. Eight years later, the crackpots cheering a president’s death have been let inside the White House.

 

To celebrate Gay Pride Month, the Obama Administration recently hosted a reception for homosexual activists complete with a dance accompanied by the conscripted sonic stylings of the Marine Corps Band. During the festivities, several of the current president’s guests photographed themselves giving the middle finger to a portrait of the former president.

 

“Yeah, f!<# Reagan,” a finger-gesturing Matty Hart subsequently explained. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool.”

 

Haters give themselves away by obsessing over the supposed hatefulness of the people they hate. This act of projection provides a ready-made excuse to indulge in the darkest malevolence. A dim brain often accompanies a black soul. Hatred and ignorance are familiar bedfellows.

 

This double-act is certainly present in the enduring mythology surrounding Reagan and AIDS.

 

Ronald Reagan didn’t sue to stop Abbott Laboratories from making the first HIV-screening test available. The National Gay Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund sued Reagan’s government to block it.

 

Theoretic privacy concerns trumped matters of life and death. In addition to two of the most prominent homosexual organizations attempting to stifle the most useful tool in the fight against AIDS, New York City initially banned the test.

 

Ronald Reagan didn’t fight to keep the bathhouses open. Gay activists did.

 

When New York’s leading homosexual doctor suggested that the city’s bathhouses post warning signs, a la cigarette packets, detractors condemned him as a “monogamist”“stirring panic.”

 

In San Francisco, just one homosexual group supported Mayor Dianne Feinstein’s decision to close the disease incubators. “The basic reason for bathhouses is to enable activity that results in the spread of the diseases,” Feinstein said in 1985. “Unfortunately, some have chosen to make this a civil rights issue, which it is not. It is hard to understand how people can have the right to spread a disease that is 100 percent fatal.”

 

Towel-clad protestors carried placards reading “Out of the Baths and Into the Ovens.” New York Native publisher Charles Ortleb wrote to Charles Curran, a researcher at Reagan’s CDC, , “Now that you’ve succeeded in closing down the baths, are you preparing the boxcars for relocation?”

 

Ronald Reagan didn’t deny that promiscuity increased the chances of catching the deadly venereal disease. Homosexual activists did.

 

Nathan Fain, who wrote in the Advocate in 1984 that “there is no proof that even one of the 3,775 cases of AIDS tallied by the Centers for Disease Control had involved sexual transmission,” rebutted his own argument by appearing on the AIDS Quilt a few years later.

 

Charles Jurrist’s “In Defense of Promiscuity” in the New York Native posited that sex transmitting the deadly disease was pure conjecture, “that’s all it is—a theory. It is far from scientifically demonstrated. It therefore seems a little premature to be calling for an end to sexual freedom in the name of physical health.” The “theory” withstood Jurrist’s challenge to it. Jurrist did not.

 

Konstantin Berlandt, co-chair of San Francisco’s gay pride parade, maintained, “I didn’t become a homosexual so I could use condoms.” Berlandt, too, became a martyr of sexual liberation.

 

So much of this information comes via Randy Shilts’ amazing 1987 book And the Band Played On. The author, like so many of the talented artists and writers that he portrayed, died of AIDS. And the Band Played On helped spread the meme blaming Reagan for the spread of AIDS. But, ironically, a careful reading of the book shows that the people who recklessly spread that falsehood embraced recklessness of a far more consequential sort, too. The book’s claims do not always mesh with its information.

 

AIDS changed everything. Seventies self-gratification became eighties self-destruction. The government that gay activists wanted out of their affairs during the seventies they demanded in their affairs during the eighties. Reagan, who in 1978 vocally opposed California’s Proposition 6 that targeted homosexual teachers for firing, meshed with the live-and-let-live outlook of pre-AIDS gay activists. But that outlook became one of the first casualties of AIDS, and former allies of the gay community became, in the eyes of the activists, its enemies.

 

Ronald Reagan, a smiling actor who encouraged his son’s interest in ballet, came from Hollywood, not Hate.

[grbeck]

While you have valid points concerning the attitudes and problems with the gay community that doesn't let Reagan off the hook for making a monumental mistake concerning AIDS/HIV. I'm not making the case that Reagan was the sole cause nor that his lack of action and involvement was the reason that AIDS is still an issue today but rather that he let the intolerance of his voters effect the actions he took concerning a major societal health issue. Clearly the fact that there was no political will to cure or handle the outbreak left many more vulnerable. One author discussing the issue mentions that Legionaries disease received 9 times the funding AIDS did during the 80's while having only 50 reported deaths compared to thousand's for AIDS.

 

In the end it was the actions of many that leave us with AIDS as a threat to not only but our children's lives and one of those people will unfortunately be Ronald Reagan.

 

I believe that RangerM's post effectively demolishes the idea that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the spread of AIDS.

 

The "lack of political will" to "handle" the outbreak (i.e., stop it from spreading), came from the gay community itself. If the gay community wants to see the party responsible for the spread of the disease, it merely needs to find a mirror.

 

If gay activists want to believe an inaccurate version of history, and flip the bird to Reagan's photo in the White House, that is their choice.

 

In addition to making them childish, however, it also makes them stupid.

[mettech]

Amazing...

 

The POTUS is held responsible for a person getting a deadly virus from ass fucking someone with a deadly blood virus that they probably obtained from another dirty ass or drug use...

[Mark B. Morrow]

Amazing...

 

The POTUS is held responsible for a person getting a deadly virus from ass fucking someone with a deadly blood virus that they probably obtained from another dirty ass or drug use...

 

Tell that to Ryan White.