Obama to Receive Sustained Standing Ovation at HRC Dinner
As many of our readers know, in just a few hours, President Obama will be addressing the Human Rights Campaign annual dinner tonight. While there might be a handful of boos from the principled lefties in that largely liberal audience, expect the Democrat to receive a sustained standing ovation.
Such a reception will be on a par with his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, for accomplishments anticipated not results achieved.
They’ll be honoring him for his good intentions and partisan affiliation–because to all to many on the gay left, that’s all that really matters.
26 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Dan, I’d go even one further.
It’s not simply “for his good intentions” that the gay Left honors The One; it’s their own perception of it.
Keep in mind, the president opposes gay marriage and has said exactly that. Nevertheless, his
admirerssycophants in HRC and like groups refuse to believe even his own words if they deviate from their worldview of what a “progressive” should believe.Even I can’t blame Obama for that!
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 10, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - October 10, 2009
Its not just perception! in the very real world, in terms of the difference it will make to gay rights, its all that matters as well because the “gay rights” struggle is a phony struggle over perceived, not real, victimization!
Comment by American Elephant — October 10, 2009 @ 5:44 pm - October 10, 2009
Gays are victimized the same way hunters are victimized–they participate in an activity which a lot of people think is disgusting. They are both opposed by large groups of activists–PETA and Focus on the Famly. Hunters, too, would claim the hunting instinct is inborn. Here’s the difference between hunters and gays–hunters don’t see themselves as victims of a society which mostly disapproves of what they do. They hunt whether people like it or not. And they work to protect the right to hunt by aligning hunting with positive things like conservation. Hunters also condemn those hunters who give hunting a bad name–rather than get those hunters to march in a parade as if they are mainstream. I think more gays should watch the Sportsman Channel or VS. to get an idea of how to stop being a victim and learn how to get the rights we want in a world which disapproves of what we do.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 10, 2009 @ 6:00 pm - October 10, 2009
Ash, that was beautiful. I’m going to think that analogy over this evening; I think you have something there.
Best wishes,
Comment by MFS — October 10, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - October 10, 2009
Not only that, but hunters feed people. More often than not, they give their extra meat to food pantries.
Further, Ash, Vs. has Professional Bull Riding so there’s an added incentive for gays to watch.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 10, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - October 10, 2009
If you’re going to turn on Versus or Spike, do it when UFC or WEC is on. Urijah Faber and Georges St. Pierre in spandex is all I need. Violence + skimpy clothing = perfection.
Comment by Brendan In Philly — October 10, 2009 @ 7:36 pm - October 10, 2009
This just in from DC Craiglist:
Massive Bottom Gangbang Looking for Supertop – (mm…m4m)
A few hundred guys of all sizes, shapes, and colors looking to get topped by mixed super-daddy. BB preferred, no lube or poppers necessary. Looking specifically for the guy who’s been reaming us for the past few months.
Comment by Brendan In Philly — October 10, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - October 10, 2009
How about – instead of a standing ovation, someone has the balls to challenge him to just issue an executive order ending DADT – and then we’ll be done with it.
Comment by nimblecat — October 10, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - October 10, 2009
m4m, m4m, m4m, Barack Hussein Obama!
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 10, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - October 10, 2009
Sullivan was live blogging. Was pretty critical. He still has the man rush though, so this is just a little bump on the road for him, and don’t expect a conversion of revelation anytime soon…. But still, he was critical.
Comment by Sonicfrog — October 10, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - October 10, 2009
How does the content of Obama’s speech compare to the speech Bush gave to the HRC? Perhaps his speech to a Log Cabin Meeting? Any gay group whatsoever? OK.
How about hate crimes legislation getting signed into law in the next couple of weeks. The Republicans tried that how many times?
What policy reviews did Bush do in his eight years to have the pentagon determine if and when DADT should be repealed? How many has Obama?
Lastly, when did Bush ever make a public statement saying that gay relationship should have equal rights to straight marriages in all but name only and have his party actually putting legislation on the table to do it?
Gay rights stagnated or regressed at the federal level for over a decade. They are moving forward in a way that will take time but is happening. That’s more than can be said for the open hostility towards these concepts projected by the Republican party during their tenure in power and right up through this very day.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — October 10, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - October 10, 2009
Didn’t the delegates at the Soviet Communist party congress do the same thing for their General Secretaries too?
Comment by TrulyScrumptious — October 10, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - October 10, 2009
I think Bush and gun rights compares with Obama and gay rights. I think Bush talked a lot about the Second Amendment, but nothing important happened, though gun rights people revere him. Obama has the same record on gay rights. He talks a lot and nothing happens. Both gun rights and gay rights are similar because both involve people who do things most people find disgusting, and who are frothing fanatics who brook no compromise–but the gun rights people are nicer. And more attractive.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 11, 2009 @ 12:53 am - October 11, 2009
Republicans dont divide the nation into victim groups. Thats what Democrats do.
NEVER, thank God! Republicans dont believe in thought crimes, Democrats, INGSOC, Nazis, Fascists, Communists and other totalitarians do.
Never! Thank God! gay relationships and straight marriages do not have equal consequences for society and the law should not support the lie that they do.
Horsehockey!
You have no idea what rights even are.
Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2009 @ 1:07 am - October 11, 2009
[...] Obama to Receive Sustained Standing Ovation at HRC Dinner [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama Offers More of the Same at HRC DinnerSome Activists See Through the Hollow Rhetoric — October 11, 2009 @ 2:46 am - October 11, 2009
And did that pass on it’s own two feet or did it have to be attached to necessary spending bill?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2009 @ 5:54 am - October 11, 2009
attached to = hidden underneath of course.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2009 @ 5:54 am - October 11, 2009
Ya know, maybe we can get the left’s hatred for business and jobs classified as a hate crime so people can get back to work. Throw in their hatred for America and our soldiers and we won’t have to be Maobama’s Shining Cesspool on a Hill.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2009 @ 6:28 am - October 11, 2009
American Elephant says, “Never. Thank god.” I say WTF took so long in getting it done. Democrats are, albeit slowly, Republicans actively fought against it. The exception to that being the moderate Republicans. That’s why I won’t vote GOP except for the moderate Republicans.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — October 11, 2009 @ 8:56 am - October 11, 2009
#18: TGC, speaking of the Left’s hatred of business, jobs, success, profits, and anything related to the spoils of capitalism (unless a liberal is the one profiting), this flew by under the radar last week due to all of the dancing in the streets associated with Obama’s Nobel Prize win:
Pelosi has asked internationally-renowned tax expert and pillar of integrity, Charles Rangel, to “examine the possibility” and “report back to her” regarding a windfall profits tax on insurance companies as part of the Democrats’ “healthcare reform” package.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091008/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_insurance
Of course, this is totally consistent with the Left’s concept of “promoting competition” in the health insurance marketplace. The “public option” has a fraction of the overhead costs and no profitability requirements, and any profits of private companies that liberals deem “excessive” will be confiscated and used to finance the “public option.” In other words, the liberals are completely in favor of free market “competition” provided there are safeguards in place to prevent something crazy or unacceptable like profits, lower prices, and consumer satisfaction.
These worthless, idiotic criminals are beyond parody.
Comment by Sean A — October 11, 2009 @ 9:06 am - October 11, 2009
Mr. Moderate. So if congress passed a law outlawing sex between two men (or between two women) you’d blindly follow it?
After all if you feel that the government can outlaw how you can think about someone, then surely they can control your choice of bed partners.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 11, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - October 11, 2009
Livewire, nothing in any piece of legislation is about regulating what you think of someone. You’re probably referring to the hate crimes or ENDA legislation. Since all that does is extend existing protections to gays rather than create new protections in toto I suggest you direct your efforts not at denying existing coverage towards gays but eliminating what you consider to be overly invasive legislation that is already on the books. Extending protections to include gays or eliminating them for other classes is intellectually honest. Leaving the existing ones in place and not extending them isn’t, as far as I am concerned.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — October 11, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - October 11, 2009
You make Big Brother proud, Mr. Moderate. Which thoughts will you outlaw next?
Comment by American Elephant — October 12, 2009 @ 2:41 am - October 12, 2009
[...] Obama to Receive Sustained Standing Ovation at HRC Dinner [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » MSM today: prefering rallies for Equality to those for freedom? — October 12, 2009 @ 3:14 am - October 12, 2009
#22: “Livewire, nothing in any piece of legislation is about regulating what you think of someone.”
What a convenient and patronizing statement, Mr. Moderate. I suppose The Livewire is just being silly and paranoid with all of this “thought crimes” nonsense, right? It’s not like Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and the rest of the victims of Canada’s “Human Rights” Commission have not been waging a war on that particular slippery slope for the last 2-3 years. The fact is that what an individual “thinks of someone” is very much at issue in a criminal case where the defendant is charged with a “hate crime” enhancement and it typically means that the issue of sentencing may be dramatically affected by evidence of the defendant’s personal views and opinions regarding the particular protected class to which the victim belongs. The government is dangerous enough having the power to adjudicate the traditional mental states of intent, knowledge, etc. which is why half of the Bill of Rights is devoted to protecting the individual in criminal matters. The narcissistic crusade that liberals have been engaged in to give the government power to adjudicate issues of a defendant’s mental state vis-a-vis the victim’s membership in some favored, politically-correct group is a stupid, fu*king idea and has done NOTHING to prevent crime against gays or any other minority. The idea that savage criminals will somehow restrain themselves from committing violent crimes motivated by bigotry because of the possibility of a harsher sentence is the absurd pinnacle of liberal delusion.
“Extending protections to include gays or eliminating them for other classes is intellectually honest. Leaving the existing ones in place and not extending them isn’t, as far as I am concerned.”
Mr. Moderate, I know that you think this (again) condescending argument sounds reasonable and fresh (and…wait for it…moderate!), but it’s actually been floating around since the morning after Matthew Shepherd’s murder. It was bullsh*t then and it’s bullsh*t now and you really need to get some new material. Back then, rational people who opposed hate crimes legislation in the misguided hysteria following Shepherd’s murder (and who were, naturally, condemned as horrible monsters because of it) opposed such laws because they meant handing tremendous power over to the government that was certain to be abused–all because it would make the supporters feel good about themselves regardless of the fact that it would do NOTHING to reduce crimes like Shepherd’s murder. One of the more annoying arguments in favor of hate crimes laws back then was strikingly similar to the red herring you have thrown out above. To wit, that it’s “intellectually dishonest” or (horror of horrors) “inconsistent” to oppose new hate crimes legislation because there have already been such laws on the books for decades, i.e., statutes prohibiting the lynching of blacks enacted at the tail-end of Jim Crow. The idiotic argument was essentially that one couldn’t oppose new hate crimes laws unless one also was committed to the repeal of any OTHER law resembling a hate crimes statute. This is basically how it went: “What are you going to do?! Go back and demand the REPEAL OF LAWS AGAINST LYNCHING BLACK PEOPLE?! So, what you’re saying is that you are in favor of black people being lynched, isn’t that right?!” (A typically hysterical, disingenuous, liberal argument.)
Consequently, your argument, purportedly driven by “intellectual honesty” is anything but. It’s nothing more than a conclusion that the solution to bad law is more bad law. It is, however, perfectly consistent with the impotent political philosophies to be expected from “moderates.”
Comment by Sean A — October 12, 2009 @ 4:23 am - October 12, 2009
Thank you Sean.
If Mr. Moderate honestly believes that the guy that kills him for his wallet is somehow less evil than the guy that kills him for his choice of bedmates, then he is seriously whacked in the head.
Or maybe that’s moderate “We’ll allow you to express half your emotions”
At the same time, he believes that the government should control who you can ‘hate’ but somehow magically believes that they should not control who you ‘love’.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 12, 2009 @ 7:03 am - October 12, 2009