RECENT  POSTS:  » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie' » WND activist: 'Dan Savage has done far worse things than Westboro [Baptist];' says to send him to Iraq to challenge those who hang gays  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/31/2010

Boehner: Sh*t happens, so why bother flushing what we can?

by Jeremy Hooper

His view:

"In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate [over Don't Ask Don't Tell]?" While at boehnera time when Americans are asking 'where are the jobs,' why do we want to get in this debate? While we're fighting over health care and trying to find some way to come to some common ground, why do we want to get into a divisive debate that will do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work?"

-House Minority Leader John Boehner, Meet The Press, 1/31/09

Which is kind of like saying:

"I have a mortgage payment that I'm having a little trouble paying, my car needs a tuneup, and I'd really like to freshen up this wardrobe of mine. Plus my son is doing poorly in school, having made his first ever D, and my daughter is distraught over the latest breakup with her boyfriend. And if that weren't enough, I'm having a tough time processing 'American Idol' without Paula. I didn't realize how much I'd miss her until she was gone.

So since I, like all human beings with something called a life, have lots on my table, then nobody, anywhere, ever should even think of taking on an issue that doesn't directly apply to my plane of existence or help my own personal team advance their decided-upon goal. Because even though we all share this world and most us are born with an impressive ability to multi task, it doesn't mean we should actually step up to the plate and use those abilities in order to realize our full potential. Not when there are a whole host of other matters we can point to as a way to unreasonably undermine a crucial matter of non-discrimination that deeply weakens this nation, its national security, its people, and the fair employment of a portion thereof.

So in summation: I have a hangnail, so I'm not going to care about climate change; I'm concerned about Haiti, so I'm going to table my views on reproductive freedom; I'm in the middle of a divorce, so we should close the borders; there are militants in the world, so I'm going to neglect the issue of childhood obesity; and I'm way behind on my Tivo, so marriage must be protected from gays. After all, If we simultaneously execute too many neurons at once, the terrorists win."

-Some other random American who refuses to use fair-minded reason, preferring to instead follow Boehner's lead and use non sequiturs to justify his or her failure to care about something that should matter to any socially conscious American

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I'm pretty sure that Obama and the Dems will never do a damm thing for the gays, other than continue to take their money and laugh at them behind their backs. So mr G.A.Y. the question to you is what is your time limit to see any progress out of Obama and the Dems? One long year has come and gone, you still writting checks to HRC?

Posted by: Jim in St Louis | Jan 31, 2010 2:07:52 PM

Huh? Why is bashing Obama/Dems/HRC the *first* reaction to REPUBLICAN John Boehner's anti-equality quip? Good God.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 31, 2010 2:14:53 PM

Well, Jim in St Louis, Hate Crimes legislation ain't nothin'. And, I don't recall any Democrats standing on the floor of the House or the Senate calling the "Matthew Shepard Act" the "Pedophile Protection Act". All of that hate speech came from Republicans. Obama has been in office for one year, and has faced a blanket filibuster for each and virtually every piece of legislation in the Senate. So, I'm willing to cut him a little slack... but only a little.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 31, 2010 3:10:18 PM

To John Boehner (pronounced Boner?).

I have a job. I am not currently concerned about the employment issue because my job is quite secure.

So since I have a job, should I not worry about those who don't? Guess so. I guess since this issue doesn't effect me, I shouldn't pay attention to it, or learn about how it's harming people, or what I can do to help, or what legislation is on the books that I can help vote for or against in terms of helping those to the best of my ability.

No. It doesn't effect me. To me, the jobs issue is meaningless. So I don't care. And to be honest, I don't knwo why everyone else who has a job already, should care either. We all have jobs. Sucks that you don't, but Haiti is collapsing. And to me, it's much more important to save the life of an abandoned orphan than to make sure someone else just gets a job. Sorry unemployed people, your plight just doesn't register on my radar.

This is the kind of logic this guy is trying to use. It's not logic. It's stupidity. And it's insulting that this guy thinks America can only focus on, only tackle one issue at a time.

Dumbass

Posted by: Stef | Jan 31, 2010 3:24:27 PM

Exactly, Stef. The "we have other priorities" mindset is so frustratingly familiar.

Of course these folks never say as much when they are pushing one of their bans through a state leg.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 31, 2010 3:39:23 PM

I really, REALLY hate weak, candy a$$ed people in high public office!

If you can't LEAD, not even by example and you bald faced tell a minority like gay people to wait, because you're too weak or you think gay people are stupid or you think that their patience is something to exploit, I see the cowardice front and center.

Sure, laying in all on the 'there are more important things than YOUR little ol problems' wagon, how trite.
How utterly cruel and it must be nice to afford it, and it's cheap.
A very cheap and easy stalling tactic.

And meanwhile, I guess they think they have ALL the military personnel they need to get 'er done.
Seriously, just because THEY would be too candy a$$ed to serve alongside a gay soldier, doesn't mean OTHER soldiers won't or can't.
They insult the military who DO and WOULD who outclass him and his weakness.

And I'm wondering if our country's powers just doesn't feel like actually BEING prepared for anything.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 31, 2010 3:46:53 PM

"why do we want to get into a divisive debate that will do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work?"

WOW.

A Republican, the people who have spent the past year screaming about death panels, socialist takeovers, etc. Are bitching about Obama starting a 'divisive debate' that wastes time and distracts people from the real important issues.

PS: Who else noticed that in all his whining he conveniently forgets to mention the only reason repealing DADT could be a long time wasting process is if him and the other bigots try to stop it?

Posted by: penguinsaur | Jan 31, 2010 4:14:42 PM

I read the second bit as sarcastic, rather than serious, though maybe it's just me. Anyone else?

Posted by: WMDKitty | Jan 31, 2010 4:29:46 PM

What better time is there to keep quantified troops then at wartime?!?!?!?!?!?

I'm sure there's no good time for Boehner concerning DADT, what a disingenuous statement to make all together.

Posted by: Bob Barnes | Jan 31, 2010 4:35:29 PM

What do you mean by "second part" WMD? Our response? Because yea, that's *dripping* in sarcasm -- saturated, even :-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jan 31, 2010 4:53:43 PM

"While we're fighting over health care and trying to find some way to come to some common ground, why do we want to get into a divisive debate that will do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work?"

You're right, John. We shouldn't have this debate. It's annoying, divisive, and distracting. So would you fundies please stand aside and let us repeal DADT? That way there won't be any of that "divisive" debate that we're all so opposed to.

Posted by: The Watcher | Jan 31, 2010 5:07:30 PM

He's right, we should focus on jobs now. I'm pretty sure the thousands that were thrown out of the military are in need of jobs as well!

Posted by: Jason J. | Jan 31, 2010 11:08:32 PM

part of the best above... "and I'm way behind on my Tivo, so marriage must be protected from gays. After all, If we simultaneously execute too many neurons at once, the terrorists win." " ... QUINTESSENTIAL JH... Thanks, posted and blasted!!!

Posted by: LOrion | Feb 1, 2010 1:54:12 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails