Gay activists flip off Reagan's picture

What a stupid and pointless act.

A group of gay activists were invited to the White House to meet with President Obama. And how did two of them choose to use this opportunity? They took pictures of themselves flipping off a picture of Ronald Reagan and posted the pictures online.

Grow up, you idiots. You’re guests in the White House. Show some respect. Hell, show some respect when you’re guests in anyone’s house.

Show some respect to the President of the United States. You insulted both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama by your stupidity.

And if you’re going to “protest” pick something that has some meaning or accomplishes something of substance. All you did was embarrass whatever organization you were there to represent.

Gay Activists Flip Off Ronald Reagan Portrait At White House

Well, nobody should be showing respect to Reagan!

I don’t care if people want to post pictures of themselves on Facebook making obscene gestures at the picture of a politician they dislike, even if it’s a former POTUS.

However, if they used a formal White House reception as the occasion for taking such pictures, then they’re uncouth boors. If you can’t behave yourself with dignity and propriety while visiting the official seat of the executive branch of our nation’s government, then don’t fucking visit it.

(And I’m not counting having a peaceful protest on the sidewalk outside the White House, which I think is perfectly valid. But if you’re going to behave like a respectful and decorous visitor long enough to get inside the door, then you need to keep behaving that way for the duration of your visit.)

It’s disrespecting Obama, too, though.

Yes, how outrageous that gay people would show disrespect to Reagan and then share photos of their disrespectful act on Facebook. The principles our country was founded on certainly don’t encompass the right to be disrespectful of political leaders. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: back atcha. The founders who enshrined those principles in our fundamental law of the land understood that it was possible to disagree with, and even insult, one’s political opponents without behaving childishly or otherwise indecorously on a formal or ceremonial occasion.

Trying to drape a bunch of immature rude smacktivists in the august mantle of the Founding Fathers’ veneration of liberty is a piece of corny political schlock worthy of Reagan himself.

Methinks that disrespecting a president (Obama) who repealed DADT and just came out in favor of gay marriage might be a bit counter-productive to what they are trying to acomplish.

Maybe that’s just me.

Fortunately the Founding Fathers didn’t see fit to say that Congress shall make no law restricting mature, adult speech.

So you think that this is going to negatively impact gay rights? You think that people who otherwise were in favor of, say, passing laws against job discrimination, or the fight for marriage equality, are now going to change their minds? That’s the only way I can see that it’d be “counterproductive”.

And it’s not obvious to me why I should consider it disrespectful of President Obama anyway.

Reminds me of the gay KGO San Francisco radio talk show host who got in trouble for singing “The Wicked Witch is Dead” on air when Reagan died to celebrate his death.

To Reagan? No; he was scum. And gays have a special reason to hate him given how he tried to neglect AIDS in order to kill as many of them as possible; you might as well expect Obama to show respect to a KKK leader.

Not negatively impact gay rights in general, just whatever they were there for. Acting like jackasses in the halls of the White House is not going to win you any friends - especially not the current occupant.

Do you think Obama wants this bullshit? He just came out in favor of gay marriage and now two douchebags have provided ammunition for the far right to attack him for it. That is just one of the reasons it is disrespectful and counter - productive.

Mister Nyx, how do you think Fox News is going to play this?

Do you honestly think this shit helped?

Really? It’s not that hard to figure out.

Treating a formal occasion like an LGBT Pride reception at the White House as an opportunity for rude and undignified behavior, no matter how much the object of the rudeness might personally deserve such treatment, is traditionally considered to show contempt for the venue and the hosts as well as for the target.
If people want to disrespect Reagan by waving their middle fingers at his portrait and posting photographic evidence of their courageous defiance on Facebook, they’re only insulting Reagan himself, which is the point of the exercise. But if they’re using a formal White House reception as the venue for their obscene posing, then they’re simply uncouth boors in general, bereft of both elementary manners and elementary PR savvy.

I’m pretty sure Obama’s awesome enough that he’s not going to let this change his views on anything. And I’m guessing these people aren’t his close personal friends anyway, so the whole friendship angle doesn’t really seem like a big issue here.

. . . really? The actual ammunition for the far right was that bit where he first called for and successfully won the repeal of DADT. Then the time he said that his views on marriage equality were “evolving”. Then the bit where he said the administration would not defend the unconstitutional provisions of DOMA in court. Then the part where he said that he thought same-sex couples ought to be permitted to get married.

Pretty sure those are the things that are going to rile up the far right all on their own, and that a couple photos of people giving the finger to a portrait are not going to make any real difference. I feel confident that a talking point that lasts a day or two is not going to prove to be the decisive issue in the election or even any significant source of ammunition.

On the advice given by Kimstu in another thread, I changed into my comfiest undies, and perhaps the lack of bunching is why I am unable to get outraged about this issue. Talk to me again on laundry day and maybe I’ll be able to muster a fuck to give.

Dude. They are douchebags. You don’t have to support them just because you support gay rights and dislike Ronnie. They are still douchebags.

And yet somehow I still just don’t give a crap about this and I haven’t yet seen why I should.

Exactly. I support gay rights and I voted against Reagan twice (and would have voted against him more if I had lived in California). But I wouldn’t choose a White House reception to demonstrate the point.

And I wouldn’t use posting a picture of myself on facebook flipping off a painting of a guy who’s been dead for eight years as a means of making my point either.

And nobody besides you has said anything about the law.

Nobody has said that what they did was or should be illegal. We have freedom of speech and that’s important.

And I’m using that freedom of speech to call these two people assholes.

To adopt a homely analogy that you might find easier to understand, it’s the same reason why you shouldn’t use the occasion of your friend’s wedding in Lafayette Park as an opportunity to piss on the statue of Andrew Jackson while screaming obscenities. No matter how much you personally may disapprove of Jackson’s policies as a President or think that he richly deserves a gesture of contempt.

The reason not to indulge in such obscene antics at a White House reception is the same as at your friend’s wedding. Namely, because in both cases, it’s rude, uncouth and douchebaggy of you to take advantage of a formal ceremonial occasion to show off your own smacktivist, attention-whoring political grandstanding.

Clearer now?

Not really. It’s very difficult for me to equate a reception at the White House with activists – a political event, planned for the cameras and calculated for the benefit of the place’s residents and to achieve political aims (not that I wish to denigrate the event; I think that’s a perfectly fair thing for a president to do and I think the political aims here are good ones) – which something which is very deeply personal like a wedding. I can’t see the equation of a wedding with a White House press event, even a press event I approve of, like this one. Or, for that matter, a major government building like the White House with a regular house, even given that there are some folks living there. (And I have to assume that the actual living quarters aren’t part of the tour when visitors come. Or else Malia and Sasha are way better at making their beds than I was at their age. So it’s not really equivalent to being in a regular person’s house.)

I say all this as a big fan of the president and the First Family, but this is, still, fundamentally, a political event, not an actual personal thing like a wedding, and it’s impossible for me to really view there as being any real equation between those two things. If someone disrupted a state funeral (even of someone I don’t like), I’d join in the outrage. But equating this to a personal event like that just kind of seems silly to me.

I also think you kind of overstated a bit when you described pissing on a statue while screaming obscenities. I would definitely be lining up to condemn these people had they pissed on that portrait while screaming obscenities. It’s not nice to pee on art.

Seems to me what you Americans need is a monarch, Somebody apolitical you can get your knickers in a twist over.

Get over yourselves already!