Gay activists flip off Reagan's picture

That’s not the point. There are a lot of people that should get the bird for what they’ve done, (or haven’t done), in power. There’s a time and a place for these things.

This was not the time, nor the place.

If you want to get mad at someone about the spread of AIDS in the gay community, how about the gay activists in San Francisco who demanded that the bath houses remain open while AIDS was spreading like wildfire.

In case you are wondering the White House isn’t happy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/22/activists-photographed-flipping-bird-to-reagan-portrait-at-white-house/

Thanks, hajario. I was about to post exactly the same story, with exactly the same quote.

In the California History class i teach, i discuss the debate over Prop 6 during the lesson on the rise of the gay rights movement in the state, and also use it as an example of how some politicians don’t always do what people might expect them to do.

I have little time for Reagan’s politics. I think his anti-communist obsessions as head of SAG during the HUAC witchhunts of the 1940s and 1950s were damaging to American liberties; his obsession with Berkeley and the counterculture movement during his run for Governor was hysterical opportunism; and i didn’t think much of his presidency either. But he stepped up big time during the Prop 6 debate, and there were people within the California gay rights movement at the time who felt that his announcement made the difference in the outcome.

You could argue that he sat on his hands during the AIDS epidemic, and i think that there’s some merit to that argument. But he certainly wasn’t the Lone Ranger in that respect, and he was also working under pressure from a large section of the American right that were putting heavy pressure on him because they felt that he had not been a strong enough supporter of evangelical Christian politics.

False dilemma. Why not both?

This is my problem with activists. Not just gay activists, but activists in general. They go out of their way to be obnoxious at times. Why the hell don’t they act with respect and dignity in the President’s house?

Squeeze the tit on one at the National Art Gallery. I did. :wink:

Can we please stop trotting out this “waah, freedom of speech” nonsense every time somebody is told to censor themselves? The same principle encompasses our right to tell these people they were acting like jackasses. Nobody is talking about sending them to jail or fining them for exercising their rights.

I can flip off your grandmother, too, and be perfectly within my rights. It doesn’t mean I’m not being a douche.

Because going out of their way to be obnoxious gets them and their cause attention? If they had “acted with respect and dignity in the President’s house”, this thread and other discussions of them and what they did wouldn’t exist; and plenty of people and organizations subscribe to the “any attention is good attention” theory of advertizing.

Millions in a decade? Derh…

Don’t inflate numbers to ‘make a point’.

They’re not disrespecting Reagan, they’re disrespecting Obama. Incredibly rude. I’m not outraged, though. If I got outraged every time a douchebag acted like an ass, my head would have long ago exploded like that guy from Scanners.

Boors, yes. Douchebags, not quite. If they’d smuggled in silly-string and decorated the painting (without actually damaging it)…douchebags.

Not it this case. It was a HUGE mistake fro them to do this. Not only was it just plain disrespectful to the Office of the President, Reagan, Obama, and the White House, it was tactically a beyond dumb thing to do. If you believe in gay rights, do you think this is going to win over more people or create more of a barrier. Hell, do you think it would win over even one person who is already not sympathetic to the cause?

You can believe what you want now, I’m not going to try to penetrate that layers of psychoses that makes you you. You can judge if I’m right after you see these pictures when gay issues come on the ballots in various states in the future. My money say they’ll be used by those who are against the very policies that those two asshole advocate. If you’re right, they’ll be used but the gay activists, too.

Yeah, right.

How dare you interfere with the competition. Can’t you see that Honesty is trying to steal the title of Biggest Douchebag on the SDMB from Der Trihs? Though he trying to add a little flavor of “I’m a Tough Guy”. Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. It’s the human equivalent of monkey throwing feces.

They were at a White House reception. Doesn’t that indicate they had already achieved some recognition? This isn’t 1970 - gay rights issue are out there on the public agenda.

Apparently they decided it wasn’t enough so they had to make a gesture to spread the message. Of course that message turned out to be “gay people are assholes who hate America.” With a side helping of “Obama invites people like that to the White House? He must hate America too.”

Yes, I know that isn’t remotely true. But that’s what a lot of people are going to be thinking. By acting like assholes, Hart and Strauss punched the gay rights movement and the Obama administration in the nuts.

We can always rely on you to know what’s best for the gay rights movement, right?

Do you think what I said is wrong or right?

While the rest of us sit there, shaking our heads, and wondering what kind of idiots are piloting their agenda.

I think it was partly right, but i also don’t think it will really have any effect either way. It’s not going to gain them any supporters, but i’d be very surprised if it lost them any either.

More generally, i think it’s an infinitesimally small blip in a much larger trend towards greater recognition and acceptance of LBGT rights, and greater commitment to LBGT equality in America.

Hell, just yesterday one of the major supporters of Prop 8 here in California, a guy who was one of the two main witnesses supporting Prop 8 in the 2010 federal court case, wrote an Op-Ed piece saying that he now supports recognizing homosexual unions as marriages:

I don’t care very much for his stigmatizing of “nonmarital cohabitation,” and there are still plenty of other areas where his priorities and mine differ, but at least he has the intellectual honesty to recognize that banning gay marriage isn’t somehow going to make straight marriages better or improve the lives of children, and that just because marriage has previously been defined as man/woman, it doesn’t always have to be that way.

His turnaround gives me some hope that even an asshole like you might one day see the light, but i won’t hold my breath.

Nah. People who are already anti-gay will shout out how outrageous this is and screech about how very, very offended they are, but exactly zero people are going to actually change the way they vote because of something this insignificant. And a week from now only the screeching anti-gay lunatics will even remember it anyway.