Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1 Dominicans Freak Out Over Obama's Gay Ambassador Pick 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,138
    Posted By John Hudson Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 1:55 PM

    Opposition to President Obama's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic reached a fever pitch this week as religious organizers stage a "Lunes Negro" or Black Monday protest against James "Wally" Brewster.

    If confirmed, Brewster will be the first openly gay ambassador to the country, a prospect that is not going over well with some segments of this conservative Christian country of 9 million people. Local reports indicate that church leaders are pressuring the government to reject Brewster's nomination and calling on the faithful to dress in black on Monday in solidarity against him.

    Praise Christian Church Pastor Sauford Medrano is quoted in Diario Libre as saying that Brewster could cause "the U.S. promotion of gender beliefs in the country." That supposedly violates a general education law in the country that "all the Dominican education system is based on Christian principles."
    Read More>http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...mbassador_pick
    It's like we don't want that fag representing yo flag.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,802
    The sad thing is that there were some excellent people who became ambassadors this year, but they were sent to hotspots where they might end up killed, like the crew in Benghazi. (These people worked their way up the Foreign Service chain and are eminently qualified.)

    Notice that these Obama donors/personal friends/shills/gay rights activists are all being sent to calm, stable US allies that have beaches and/or entertainment. Places where you could put a stuffed panda in as ambassador and it wouldn't make any difference. These are definitely pay-to-play rewards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,586
    The Dominican Republic doesn't get to pick who the US sends to them as the Ambassador. Gay people have equal rights in this country. If the Dominicans don't like it, we can always suspend diplomacy and all US aid to their country. I'm sure they'd change their minds fairly quickly over the latter. It's not like they're muslims or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    The Dominican Republic doesn't get to pick who the US sends to them as the Ambassador. Gay people have equal rights in this country. If the Dominicans don't like it, we can always suspend diplomacy and all US aid to their country. I'm sure they'd change their minds fairly quickly over the latter. It's not like they're muslims or something.
    yes they do have a say, so you are wrong.
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,288
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    The Dominican Republic doesn't get to pick who the US sends to them as the Ambassador. Gay people have equal rights in this country. If the Dominicans don't like it, we can always suspend diplomacy and all US aid to their country. I'm sure they'd change their minds fairly quickly over the latter. It's not like they're muslims or something.
    Oh yeah, send an ambassador that violates the beliefs of the country that we're sending him to. What a great idea. I hope you're never in charge of sending ambassadors around the world Noonie. With that attitude you'll be even worse than the Empty Suit...and that's saying something.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Oh yeah, send an ambassador that violates the beliefs of the country that we're sending him to. What a great idea. I hope you're never in charge of sending ambassadors around the world Noonie. With that attitude you'll be even worse than the Empty Suit...and that's saying something.
    Ya I am sure sending an Anti-Semite to Israel in Noonies book would be ok lol
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,409
    No, they don't get to choose. I'm sure some Muslim countries would rather not have female US ambassadors, but they get them sometimes (in Republican AND Democrat administrations).
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    The Dominican Republic doesn't get to pick who the US sends to them as the Ambassador. Gay people have equal rights in this country. If the Dominicans don't like it, we can always suspend diplomacy and all US aid to their country. I'm sure they'd change their minds fairly quickly over the latter. It's not like they're muslims or something.
    The purpose of an ambassador is to represent the President of the United States in dealing with that country, and to facilitate diplomatic relations. Deliberately choosing an ambassador who is calculated to offend the nation to which he will be assigned is counterproductive, unless you are making a point. The appointment of a female ambassador to a Muslim country could be a calculated slight, with the intent of demonstrating that we are powerful enough to not care what they think of our choice, but that is a deliberately provocative act, and there has to be a motive for it. Selwin Duke had an insteresting column on this aspect of Obama's (and most Progressives') outlook:

    While Barack Obama has often been compared to leaders of the past, it's unlikely anyone has yet associated him with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Ruler of the Seleucid Empire between 175 and 164 B.C., King Antiochus is best known for the persecution of Jews, and one story from the second book of Maccabees is particularly relevant here. As the passage tells us, the king was bent on forcing a Jewish woman and her seven sons to, of all things, eat pork. The boys resisted and were tortured and killed one by one as their mother, who ultimately was also murdered, looked on. What's interesting, though, is that while the victims were being faithful to what they believed was divine dietary injunction, there was no Seleucid commandment stating "Thou shalt compel others to dine on swine." The act of eating such meat was but a trivial matter to Antiochus, yet he nonetheless insisted on imposing his will.

    Why would a person do this? It would be for one -- or, more likely, a combination -- of the following reasons:
    • He hates the people in question and simply wants to torment them. Or, perhaps more precisely, he hates what they are and wants to destroy what makes them what they are.
    • His ego cannot tolerate being defied.
    • He views the beliefs at issue as stupid and takes pleasure in punishing those who dare be so "wrong." This is a common human motivation.
    • He wants to break the cohesiveness -- and therefore the resistance -- of the target people by forcing them to relinquish the beliefs binding them together.


    Of course, while a different factor may be dominant in different situations, and while there is tremendous overlap among them, what's obvious is that an Antiochan desire is one of hostility.

    This brings us to a similar situation in our time: King Obama's contraception mandate. The issue was ginned up during the 2012 campaign to rally Democrat support, but that battle has been won and is water under the bridge. Nonetheless and quite bizarrely, Obama insists on trying to force religious employers to fund contraception for their employees, despite the fact that offering such individuals an exemption would cost him nothing politically and would accord with the American tradition of respecting deeply held religious convictions.

    And I'm going to relate a story illustrating just how deeply held they can be. I know of a man who, through some fairly unique connections, could make a healthy and relatively labor-free five-figure income selling contraception. He could really, really use the money, too. Yet he has declined the offer in obedience to his religious beliefs. Now, if a person wouldn't even violate such a principle to win himself a treasure, how would he feel about violating it save someone else a trifle?

    Yet as with King Antiochus, there is no corresponding principle on the other side. Sure, most everyone likes free stuff, but there is no divine injunction stating that anyone must compel others to pay for his contraception. So who should bend here and where does the onus belong?


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2YqFHOwvd
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
    This is just like the contraception mandate. It has nothing to do with contraception, and everything to do with punishing people who don't hold your worldview. Your comment about withholding aid and withdrawing our diplomatic staff simply proves this. Selecting an openly and outspoken gay man as ambassador is calculated to offend, and now you seek to punish them for their being offended. Clearly, you view the beliefs at issue as stupid and takes pleasure in punishing those who dare be so "wrong," as Duke said above, which demonstrates several things, none of which speak well of your character. Try to be a little less petty.

    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003
    No, they don't get to choose. I'm sure some Muslim countries would rather not have female US ambassadors, but they get them sometimes (in Republican AND Democrat administrations).
    That's not entirely true. A country can reject an ambassador's credentials. It recently happened to a Pakistani diplomat who was sent to Saudi Arabia:

    Diplomat Whose Name Is Dirty Word in Arabic Rejected as Saudi Ambassador

    Published February 04, 2010 /
    FoxNews.com

    A high-ranking Pakistani diplomat reportedly cannot be appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia because in Arabic his name translates into a phrase more appropriate for a porn star, referring to the size of male genitals, Foreign Policy reported.

    The Arabic transaltion of Akbar Zeb to "biggest d**k" has overwhelmed Saudi officials who have refused to allow his post there.

    Zeb has run into this problem before when Pakistan tried to appoint him as ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, where he was rejected for the same reason, according to Foreign Policy.
    However, the rejection of a diplomat's credentials is a fairly serious issue. The credentials mean that the diplomant is considered accredited to the host government and is considered an officer of the host government. By selecting a controversial pick, a nation is telling the host government that they have to accept their ambassador, not just as a representative, but as a credentialed officer of the host country. The Saudis had a legitimate case (imagine the press coverage of any event involving Pakistan: "Tonight's top story, King Fahd brought Pakistan's Biggest Dick to Mecca for Ramadan."), and the Pakistanis accepted the response, but that is a very rare occurrence.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    The Arabic transaltion of Akbar Zeb to "biggest d**k" has overwhelmed Saudi officials who have refused to allow his post there.


    (Couldn't help it )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    That's not entirely true. A country can reject an ambassador's credentials. It recently happened to a Pakistani diplomat who was sent to Saudi Arabia:
    You're right, but I can't think of an example with an American diplomat - can you?
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •