What The Hell Kinda Stupid Question is That?

[newpolitics]

hey! I wanna run for president. I gotta have a gay friend to be president. Will you be my gay friend?

haha... You people are retarded idiot assholes

hey, you're in luck! Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions, and chronic leftist stick-up-the-ass is specifically mentioned!

Awesome!!! You think they can pull that melon-sized wet sponge out of your fat head Dave? I bet you they can, at no cost! Taxpayers dime!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey! I wanna run for President. I gotta have a gay friend to be president. Will you be my gay friend?

I can provide a black Muslim American, but he is straight.... but if it helps, I'll put him on the table.

do me a favor,, get me a black gay Muslim American,, and a Puerto Rican..

How about a Puerto Rican Muslim lesbian? Would that do?

Gosh, this is so exciting. It's like a scavenger hunt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Gay people in this country have a right to know why they are considered second class citizens to people like Santorum.

They have the right to vote and at least that can not be taken away from them by santorum.

And they're such a statistically small group, Santorum has the right to ignore them completely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

See, what I'm looking for is a candidate who would respond to that question this way....

"No, Don, I don't have any close friends who are homosexual. You see, I personally find that lifestyle to be incompatible with the morals and values I believe in; and I do my best to keep away from individuals who don't have similar morals and values to myself. I do have a number of associates and acquaintances that are homosexual, but none of my close friends are homosexual."

Or, conversely, I would accept, "Yes, Don, I have friends who are homosexual, and they respect my right to disagree with them and hold differing political opinions from them. Maybe YOU should try it sometime."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seems to me the so called reporter would have come off looking less like a asshole if he had asked an honest question. Such as. "Where do you stand on gay rights!" Everyone know you glean much more information by asking an open honest question that requires more than a yes or no answer. I mean really! How damn stupid is "Do you have any gay friends?" Yes,, end of conversation or No,, also ends the conversation.. how stupid..

But asking a straight (excuse the expression), honest question would have given him a chance to give a complete, informative answer, and the left doesn't want that. They want inconclusive answers that can be twisted to the conservative's detriment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, is this the "I have more gay freinds than you" thread?

 

[daveman]

haha... You people are retarded idiot assholes

hey, you're in luck! Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions, and chronic leftist stick-up-the-ass is specifically mentioned!

Awesome!!! You think they can pull that melon-sized wet sponge out of your fat head Dave? I bet you they can, at no cost! Taxpayers dime!!!

You know how a blonde hears a blond joke, gets mad, and then tells the exact same joke in a bitter and petulant tone, only substituting "brunette" for "blonde"?

That's what you just did.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was surprised the reporter knew so little about the person he was interviewing. When he found out that he had gay friends, he was shocked when this information has been public knowledge for at least 10 years. I thought RS did a great job answering the questions.

the follow up question should have been something like this:

"do you treat your gay friends differently than your straight friend?"

if the answer was yes, that speak volumes that he discriminates between people who are different than him, if the answer was no, the question should have been "then why do you advocate again gay people being treated differently in the eyes of the law?" (i.e. against gay marriage)

He already answered that question. He simply believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. I'm certainly not going to call RS a bigot for his beliefs. I don't agree, but I understand why he would believe the way he does and respect that. I would at a very minimum, however, like to see gay unions recognized. I've known gay men who have died of AIDS and their partner of 10-30 years gets nothing from their estate because the union is not legally recognized. That's clearly wrong.

If they were together 10-30 years, why weren't they listed in the will?

 

[ABikerSailor]

See, what I'm looking for is a candidate who would respond to that question this way....

"No, Don, I don't have any close friends who are homosexual. You see, I personally find that lifestyle to be incompatible with the morals and values I believe in; and I do my best to keep away from individuals who don't have similar morals and values to myself. I do have a number of associates and acquaintances that are homosexual, but none of my close friends are homosexual."

Or, conversely, I would accept, "Yes, Don, I have friends who are homosexual, and they respect my right to disagree with them and hold differing political opinions from them. Maybe YOU should try it sometime."

Yanno........there are several Democrats who could be asked that question......Barny Frank for one.

And, as far as the budget? When Jr's tax cuts for the wealthy were first enacted, they put a time limit on it, because they wanted to see if it would work. Sadly, it didn't.

Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, and have them start paying their fair share. Last night, I saw a Republican (who incidentally was in the Treasury under Reagan and Bush Sr.), talking about the tax cuts. He said that yeah, it would make the economy better if they cut taxes back in the 80's, because the economy was viable enough to support it. He then stated that the current situation is about 180 out from what it used to be, and if we want the economy to survive, get rid of some of these tax cuts and get the economy healthy again.

We've tried the experiment for 10 years now. It's failed. Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire.

 

[Jack Fate]

See, what I'm looking for is a candidate who would respond to that question this way....

"No, Don, I don't have any close friends who are homosexual. You see, I personally find that lifestyle to be incompatible with the morals and values I believe in; and I do my best to keep away from individuals who don't have similar morals and values to myself. I do have a number of associates and acquaintances that are homosexual, but none of my close friends are homosexual."

Or, conversely, I would accept, "Yes, Don, I have friends who are homosexual, and they respect my right to disagree with them and hold differing political opinions from them. Maybe YOU should try it sometime."

Yanno........there are several Democrats who could be asked that question......Barny Frank for one.

And, as far as the budget? When Jr's tax cuts for the wealthy were first enacted, they put a time limit on it, because they wanted to see if it would work. Sadly, it didn't.

Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, and have them start paying their fair share. Last night, I saw a Republican (who incidentally was in the Treasury under Reagan and Bush Sr.), talking about the tax cuts. He said that yeah, it would make the economy better if they cut taxes back in the 80's, because the economy was viable enough to support it. He then stated that the current situation is about 180 out from what it used to be, and if we want the economy to survive, get rid of some of these tax cuts and get the economy healthy again.

We've tried the experiment for 10 years now. It's failed. Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire.

Do you think we are spending too much?

 

[Skynet]

Or, conversely, I would accept, "Yes, Don, I have friends who are homosexual, and they respect my right to disagree with them and hold differing political opinions from them. Maybe YOU should try it sometime."

Yanno........there are several Democrats who could be asked that question......Barny Frank for one.

And, as far as the budget? When Jr's tax cuts for the wealthy were first enacted, they put a time limit on it, because they wanted to see if it would work. Sadly, it didn't.

Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, and have them start paying their fair share. Last night, I saw a Republican (who incidentally was in the Treasury under Reagan and Bush Sr.), talking about the tax cuts. He said that yeah, it would make the economy better if they cut taxes back in the 80's, because the economy was viable enough to support it. He then stated that the current situation is about 180 out from what it used to be, and if we want the economy to survive, get rid of some of these tax cuts and get the economy healthy again.

We've tried the experiment for 10 years now. It's failed. Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire.

Do you think we are spending too much?

there is no doubt that spending needs to be cut, but taxes need to be raised as well. our current tax level is at its lowest in 60 years.

but until you tackle medicare, medicaid, social security and defense spending (which along with interest on the debt) accounts for 80% of the budget, you could cut the entire other 20% and your budget would still not balance without a raise in taxes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

See, what I'm looking for is a candidate who would respond to that question this way....

"No, Don, I don't have any close friends who are homosexual. You see, I personally find that lifestyle to be incompatible with the morals and values I believe in; and I do my best to keep away from individuals who don't have similar morals and values to myself. I do have a number of associates and acquaintances that are homosexual, but none of my close friends are homosexual."

Or, conversely, I would accept, "Yes, Don, I have friends who are homosexual, and they respect my right to disagree with them and hold differing political opinions from them. Maybe YOU should try it sometime."

Yanno........there are several Democrats who could be asked that question......Barny Frank for one.

And, as far as the budget? When Jr's tax cuts for the wealthy were first enacted, they put a time limit on it, because they wanted to see if it would work. Sadly, it didn't.

Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, and have them start paying their fair share. Last night, I saw a Republican (who incidentally was in the Treasury under Reagan and Bush Sr.), talking about the tax cuts. He said that yeah, it would make the economy better if they cut taxes back in the 80's, because the economy was viable enough to support it. He then stated that the current situation is about 180 out from what it used to be, and if we want the economy to survive, get rid of some of these tax cuts and get the economy healthy again.

We've tried the experiment for 10 years now. It's failed. Let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire.

And we've been trying the ever increasing entitlement mentality for eight times as long. Upping taxes on 1% of the population ain't gonna do shit.