Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration right in telling the world that bias against gays in unacceptable?
* * * * *
Has anyone heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or President Obama show the same concern about the women's rights around the world? It seems they want the gays to be treated as equals, but not women.
FRANK SCISM
* * * * *
Clinton's speech was in direct response to a situation in Uganda and was not an "out of the blue" moment. Uganda's parliament recently was considering an extreme anti-gay bill that would have given the death penalty or life imprisonment to anyone caught taking part in homosexual acts. Some extreme religious-right activists from the U.S. had gone to Uganda and stirred up anti-gay sentiment.
Clinton's press conference was held to denounce them and the proposed legislation, which, thanks to international pressure, was put off. Ugandan legislators continue to press for its passage, however. End of story. Of course, Clinton was right.
KAM BENFIELD
* * * * *
No. That is not foreign policy.
SUSAN WARREN
* * * * *
I agree that bias against gays is totally unacceptable, and I think it is important for our president and secretary of State to speak out against that bias. However, before they rush to lecture the world, their time and energy would be better spent working to eliminate discrimination against the LGBTQ community here in our own country.
In 29 states it is still legal to fire someone simply because he or she is gay. Same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes than and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married straight couples — including Social Security benefits, immigration, health insurance, estate taxes, family leave, nursing homes, home protection and pensions.
Obama and Clinton should put their money where their mouths are and actively support the immediate passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the Respect for Marriage Act and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Then they can address the rest of the world with integrity, having cleaned their own house first.
JANE MOTSINGER
* * * * *
This administration suggesting morality rules to the world is as funny and sad as Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner giving tips to the European Union about handling money.
CHRISTINE PULISELIC
* * * * *
Yes, Secretary of State Clinton and the Obama administration appear to be asking that prejudice toward gays and lesbians be set aside. It is about time. This prejudice needs to end.
MARTHA LILLIAN SMITH
* * * * *
While I do not condone homosexuality in principle — that's another letter — I do believe that the unfair treatment of anyone is inappropriate. Christ taught us to love first and always, to love the sinner even as we stop short of condoning the sin.
Therefore I would assert that rather than speaking specifically to the treatment of homosexuals, Clinton would better represent the people of the U.S. by continuing to beat the drum for human rights in general. Calling out countries' treatment of homosexuals is clearly a political bone thrown to those purveyors of the gay agenda in our own country.
KEITH LYALL
* * * * *
Absolutely, only the world would be more inclined to listen if the United States ended all discrimination against homosexuals.
RUDY DIAMOND
* * * * *
No one should be biased against anyone.
WILLIAM SAMS
* * * * *
Absolutely I agree with Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration in telling the world that bias against gays is unacceptable, but I have great concern for the fact that gays are denied their human rights in most states at home.
Who are the people in this group that denies that gays are human? Sadly, we know the answer to that question.
CYNTHIA GOUGH NANCE
* * * * *
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's warning against bias toward gays and lesbians is a boost of morale to the gay communities in the Third World countries. When they fight for their rights they know they have a friend, the United States, standing behind them.
BOON T. LEE
Frank Scism: where ya been, Frank? Secretary of State Clinton has been fighting for women's rights for a long, long, time. "Has anyone heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or President Obama show the same concern about the women's rights around the world?" In order to hear, one must learn to listen.
ReplyDeleteWomen's Rights Are Human Rights by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
September 5, 1995 Beijing, China.
September 20, 2011 New York, New YorkTogether with a selection of major female world leaders, including Catherine Ashton, the European Union's top diplomat, and Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile and the head of U.N. Women, Clinton put her name to a document calling for developing countries -- especially in the changing Middle East -- to clear the way for women to hold leadership roles.
the Egyptian news site Masrawy.com, where her presence excited a stream of questions—more than 6,500 in three days—from young people across Egypt.
We hope,” she said, “that as Egypt looks at its own future, it takes advantage of all of the people’s talents”—Clinton shorthand for including women. She had an immediate answer when a number of questioners suggested that her persistent references to women’s rights constituted American meddling in Egyptian affairs: “If a country doesn’t recognize minority rights and human rights, including women’s rights, you will not have the kind of stability and prosperity that is possible.”.
This question helpes prove my point that the Journal is a liberal newspaper.
ReplyDeleteWhen is the last time that the Journal asked a question like: Do you believe Affirmative Action is discrimination, just in reverse? Or Do you believe that women should have to be treated the same as men in the military, and be forced to fight on the front lines? Or Do you think that the custody of children should be shared equally by both parents, and not be typically awarded to the mother?
And my favorite one, do you believe there should be separate bathrooms for people of a different sexual orientations, like there are now for men and women?
NOoooooooooooooooooo! You're not going to see those type of questions in the Journal. No sir reee Bobby!
By the way-Good morning Bobby.
Gay this and Gay that....! And people criticize me for discussing it so much.
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmmmmmmmm.....that reminds me, I need to look up that story where one gay man put a gerbil up the other man's badend during a loving 'making' session.
@Chucky: while you're at it, look up those studies to support your "world view and experience" that "thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in the United States"
ReplyDeleteHey Reille, since you know I'm wrong, why don't you prove it to me.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, while you're fact checking, look up the statement that it's legal to fire someone because they are gay in 29 states.
You're good at fact finding. The Journal believed you, remember?
Hey, now we know for sure who Brokebuck really is...he's Frank Scism, who just made the most ignorant comment at the Journal website this year.
ReplyDeleteThe scary part is that he is probably eligible to vote.
Great deflection, Chuck, but it won't work. Clearly, that's your MODUS OPERANDI.
ReplyDeleteI never said your were wrong, just ask that you quantify. It's your opinion,not mine. I merely ask knowing that you won't EVER humor me, but always HOPE you will.
BTW: you keep mentioning me and the Journal (that you claim NOT to patronize). I really don't know what you're talking about. Please be more clear.
Prove me wrong, Chuck.
ReplyDeleteHumor me, just prove ME wrong.
ReplyDeleteThere are 22 states that have so-called "right to work" laws. In all of those states workers can be fired for almost any reason, or no reason at all.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at a map of the US showing the 22 right to fire states, you will quickly realize that they are the 22 most backward states in the union.
Sad that this is even a contentious issue, but in a world where a soldier serving in Iraq is booed because he is gay, anything's possible.
ReplyDeleteHello, OT. Right to work laws forbid states from passing laws that allow labor contracts that require union membership. I support those laws, with some provisos to prevent "free riders." You are talking about employment at will, which I also support. I note that some RTW states are doing pretty well, having attracted industries wishing to avoid union assaults on productivity.
ReplyDeleteEmployment at will allows for easier dismissal of unwanted staff, but does not free employers from laws re discrimination or from civil action. I have been an HR mgr, so I have some experience here.
@Rush: I don't know which states you are speaking of but here in NC in filling out applications when I was looking for work, I've been keenly aware that on SOME applications SOME companies will have the disclaimer that they "do not discriminate on the basis race . . . and sexual orientation" while OTHER companies omitted the "sexual orientation" part.
ReplyDeleteIs this because that particular company's headquarters is based out of a state that DOESN'T fire someone because they're gay? Just wondering.
I think it is a simple matter of company policy...not necessarily because of geographic location. No really good company discriminates for any reason. They simply want the best employees that they can find. They don't care if you are a gay, octaroon, fundamentalist Christian, Marxist from Uganda...if you are the best person for the job, they will hire you.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the main reasons for the success of companies like Apple, Google, SAS, Saab, ITT, etc. If you use Adobe Photoshop, when you open the program, you are shown a list of the people who worked on the program...I got to meet the whole crew once...like going to the United Nations.
WAnt to see a picture that will scare the britches off of Bucknewt?
ReplyDeleteWomen in SOC
What's that thing strapped to her chest? Brokebuck would wet his pants just walking down the street in that neighborhood.
In the nearly a year that the women have been serving with the commando teams, evaluations are very high. Two have been KIA so far.
Arthur...you might want to review that video again. Some people say they (the audience) were booeing the question, not the soldier.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I'm not sure what right a person of a different sexual orientation has to leer at another soldier's naked body in the military, anyway.
You got an answer for me yet, Chuck?
ReplyDelete1. Cite your source re “thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants . . .” and voting fraud.
2. What you mean when you speak of me and The Journal.
Hey Rush, you idiot. All of the states that are not 'right to work' A/K/A the progressive states like New York, California, and Illinois (better known as Obamaland) are basically underwater because of high taxes, government regulations, and unions. And, they are looking for bail-outs from the federal government. And, guess what, most are controlled by moronic Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIt took a village, of idiots, to elect Obama.
LaSombra, you're not going to get an answer.
ReplyDeleteConsider Brokebuck's MO:
1. Blurt out something stupid.
2. Get called on it by someone who actually has a brain.
3. a. Ignore the call out.
OR
b. Call the person who called you out names.
OR
c. Both a and b.
Reille....isn't Johnny giving you enough attention? Jeez....!
ReplyDeleteI'll post the gerbil story later Rush. I know you're getting excited.
ReplyDeleteReille...I thought you wrote a letter to the editor about Schatzman, and they wouldn't publish it because they said they couldn't verify the statistics you quoted. At least, that's what they told me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, it was someone else, they wouldn't tell me the name of person who wrote it.
The wouldn't tell you the name so your logical conclusion was that it was me?
ReplyDeleteMy bad; you don't make LOGICAL conclusions.
Now what about the answer to the first question?
ReplyDeleteMy logical conclusion was: It was you that wrote the letter, even though I didn't and don't know your name. I made it based primarily on your comments about Schatzman.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that thousands of illegals are registered to vote, and vote illegally. You may have forgotten, but I speak Spanish, and I float in and out of both cultures routinely. They tell me that they vote in most elections, and they're not citizens. Imagine that?
Okay you've used up most of your twenty questions. Now, when's Johnny going to the slammer?
Interesting... for all your weird anti-gay rants, you still feel the need to come up with a lame excuse and justification. You can't just own it.
ReplyDeleteArthur.....The last time I checked, I'm not under any obligation to please you with my answers and explanations.
ReplyDeleteArthur....do you agree there are gay hate groups out there?
ReplyDeleteAll I do is point out that the homosexual world is not quite as pretty as it's made out to be.
ReplyDeleteOver 90% of what I post about regarding homosexual misconduct is in the public domain. I'm not making this stuff up.
ReplyDeleteGingrich is slamming the judicial branch. It's about time. Judges are trying to run the country from the bench. Who said a federal judge should be able to essentially make laws with his/her decisions.
ReplyDeleteCorruption is running rampant in the U.S. It needs to stop.
Good afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteSum it up: Mr. Benfield pretty much nailed the question. I thought Ms. Motsinger also had a very good response. Mr. Scism must not remember the 1990's when Mrs. Clinton was speaking out on global women's rights at U.N. conferences. Being President or Secretary of State gives a person a powerful bully pulpit to make proclamations concerning the rights of those who are often persecuted and it should be exercised when necessary.
When i was in AZ, the Arizona Republic had an article about snow birds who would vote in person in AZ, then send in an absentee ballot to their home election board. It was actually done out of ignorance that what they were doing was illegal. They just wanted to make sure they had a say in the local govt of both their summer and winter homes.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Dotnet.
ReplyDeleteRelating my babble yesterday about my mother's two legal names. To put it more succinctly: My mother has 2 legal forms of ID (US passport, NC driver's license) and neither matches her voter registration name. Yet over 50 years ago, when she resisted, that was her legal name.
Additionally last Fall 2010, my daughter had an internship in DC through the University of South Carolina Washington Semester program. This program is open to students from several different SC colleges. Of the 17 students who shared one townhouse 3 blocks from the Capitol, she was the only one who requested an absentee ballot.
ReplyDeleteMost of these students are very politically inclined. I know that this is anecdotal evidence and a small sample size, but I really don't think college students are voting at home and at school. It's just too difficult to get them to vote.
According my daughter, one of the students actually had an internship in John Spratt's office and lived in his district, but failed to vote for him. But I do believe that if my mother wanted to she could register to vote in both NC and in Florida because she had the IDs and the addresses to register not that she would.
@Chuck's 1231hrs: OK, so we've whittled the numbers from "thousands upon thousands" down to "thousands" that are registered to vote. Now, I have my own doubts re your claim that those "thousands" have admitted to you they vote illegally. And I do know that you routinely float in and out of both cultures, so you should know that theirs is such a FATALISTIC CULTURE that voting would be the LAST thing they would think about doing, if they do at all.
ReplyDeleteCOME ON, CHUCK . . . !!!
Thousand upon thousands of illegals are registered to vote and vote illegally. How's that sound?
ReplyDeleteReille, I'm talking about in the entire U.S., not just in Forsyth County. You grasp that concept, do you not?
Reille, come play Bingo with us sometime.
ReplyDeleteWell, Charles, you keep changing those numbers on me.
ReplyDeleteOK, so let me get this straight . . . thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants, IN THE ENTIRE U.S., have admitted to you that they have voted illegally . . . AM I STRAIGHT ON THAT?
Reille....based upon my conversations with illegal immigrants, I would say there are thousands of illegals that have voted and will vote illegally in elections.
ReplyDeleteHave I talked to thousands, no. However, based upon my quantitative analysis, my deductions indicate those mentioned figures. Are you with me so far?
@UpChuck Buck:
ReplyDeleteYour numbers have changed again, but I read you loud and clear . . .
whatabunchahooey ! ! !
Here's part of the 'gerbiling' story. I'm still doing research.
ReplyDeleteWARNING this website contains a mature discussion about sexual pleasure untilizing 'gerbils'. View the website at your own risk, perverted sexual practices may be discussed and demonstrated.
http://www.onpedia.com/encyclopedia/gerbilling
Illegals and voting....? Take a read.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/connecticut-gop-blasts-non-citizen-voting-proposal-as-publicity-stunt/?test=latestnews
Thousands upon thousands in New Haven, CT?
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does sound like a publicity stunt but I do believe this man is dead serious; I really hope this will be his final term in office.
ReplyDelete. . . and surprise, surprise. UpChuck cited FOX NEWS.
ReplyDeleteMany sources are now reporting that there are probably more than 18 million illegals in the U.S. My figures for the number of illegals voting is probably on the low end of statistically calculated sprectrum.
ReplyDeleteSome of the most corrupt countries in the world are in latin america. It's no wonder that illegals that come from that area of the world are trying to corrupt our system of voting.
ReplyDeletewhatabunchahooey
ReplyDeleteReille...you've probably forgotten we have 'motor voter laws', and they have resulted in a huge uptick in illegals registering to vote. Many may not have even wanted to register to vote. They just wanted a drivers license.
ReplyDeleteUnivision and other Spanish media outlets constantly talk about immigration issues. Through those outlets, illegals found out they could affect change by voting, so they voted in record numbers.
Record numbers? What's the record? And what was the previous record? Citations?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteah yes, Fox News, aren't they owned by that family of crooks and liars originally from Australia. Attitudes flow from the top.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Transparency International, which compiles corruption statistics annually, only two Latin American nations, Venezuela and Haiti, are among the top 25 most corrupt nations in the world. That hardly meets the meaning of "some of the" as stated by Brokebuck.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that HIS source...his own twisted mind...envisioned at least a dozen or so.
Almost all of the highly corrupt nations, as any educated person knows without having to look it up, are in Africa and Asia. Two of them, Afghanistan (#4) and Iraq (#8), are the result of the bumbling "nation building" of the CheneyBush corruption machine over the last 8-10 years.
BTW, the last "official" US forces left Iraq yesterday...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, as W Doody put it.
According to Brokebuck's invented "statistics" illegal aliens are pouring into the US at a "record" (his favorite word) pace...now 18 million, according to "many sources", which Brokebuck does not name. I can name them for you...they are called LG, or Knothead or Bucky, all reputable research sources.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, according to the only institution, the Pew Hispanic Center, which actually studies such matters, the number of illegal aliens in the US peaked, after a steep climb from 2000 through 2006, at 12 million in 2007, then began a decline to 11.6 million in 2008 and on to 11.2 million in 2010.
The irony is that at its peak in 2007, the illegal alien population comprised just 3.9% of the US population. As Shakespeare put it "Much Ado About Nothing."
Almost overlooked this howler:
ReplyDelete"My figures for the number of illegals voting is probably on the low end of statistically calculated sprectrum. (sic)"
Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? At least until you look at his "figures":
"Thousands upon thousands..." Now that is some accurate figures all right! Faced with the latest statistics, he might have to modify that to "thousands upon thousands."
Brokebuck will not know what the (sic) above means. Those who have been to a real college and majored in real subjects and have written real scholarly papers will.
Brokebuck = Bullshit