Fox News issues memo to all Republican candidates...stop the gay bashing

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
fox new is just full of a bunch of libtards anyway. :sneaky:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Where is evidence of this 'memo' or is this just another misleading thread title by homer?
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,785
6,032
136
Moonbeam said:
In a few years the Republican party will be running against everything they stand for today because the population will have grown past all the stupid bigotry their platform is based on.

Belief in such notions as low taxes on the rich, the that the government is evil, etc. will be so rejected by the people that anybody espousing them will be considered a Neanderthal, as most people can already see today.




^^^They've already done that. Listen to some of Ike's speeches, even Nixon & Ronnie, they'd be run out of town on rails by the Tea Party & current repubs!
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,966
27,643
136
Where is evidence of this 'memo' or is this just another misleading thread title by homer?

Everyone knows RA isn't stupid enough to send an email to all the candidates, "hey ease up on gay people" This is the way of getting that message out.

When the right wants to put out dirt on the President and keep their hands clean they'll drop a note to Matt Drudge, he'll post it on his website, Fox commentators will read and get on the air and say "it's been reported in the media that..."

When the White House is thinking enacting a policy that might be controversial they float what is known as a trial balloon. Drop an anonymous note to a reporter, it gets published and then wait for a reaction.

Information like this is essentially laundered.

The normal MO when dealing with tough questions for Republicans ask and maybe have one followup and move on. Chris pounded Rick in such an unusual fashion it had to be a directive.
 

shocksyde

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2001
5,539
0
0
Quite right, but any democrat who isn't ashamed at the way their party uses special interests groups to their advantage is also an imbecile.

True, but while my post is relevant to the topic of the thread, yours is not.
 

shocksyde

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2001
5,539
0
0
Maybe the real message is to stop kissing up the the gay man's Ass! Why do people have to draw attention to themselves because they are gay? It is because they think they have more rights than other people. This is baloney.

Should we have stopped kissing the black man's ass when they were fighting for civil rights? Should we have stopped kissing women's asses when they were fighting for the right to vote? Your outlook is truly scary.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Existence of memo is speculative. Thread title should change.

It was nice to see Santorum pwned on the issue.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
So there is no memo and you should change the title to reflect reality...

In fairness I don't see this as different from your "black on black violence" thread title (which I also defended) - just a jokey, metaphorical reference to what may or may not be (and probably isn't) an official position of Fox News.

For whatever it's worth I enjoyed watching Chris Wallace lay into that jackass Santorum.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,478
6,901
136
Hey, maybe the gay solider that got bashed at the debate was a plant by the Dems?

Now, ridiculous or real as it sounds, the point I'm making is it really doesn't matter what the Repub candidates do or say to influence their own image or the outward behavior of their constituents on this issue, what really matters is the core beliefs and attitudes of the people that vote for them. It's established fact that gay bashers will/have side(ed) with the Repubs, who have used gay bashing for years and years to attract those very voters that vocally expressed their beliefs at that debate. IMO, it's too late to shift gears and try to "appear" favorable or neutral on the subject of gays in the military for the Repubs. Being anti-gay has been hard wired in their platform for the longest time. It's only logical that anti-gays have found a home in that Party as opposed to the alternative.

The reaction the gay soldier received from those in the crowd was an expression of their core beliefs. That being said, you could rightly or wrongly say that there were just as many or more Republicans that were truly ashamed of what happened at the debate as there were those who expressed their hatred for gays, or specifically, gay military members, and not because of the open public display of hatred, but because of a sincere regard for gays. For others, it may be a side issue with more important issues that keep them in the Party.

And what of the many gay Repubs in the Party? They are there. How many? I'd say more than the Repubs would openly admit. Are they now going to vote for Obama because of what happened at the debate? What about the gays who are presently serving in the military? Are they too now going to vote Democrat because of what happened? What of their Repub friends and families who sympathize with their plight? Not a simple issue to weigh, after all is said and done.

It's really not a matter of the Repub Party finding a new identity, or reshaping its "appearance" for wider appeal, which apparently, is what they're after. It is what it is, and the anti-gays are an integral part of their indentity. They can be publicly marginalized, they can even be publicly rebuked *wink-wink*, but logically, they have nowhere else to go. They know it and the Party knows it. The anti-gays are a core constituency within the Party and the Party will have to deal with that one way or another.

However, what the Repubs cannot control are the wild card Independents that obviously makes or breaks any close election. It would be quite interesting to know how much of a deal maker/breaker this gay bashing issue is among them.

Ooops, sorry OP, from following my musings on this topic I may have taken your thread off on a tangent a bit. :oops:
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,966
27,643
136
So there is no memo and you should change the title to reflect reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum

A memorandum (abbrev.: memo) is from the Latin verbal phrase memorandum est, the gerundive form of the verb memoro, "to mention, call to mind, recount, relate",[1] which means "It must be remembered (that)...". It is therefore a note, document or other communication that helps the memory by recording events or observations on a topic

Memo (memorandum) is appropriate in the context of the post
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,966
27,643
136
It's really not a matter of the Repub Party finding a new identity, or reshaping its "appearance" for wider appeal, which apparently, is what they're after. It is what it is, and the anti-gays are an integral part of their indentity. They can be publicly marginalized, they can even be publicly rebuked *wink-wink*, but logically, they have nowhere else to go. They know it and the Party knows it. The anti-gays are a core constituency within the Party and the Party will have to deal with that one way or another.
:

You are correct. I wasn't trying to focus on the booing of the soldier as much as powerful GOP establishment types a.k.a Roger Ailes realized how this hurts the party and used his TV show to get the word out. Of course I only have circumstantial evidence but again, it goes completely against their pattern of interviewing GOP guests. That ambush style quote was the kicker for me.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
So now that no one is anti-gay, can we talk about fixing the HIV epidemic that now has 1/5 of gay American males infected?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Wait, so being in favor of DADT is gay bashing now? Because last time I checked, liberals weren't complaining about it when Bill Clinton first instituted the policy to begin with. And even if they did, they weren't calling Clinton anti-gay anyway.

Yes, it is. For a couple reasons.

First, DADT was progress towards less discrimination against gays. Sometimes, a policy that is discrimnatory, but less so, is supported as progress. That was the case with DADT.

In fact, Clinton had run on ending gay discrimination, and was blocked by Colin Powell, who had more prestige than Clinton at the time and was a skilled bureaucratic player.

So, supporting DADT then in contrast to the old policy of discrimination was progress; supporting it later in contrast to ending discrimination is discriminatory.

Second, DADT was found not to be what it was said to be. Rather than allowing gays to serve without discrimination, something like 13,000 gay soldiers were discharged IIRC.
 
Last edited:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
lol that was funny to watch. the guy sure dug his grave. i don't see him getting elected after that heh.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Whether or not there's any central direction on this theme, I'm glad to see Fox News take Republicans like Santorum to task for gay bashing. I don't think supporting DADT was gay bashing, but re-instating it after gay servicemen and -women have safely come out of the closet would be highly discriminatory. Therefore it should only be done if the military demands it and shows real, systemic problems that can only be solved by refusing to allow openly gay people to serve. Also, DADT was fundamentally flawed in that it mandated removing people who were revealed to be gay even if that orientation was causing no problems whatsoever and their unit brethren and chain of command all stood behind them. Even if the military had to return to not allowing openly gay servicemen, it deserves more discretion than that. Smart people don't cut off their noses to spite their faces.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So? Who says the military can't be discriminating?
The military can and should be highly discriminating. I couldn't join, for instance - I'm tool old, too fat, and dependent on levrothyroxen to survive. What the military cannot and should not be is discriminating arbitrarily and without need. If the military honestly cannot have openly gay service members and operate at full efficiency, I'd support that, meaning a return to some form of institutional discrimination. What I would not support is any form of institutional discrimination that is not truly necessary. This isn't pure principle here; there are no doubt gay servicemen and -women who have served for years but who came out after DADT was ended. Restoring DADT or something like it would require the military to lose their services (not to mention the effects on those gays personally) so for discrimination to make sense, you'd have to show that this loss is significantly less damaging than the cumulative effect of allowing openly gay people to serve. And it has to be significant; you don't derail a lot of people's lives for a net wash or even for some small perceived gain. Don't discriminate based on actions not adversely affecting performance.

It's obvious that placing in the field someone like myself who requires a specialized medication to even survive interferes with military efficiency. It's obvious that placing in the field someone who was obviously and openly gay would have interfered with military efficiency in the nineteenth century. It's not obvious that placing in the field someone who is obviously and openly gay will interfere with military efficiency in the twenty-first century, nor is it necessarily obvious that a return to prohibiting gays (especially those who were serving honorably and quietly under DADT, but who are now out of the closet) from serving would necessarily help the military more than it hurts it. A claim like that requires significant evidence as proof, and those making it in a Republican Presidential nominee debate are almost certainly doing so to pander to social conservatives rather than to military members and their families. While the military can and should have the right to discriminate where necessary, that doesn't automatically make any such discrimination morally acceptable or even legal. Don't discriminate based on actions not adversely affecting performance.