Comments

  1. says

    Barry shouldn’t allow close-up photos. I’m reminded of the movie “Death Becomes Her”.

    That said, perhaps Barry wouldn’t be so enamored of Paul’s statements if he didn’t already have a bajillion dollars and actually stood a chance of needing some of that social safety net. But then again, that’s Libertarian thinking for you. Solipsistic, deepy selfish, and thoroughly bratty.

  2. antb says

    thanks Matt Munson for that drive-by Obama bashing on a thread that has nothing to do with him. Any gay person who thinks not voting for Obama is going to do anything but lose us some of our recent hard-fought Federal gains (DADT repeal, govt non-defense of DOMA etc) is either clueless, not paying attention, or stupid. Or maybe, MM, a troll coming in to drop stinkbombs and then slink off into the troll gutter.

  3. ohplease says

    ANTB, you can blindly support the less obvious evil of two evils if you want, but don’t expect thinking people to follow you down that path. Your lack of understanding of Barry’s first term is appalling, but it does explain why you would support him at this point.

    Believing that all Americans are equal is NOT too much to ask of the President of the United States of America.

  4. says

    Not exactly a troll. But I know Im not exactly a RPG thrower like Tank. Im just annoyed that the president doesnt have the testicular fortitude to stand up against ignorance, prejudice and fear in North Carolina, just because he wants to win their electoral votes.

    Its just ironic that either we will get discrimination and a good economy. Or equality and a crap economy.

  5. Brains says

    I just had to indicate that “ANTB” is correct!

    Any LGBT person who votes for a Republican needs to have their head checked!

    And don’t worry, with Republican president, they shall have clinics for that in the concentration camp you will be assigned to…!

  6. Robert in NYC says

    What can we expect from a self-loathing closet case to vote for a republican? Civil Libertarians are still republicans, make no mistake about that. Ron Paul supports DOMA and will NEVER be president or VP. So in the final analysis, gay civil libertarians and their fellow scumbag tea partyers will vote for two antigay candidates, Romney or Perry just so the smarter African-American doesn’t get another term even if it means tanking the economy.

  7. says

    This is pretty representative of the Ron Paul fanboys. They’re all a bunch of psuedo-intellectuals who don’t have the foggiest idea about the dangerous agenda Paul would advance if he were actually President.
    Idiots.

  8. matt says

    Typical responses from the unemployed gay community about Barry Manilow. Fact is, Ron Paul is not the worst candidate, he actually has a pretty good record on gay rights, his views on the Middle East wars is absolutely correct, and he has many views that when investigated are not unreasonable. Unfortunately, he backs himself into a corner because he really is committed to his beliefs.

  9. KMC says

    Without sounding ageist, Ron Paul’s time has come and gone. He will be 77years old in 2012. Why is anyone wasting their time on him? Now, Barry Manilow, no more close ups!

  10. says

    Ron Paul wants to eliminate Judicial Relief. So, henceforth, anyone who is discriminated against, segregated, unjustly imprisoned will have no recourse but to accept their lot in life.
    He also wants to eliminate both social security and medicare and force people to rely on “charity” if they are in need.
    Finally, he wants to basically get rid of the federal government. So, no more EPA, no more FDA, no more US Supreme Court, no more federal laws overruling possibly discriminatory state laws (like ‘Jim Crow’).

    Ron Paul is probably the worst possible candidate one could elect to the Presidency.

  11. antb says

    I’m not blindly supporting anything Ohplease. And I’m well aware of the President’s shortcomings. But show me any Repug candidate who could be nominated and elected – any one at all – and I’ll show you a candidate who would make Obama look like a queer activist. I personally don’t know any “thinking people” who can’t see that in the dark.

  12. antb says

    Ron Paul has a “good record on gay rights” as long as gays don’t want the same rights as everybody else. Not to mention that in the bigger picture, in practice libertarianism is just another word for anarchy.

  13. says

    Ron Paul does not have a good record on gay rights. And he’s too old. And he will never get the nomination in a million years. And Barry Manilow looks more like a plastic lesbian every day.

    How that turned into what Obama has or hasn’t done in NC is beyond me. (The administration spoke out against the NC amendment, BTW–but anyone who thinks he’s going to campaign on that, when the focus is expected to be on jobs, is nuts.) Gay rights will be better under Obama than under any plausible (i.e. not Ron Paul) Republican candidate. Facts can’t be disputed. And the NC bigots, majority Republican of course, are responsible for their own bigotry–Obama has zilch to do with it.

  14. matt says

    O you sweet things…no one believes RP would ever get the nomination that is so beside the point…you all go to your robotic answers: if someone says something you don’t like, as in Barry Manilow, you attack him because he looks like Mr. Potato Head. Ron Paul is certainly not the worst Republican candidate, and frankly, anarchy sounds like what we are experiencing now. I don’t agree with RP on everything, but i don’t automatically cancel his views out because he’s old, he’s republican,he’s crazy. He repeatedly points out that if anyone wants to get real about the budget, end the wars…that works for me, why doesn’t it work for you?

  15. Poocheroo says

    Wow, I have to say that I am really surprised by the ignorance being written here by so many people and the lack of being open minded to someone other than a Democrat even if what he says supports your position. If you watched the debates, which you can easily do on You Tube, you will see exactly what Ron Paul says about gay marriage and other “controversial” social issues. The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he is very clear and to the point. The government should have no say in what we do in our personal lives. The reason he supported DOMA is that it gave the States the right to decide the law and not the Feds but he also stated in that same debate that in the end he believes it is a private issue of religion and private contract, not the government at any level and does not feel his personal standards should be imposed on anyone else. That to me is probably the most logical stance on this issue that I have heard in a long time and quite frankly and way better than anything a Democrat has said. Gays will have a lot more rights under Paul than Obama.

  16. antb says

    “Gays will have a lot more rights under Paul than Obama”. Well, that’s the best laugh I’ve had all day. Yep, we would all – gay or straight – have the right to kowtow even lower to our corporate overlords. Oh and of course we would all have the right to hear the Republicans laugh when we died because we didn’t have health insurance, like they did at the debate you reference. Because you know, those people deserve it. And then we would have the right to have our civil rights put to a vote and subject to the whims of low-information voters with an imaginary friend. Wow – what a paradise that Paulian presidency would be pooch, I can’t believe anybody would not be open to that.

  17. says

    “Gays will have a lot more rights under Paul than Obama.”

    How’s that? If that’s the case, name them. Specifically. Ones that have any chance of becoming reality.

    Because he believes marriage is “a private issue of religion and private contract”? Sorry, that does nothing for gay couples. On principle one could wish that the government get out of the marriage business (giving it over the church, swell idea!!!!), but anyone who thinks straight people are going to give up the 1000+ benefits of marriage that are only via the government are insane. The only way that gay couples will be equal to straight couples is if DOMA is repealed and the federal government stops excluding gay couples from civil marriage rights and responsibilities. Since Paul defends DOMA and supports the so-called Marriage Protection Act, which would prohibit federal courts from hearing cases questioning the constitutionality of DOMA, he is–in the real world–an advocate for discrimination.

    Ron Paul’s candidacy is as dead as Michelle Bachmann’s so it’s all kind of irrelevant, but this pretense that faux-libertarianism is good for gay rights is ridiculous.

  18. brianinla says

    You miss the point. If the government isn’t involved in marriage, gay or straight, no one would be denied those rights. We’d all have them as individuals. See, under Ron Paul, individual rights are a priority. Meaning, instead of government telling us what rights we get, we’d be telling government what rights it gets to have. Despite the fact that the standard gay position is blatant big government, we are oppressed by the government deciding social issues. We shouldn’t have to fight for any of these rights, they should be standard. But, they’re not BECAUSE the government is involved. That’s the point so many on this thread have missed. Obama wants big government, which means we have to fight to get protection and hope that the president/supreme court grants us it. Under Ron Paul, and a much smaller government, government would be smaller and wouldn’t have control over so many personal, individual topics. We’d be in control.

    Instead of considering every Republican crazy and a bigot (which is so unintelligent that it does nothing for our cause. Seriously.), maybe try to be a bit more open minded. After all, that’s what we’re asking other people to do for us.

  19. Jonathan Oz says

    I find libertarian’s faith in the free hand of the market to be astoundingly either naive or self-serving, particularly with regards to the environment and our responsibilities as a society to care for the needy.
    That said, Ron Paul makes some interesting points about our international engagements, and governmental regard for political liberty, but I still would never vote for the guy.

    Having never been a big fan of Barry Manilow, nor a believer in his superior wisdom or inteligence, his endorsement changes little about my view of him, Ron Paul or anything else.

  20. says

    “If the government isn’t involved in marriage, gay or straight, no one would be denied those rights. We’d all have them as individuals.”

    We don’t miss the point, we just find the point both naive and foolish. How on earth do you think we’d secure relationship rights as individuals in a religious-right Republican-majority Congress while undoing civil marriage benefits for straight couples? Toss social security out the window, see how popular that is with the teabaggers. Saying it doesn’t make it realistic for gay couples. Once you can convince straight people that government should get out of their marriages, then we can talk. Otherwise, it’s like wishing on unicorns. Good luck!

    The problem with this extremely hypothetical scenario is that the government IS involved with marriage and that is not going to change, even if hell freezes over and Ron Paul is elected President. So, the reality of a “libertarian” presidency would be that marriage for straight people would be as it is now, and the constitutionality of discriminatory DOMA would not be questioned because it violates some libertarian principles that have as much relation to US reality as socialism.

    The Republican party, including most Ron Paul supporters, is not truly “small” government except on taxes–on social issues like abortion and marriage equality, they’re perfectly content to either want government interference or to maintain the status quo, which is inherently bad for pro-choice women and gay people. Ron Paul is an illusion with no real power among the virulently anti-gay Republican majority.

    Equality for all and the Republican definition of small government are not compatible in the US, never has been, never will be.

  21. floria1 says

    Barry — you are a coward who has never told his fan base who you really are. Modern Day Liberace’s are not cool.

    And you are endorsing a man who believes the equality of gay and bisexual men and woman should be put up to popular vote.

    Glad I saw him long ago and my money has long stopped going to him.

    And he looks ridiculous.

  22. littlebadwolf says

    if barry manilow or anyone thinks that in a ron paul presidency there will be federal money for medical research, let alone health care, think again. ron paul let his own first assistant and friend die uninsured, sticking the man’s old mother with enormous bills. and that was only two weeks after paul’s 2008 campaign folded.

    shame. shame.

  23. floria1 says

    Gays will have a lot more rights under Paul than Obama.

    Posted by: Poocheroo

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Bill into Law

    Obama worked successfully to lead the military and the Congress to overturn DODT – and signed it to Law.

    Anyone in the GOP in 2011 should not be trusted or respected. Period.

  24. Tyron says

    Please Mr. Manilow support a third party run by Ron Paul – even suggest that he nominate his son Rand for VP. That way the teabaggers will be so totally confused as to split the vote and destroy any chance the Republican candidate might have to win. And, Mr. Manilow, while you’re out there declaring stuff how about shocking the hell out of all those Fanilows who have for years believed you were singing those love songs to them and admit you’re gay.

Leave A Reply