Well, just as I predicted, last night when he the addressed the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the all but de facto gay auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee, the President got his “standing ovation“.* The “cheering crowd” gave the Democrat a warm welcome even as he acknowledged “some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.“
Christine Simmons of the Associated Press summed up the evening:
He expressed strong support for the Human Rights Campaign agenda — ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people — but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.
Promises, promises, but not a plan. That’s not enough for many gay activists, but it will win over the Washington-based leadership of HRC and other gay groups, ever eager to sing the praises of a politician with a (D) after his name who says the right things to their audiences. Of course, to those activists, with highfalutin language and that (D), it really doesn’t matter what he does.
Once again, it was typical Obama, lofty words with little to show for them. But, this time, even the New York Times noticed that some gay activists aren’t buying the swill the Democrat is trying to sell them:
Bil Browning, a blogger for Bilerico Project, a Web site aimed at a gay audience, said moments after the speech ended that the site was flooded with critical comments by people who said they had heard nothing new. “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing,” one wrote.
Even inside the room, reaction was mixed. Terry Penrod, a real estate agent from Columbus, Ohio, said some gay rights advocates were being impatient with the president, while Raj Malthotra, 29, a management consultant from Washington, said he thought the speech was a rehash of Mr. Obama’s past promises.
“For him, it’s buy more time until he needs our votes again,” Mr. Malthotra said.
It’s nice to see that some gay people, particularly those on the left, see through the President’s hollow rhetoric. On Facebook, a left-of-center friend commented that in his speech, the President neither mentioned the upcoming gay marriage initiative in Maine nor even mentioned the word, “marriage.”
The sad thing is, with even a majority of conservative favoring a repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, he could probably move legislation doing just that if only he indicated it was a priority. Instead, all we’ll get is Hate Crimes legislation which will do nothing to improve the lives of gay people in America nor to repeal the most egregious discriminatory law still on the books.
*UPDATE: According to Politico, the President received “a series of rousing ovations“, That (D) does do wonders in gay crowds.
When????????? When????????? We’ve listened to this bullshit for too long. When Obama? When???????
I can see that. He’s very busy f*king us all over equally.
Be careful when a Democratic president promises to repeal DADT. The last time a (D) promised that, the opposite happened and restrictions got tighter haha.
So Obama pinkie-swears that DADT is getting repealed… what’s the over/under on the return of anti-sodomy laws?
Only Solmonise is happy with the President’s speech.
Excuse me, but I don’t understand how someone can actively support the largest, most virulently homophobic organisation in this country and then turn around and criticise a president who has just spoken eloquently of his unwavering support for the gay community for not being good enough on gay issues.
In unequivocal terms, he said he will repeal DOMA and DADT, he will pass civil unions legislation and that he will pass ENDA and hate crimes legislation. He’s not moving fast enough, I agree. But the idea of a sitting president addressing a gay rights group publically and expressing his support in no uncertain terms was unimaginable for such a long time.
Would you seriously be happier, GayPatriot, is Sarah Palin was in charge? Do you really believe Obama doesn’t support gay rights? Grow up, please.
So Obama talking about doing these things is bad for gays, but the right actively working against these things is good? I’m really not following you guys. I believe in doing things in measured ways. Before repealing DADT the pentagon needs to do an assessment of how that process plays out. Bush never started such a process, Obama has. Before benefits can be applied to domestic partners an analysis of the policies at the federal level needs to be explored. Obama initiated that early this year. Bush did not. The Democrats try to get ENDA and hate crimes legislation through the legislature. Republican party leaders publicly register their outrage at extending existing protections to gays.
So again, Democrats talking about and making slow progress is supposedly bad for gays while Republicans actively working against getting legislation passed that extend protections and partner benefits to gays is good. I just can’t follow that logic.
Reading isn’t your strong suit, is it?
It’s confusing until you realise that gay Republicans are wealthy white guys who live in big cities in New York and California and never have to face discrimination (thanks largely to all the work done by Democrats). They’re selfish; they choose measly tax cuts over actual progress on gay acceptance and I guess joining the LCR and pretending that Democrats are ultimately bad on gay rights helps alleviate some of the guilt?
Obama follows the ideology of your freedom resides in his legislative signature.
He sees himself as the gatekeeper, power broker to your individual rights as a human being.
If you share that philosophy, Obama is your man.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/1349.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-30.htm
I am no lawyer but I am a First Sergeant in the Army and have experience with the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Just a morning read will reveal that at least these articles will need to be modified to accomplish DADT. (I include Adultery to demonstrate the extent to which the military intrudes on sexual lifestyles).
THe punitive articles try to cover every possible wierd situation that a Soldier may find himself or herself in…and that is a colosol task. The military will not want to keep 2 sets of books, one for gay and one for straight, so new sexual freedoms for gays will have to be replicated for straight soldiers.
The most interesting one to me is Cohabitation. Under DADT, it is easy to prevent cohabitation since we don’t let men and women live together in the barracks. Reading any of the articles, the common thread is the effect on good order and discipline. Or “is anyone getting away with something that others would like to get away with as well.”
Face it, Sodomy is a wash for gay and straight folks. Adultery only applies to straight couples for now. And Indecent acts is like the generic catchall. Change in conhabitation will have the greatest effect on good order IMO.
The reason DADT won’t happen is that the lawyers, firstly, will take forever to write new articles. And the changes will immediately effect military life and established mores to an unknown extent. The military already has plenty of sex related problems and the punitive articles encourage discretion at the least. And that was the point of DADT. The repeal of DADT will ripple throughout the gay and straight military communities with an overall degradation of discipline.
The military is not conducive to a liberal environment. There are many people in close and socially complicated quarters. Positive control is a requirement for discipline because someday, everyone can be given to follow that may not be in the interests of personal longevity.
If DADT affects the other punitive articles, that could be the first crack in the dam.
The problem is with the Obama’s ideology, to keep “constituents” on his side,he and fellow democrats,make “promises” that never amount into anything. Let him walk his talk and then we will see,but last I read the constitution it should be up to the states to individually deal with gay marriage or “unions”, our rights regardless have been protected from day one in the constitution and we sha’ll be treated as any other American is, equally! The Dems just want gays on their side cause its an easy audience to target and hold as a voting block, wake up ,Obama does not care about gays,only to the extent he wants you to keep voting for him!
When??
Jan 19 2013, just before his butt gets booted.
Did you know Gov Palin provided benefits to her gov employees for their partners and families.
Did YOU know that she signed the legislation that provided benefits to gay state employees against her own will? She was ordered to do so by the Alaska supreme court. Make no mistake: Sarah Palin is a disgusting homophobe.
Do you think Obama should be rewarded a gay rights award for promising to end something that he could have ended within his first month in office?
He should be awarded for his great future accomplishment just like his most recent award.
Also, do you think he has won the 2012 election yet based on his future campaign?
Unlike the ELCA, which backed up its promises with action. Our Bishop, Mark Hanson, has done more for gays than Obama. That’s why I’m a Lutheran and not a leftist.
Wow, DavyJG, you are filled with anger and animosity! What accounts for your prejudices? I’ve learned now not to trust this Democrat’s words — for all his promises have expiration dates.
And yes, I would very much rather have Sarah Palin in charge; she would have at least cut federal spending at a time of record budget deficits instead of increasing it.
Oh, and how do you (in #10), know that gay Republicans are wealthy white guys? Another sign of your prejudice. Many of our readers are from rural areas. All you’re doing with your rants is betraying your own hatred of Republicans, defining us not as we are, but as you perceive us to be, not based on encounters with Republicans, but some inner need you have to demonize the “other.”
And please provide for me the evidence on which you base the accusation against Mrs. Palin. On what grounds do you call her a “disgusting homophobe”?
Facts, please?
#7: “I believe in doing things in measured ways. Before repealing DADT the pentagon needs to do an assessment of how that process plays out.”
Wow, that sounds awfully “moderate” of you, Mr. Moderate. And categorically distinguishable from the position that the gay left has taken for the past decade and a half, by the way (especially when we had a Republican President). Funny, I just can’t seem to recall the gays being particularly respectful of the Pentagon’s “assessments” in the past. Are you really saying that suddenly it’s imperative for the Pentagon to weigh in on this issue before any action is taken? I wonder if you would take the same position if the Pentagon’s “assessment” happened to be that repealing DADT was ill-advised? Hmm.
Anyway, I agree with you on the wisdom of Obama proceeding in “measured ways.” I’m sure that before he pulls our troops out of Afghanistan he’ll get a full “assessment” from the Taliban as to “how that process plays out.”
“Before benefits can be applied to domestic partners an analysis of the policies at the federal level needs to be explored. Obama initiated that early this year. Bush did not.”
Yeah, Mr. Moderate, it’s a real shame that Bush didn’t launch an exploration of an analysis of an assessment of how the process of applying federal benefits to same-sex partners would play out, and instead, just signed laws authorizing it. You DO know that, right, Mr. Moderate? Or, is your comment below from another thread your admission that you’re completely clueless?
“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.”
#10: “…gay Republicans are wealthy white guys who live in big cities in New York and California and never have to face discrimination…”
Yeah, DavyJG, what we all admire most about the HRC is how the organization shuns wealthy white guys who live in big cities in New York and California and have never faced discrimination. I’m sure at last nights’ speech Obama was so blinded by the diversity he could barely read the teleprompter.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s so ablaze with your laughable ignorance that the only part that offends me is the mortifying assumption that I would be a member of an irrelevant, pathetic organization like LCR.
You can label me a rich white gay man the day I make the same $300k+ salary that Joe Solmnese makes. Right now I’m nowhere even close to that nor do I live in CA or NYC or even care to. Of course I consider myself to be GOP-leaning rather than a Republican.
y7 -Good post, good information, thank yoiu
Well, since he’s full of promises while his DoJ is filing briefs comparing homosexual behaviour to pedophelia, I think that the folks who trust President Obama’s rhetoric deserve what they get.
Homosexuals = Pedophiles. Obama DoJ written, Barney Frank approved
Sean,
I have always maintained the position that any change in policy needs to come after analysis. Not sure where your rant comes from. If the pentagon does determine that DADT needs to stay then it does. What’s so hard to understand about that? On the domestic benefits issue there are existing policies that have to be modified in each of the federal departments as well as overarching regulations. Determining what that is and then moving forward sounds smart to me.
What did Bush do to push that forward getting domestic partner benefits to gay employees?
“Under DADT, it is easy to prevent cohabitation since we don’t let men and women live together in the barracks. Reading any of the articles, the common thread is the effect on good order and discipline… Change in cohabitation will have the greatest effect on good order… The reason DADT won’t happen is that the lawyers, firstly, will take forever to write new articles. And the changes will immediately effect military life and established mores to an unknown extent.”
Here’s a simple solution to your cohabitation conundrum. There’s a perfectly justifiable reason to separate men’s and women’s living quarters, independent of sexual orientation: men and women are biologically different! Having a few gay men share barracks with a bunch of hetero men is not the same as having a few women share barracks with those hetero men.
Cohabitation statutes thus do not need to be changed; the statutes prohibiting sexual activity with anyone, opposite- or same-gender, can stay in place as is. No changes necessary.
The fact that lawyers want to get paid to make things complicated is not a justification for institutionalized discrimination.
#27: “What did Bush do to push that forward getting domestic partner benefits to gay employees?”
That’s precisely my question for you, Mr. Moderate. You wrote, “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.”
I interpret your words “stagnated or regressed” and “open hostility towards these concepts” to mean that Bush did nothing to “push forward” getting domestic partner benefits to gay employees. Is that your position?
MUCH higher if Obamacare passes. You see, if the public is paying for your healthcare, then your behaviors are no longer private. And as HIV statistics testify, sodomy causes far more health problems than does traditional heterosexual sex.
The Democrat party? They are the ones who passed the anti-sodomy laws that were struck down, it was a Democrat president who instigated DADT, and a Democrat president who signed DOMA.
All these laws you claim are homophobic were supported and made law by the Democrat party.
And as I said in another thread, if you ever want to see who really hates gays in this country, start naming gay republicans around Democrats. You will never hear so many anti-gay slurs and epithets as you will if you cross the left!
Haha, just like the losers that lead your movement (Glenn Beck, Hannity, Ingraham and the despicable Michelle Malkin), you seem to like misrepresenting the facts and stripping them of any context that you deem inconvenient. The Sodomy laws were not passed by the modern Democrat party. DOMA and DADT were instituted by Clinton because of Republican homophobia, not Democratic homophobia. Clinton wanted gays to be able to serve honourably and openly in the military but the Republican-controlled congress was having none of it and forced Clinton to compromise. DOMA was installed as law because otherwise Republicans would have banned same sex marriage federally outright. But of course you know all of this, you just want your taxes cut so you’ll lie and mislead and lie again, right? No wonder the rest of the world hates (hates!) the Republican Party; no wonder Bush was a joke and Reagan is a symbol of all consuming, destructive greed. Such is the modern Republican party and you’re more than welcome to it! I’m just glad the only people who vote for the GOP are homophobic Southerners which will keep bigots like Palin and Huckabee as far as possible from the White House for a long, long time.
#32: “…you seem to like misrepresenting the facts and stripping them of any context that you deem inconvenient…I’m just glad the only people who vote for the GOP are homophobic Southerners…”
There are 58,343,671 homophobic Southerners? Wow. I had no idea! Well, whatever you say, DavyJG.
DOMA and DADT were instituted by Clinton because of Republican homophobia, not Democratic homophobia. Clinton wanted gays to be able to serve honourably and openly in the military but the Republican-controlled congress was having none of it and forced Clinton to compromise.
Let’s see, who were the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader in 1993 and 1994, when DADT was passed?
That would be Thomas Foley (D-WA) and George Mitchell (D-ME).
So why don’t you explain to us how, DavyJG, the “Republican-controlled Congress” was led by two Obama Party members?
Answer: You can’t. You’re just a typical puppet gay, stupid and unintelligent, who only repeats Obama Party talking points. The stupid Barack Obama told you that Congress was majority-Republican when DADT was passed and that it wasn’t the Obama Party’s fault, so as a typical ignorant Obama ideologue, you merely repeat the lies Obama told you to repeat.
#32, DADT came into being in 1993. Who controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency in 1993? It wasn’t until 1994, that the Republicans were voted control of both chambers and still, they didn’t take control until January 1995. It was a compromise policy because polls were showing that people didn’t support at the time and Democrats used to like to govern by polls.
And as for DOMA, “The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.” Republicans did control the house and senate in 1996; however, they did not hold 342 seats in the house and 85 seats in the Senate.
By the way, is this the new BNL moniker?
I’m laughing at these fools. Gay activist see through Obama? Bet the farm that, despite being screwed over year after year-these same activists will continue to vote Democrat and give their money to Democrats. How many times before these morons wise up?
They are like alcoholics. They have to hit rock bottom before they ever lift a finger to help themselves. I’m sick and tired of these people whining Democrats ignore their promises to them. Newsflash-you get exactly what you deserve by going back to them over and over knowing deep down they will only give you lip service.
DavyJG is wuite happy to have Democrats piss down his leg and tell him it is infact raining!
I’ll tell you anything you want to hear Davy as long as you continue to give me your money and vote. I know i’ll never have to see it through because your a sucker that will keep coming back for more of the string along. But then, you don’t seem to need results, just words is good enough for you!
Liberal Democrats kill me. And liberal Democrat gays too. Just trolls. Like blacks, you are led by your noses by powerful people like cattle to the slaughter. And you get nothing in return. Toadies trolls and in the worse case you just walk willingly into the showers. How sad. Democrats controlled Congress for 40 straight years. President Carter President Clinton, now President Obama. “Wait wait we’re gonna help you. Wait wait.” Liberal gays are pathetic. Get a spine.
So are you guys seriously telling me that the GOP is better for gays than the Democrats? Seriously? The GOP is actually the party that really cares for gay men and women and their families? The GOP is really the party that wants to protect gay teenagers from being bullied in school, yes? Please. If you’re being honest with yourself, you know the GOP hates you and who you are. Just listen to Limbaugh or Hannity or Ingraham, the most popular people among Republicans. All of them are undoubtedly bigoted. The GOP Texas party platform wants gay sex criminalised again for crying out loud. And you gays really, genuinely support this party? You’re really letting all of those gay 15-year-olds who are being bullied and harassed at school for who they are down and it’s shameful.
I can understand being conservative and being gay, obviously. But being gay and supporting such an obviously anti-gay organisation like the Republican Party of the United States is just highly irresponsible and I can only seem to make sense of it when I consider what all gay Republicans are obviously greedy, self loathing, bitter queens.
Boo-Hoo! The mean Republicans tricked poor Mr. Clinton into signing DADT with their Jedi-mind tricks.
Poor Davy sounds like he is getting all his news from the Guardian – did you catch the “honourably?” – Jeez! Who’s checking the greencards around here?
Best wishes,
DavyJG cried…
Much like Plan 9 from Outer Space, Davy’s comments are so thoroughly lacking in anything resembling coherent thought and reason, they become almost instantaneous cult classics for the complete absence of logic in favor of over-the-top camp and tastelessness.
In short, one feels almost less intelligent for having tried to read such petulant tripe.
Davy, there is one difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to gays. Republicans will be honest with you that they don’t want a repeal to DADT and DOMA. And it will cost you nothing. Democrats don’t want it repealed any more than Repiblicans do, heowever, they will sucker you out of money and votes by lying to your face. Gays come back for more dormat punishment election after election.
At least Charlie Brown isn’t dumb enough to pay Lucy to yank the football away again and again and agin. However, you and your ilk are that dumb. Sh*t or get off the pot when it comes to supporting Democrats that get what they need from you and drop you like bad trash.
How many times will you continue to pay aNigerian Prince $1000 for your winning lottery ticket before you smarten up that it’s a scam to seperate a sucker from his money?
Hmm, does Mr. Eric Olsen posses within him the ability to actually formulate any ideas and articulate them or does he just concoct elaborate snide sneers (complete with esoteric cultural references, of course!)? It does appear that way.
I also think it’s interesting that no one will answer the question “Is the GOP better for gays than the Democratic Party?”. But of course it hasn’t. The gay Republican doesn’t want to admit that his party hates him so absolutely as to use his relationship as a means of scaring people into voting for the Right (like Bush did a mere 5 years ago).
As for Clinton, again, some intellectual honesty would be nice. Bill Clinton wanted gays to serve openly, there was opposition from congress (mainly from Republicans, Democrats didn’t have a big enough majority in the early 90s which was in fact the point I was making earlier in this thread). Bill Clinton enacted DOMA in order to protect the right of states like Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa to pass marriage equality. If you feel more comfortable lying to yourself and pretending that Obama and Clinton are just as bad as Bush was, then go ahead. But you’re being dishonest with yourself and you know that.
Mr. Moderate @ #7:
It’s no wonder you can’t follow that logic, Mr. Moderate, since that isn’t Dan’s logic. (Or as DoDoGuRu put it, “Reading isn’t your strong suit, is it?”)
Dan’s concern is that most gay Americans — and all the leading gay rights organizations — reflexively support Democrats regardless of actions.
Obama and his fellow Democrats could easily end Uncle Sam’s own unfair treatment of gays. Instead they focus on grabbing more power for the federal government with ENDA and hate crimes laws. (But even these take a back seat to socializing the country.)
When gay people like Dan object to this, people like you, Mr. Moderate, imply they are hypocrites. That’s rubbish.
Nice to see you posting again CLDave.
Is it me or is Lev-er Davey’s argument now “I’m going to ignore your citations and keep saying things over and over again until I’m blue in the face, even if I can’t back them up.
DavyJG @ #5 to Dan:
Grow up, please.
Now that, Davy, is irony in action, for it is you who needs to grow up, not Dan.
Dan does not support the anti-homosexual components of the Republican Party. You know this if you’ve paid serious attention to this blog. And if you honestly think the GOP is the most virulently homophobic organization in the U.S. you need to have your head examined.
You missed the whole point of the post, didn’t you? Talk is cheap. Just when is Obama going to do all of this? Before this year’s Christmas recess? During next year’s election season? Or after his socialize the nation agenda has put the Republicans back into power in Congress? Do tell.
DavyJG @ #18
Now there’s the logic of a grown up! Opposing treating gay couples like married couples makes one an automatic homophobe. Why even opposing the details of a specific piece of domestic partner benefits legislation probably signifies homophobia.
Wow. I’ve got to hand it to you, Davy, you truly are fit to lecture Dan Blatt on growing up.
PS: A supreme court can’t force a governor to do anything. The court is dependent on the executive authority for it’s rulings to have force; the executive is not dependent on the court.
Thank you, Livewire.
That’s not true about Sarah Palin!! The left has distorted her, you need to do some homework on different sites. I am not one of the sheep, I will not be herded by some politician, and you should not be either. Obama sat in Rev Wrights church for 20 yrs, they don’t like gays or women. If you want to know what he is going to do, think the opposite of what this man says. Why do you think they are starting to make fun of him? Read Liberty and Tyranny, you will learn alot. Pray for our troops, he’s holding them hostage for the health care bill.
Wow! DAVYJG is consumed with hate! (not to mention willful ignorance and misinformation!)
Any bets on his age? I’m guessing 24 years old at the MOST, probably more like 16-17.
#40, how comes the marriage amendment failed? From 2003 to 2006, the Republicans had full control of the House, Senate and the Presidency; yet, it did not pass. Why? In fact, that had huge majorities going in to 2005; so, it seems to me, that a party hell bent on the destruction of a group, as you claim, could have got that done and/or at least changed DOMA to do what you say i.e. prevent states from enacting, but they didn’t do that; so, why not?
More childishness from DavyJG:
at #10:
So what are you saying, Davy? That rural areas are bastions of Democratic Party power? That well-off white folk in large cities (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco) never vote for Democrats?
Maybe. And gay Democrats are selfless, right? So selfless that they support:
— the Democrats’ socialist schemes over the principles on which the American Republic was founded
— support the Democrats’ appeasing attitude toward regimes like Iran over the security of the nation
— support Dem politicians who favor partial-birth abortion (like Barbara Boxer) and oppose born alive infant protection acts (like Barack Obama) over the rights of babies.
All for some soothing lip service about how wonderful homosexuality is. Yep, that’s selflessness extraordinaire.
Still more amazing adulthood 😉 on display from DavyJG!
After making a very direct (and quite nasty) accusation against Sarah Palin in comment #18, the very adult Davy was asked by Dan (at #21) to provide some real evidence:
Being a very mature adult, Davy ignored this reasonable request.
At #32, Davy, being a most mature gentleman, called Michelle Malkin “despicable.” No reasons were given for this label. He then accused American Elephant of enjoying “misrepresenting the facts and stripping them of any context that you deem inconvenient. ” After making this accusation because AE had the temerity to point out that Texas’ anti-Sodomy law was passed by Democrats, and that Bill Clinton signed DADT and DOMA into law, the most adult Davy proceeds to spin a most entertaining story:
Davy has conveniently forgotten how Sam Nunn led the charge on keeping military gays in the closet.
Right. Because we all know the Federal Constitution places state marriage laws under Congressional jurisdiction.
Indeed. Bush was such a joke that the Iranians and Al Qaeda were glad when he left office. And Reagan was such a symbol of wickedness that people from all over lined up for hours to pay their respects after he died.
And then after producing all of these wonderful displays of incredible adulthood, the great DavyJG has the gall to ask of Eric Olsen if he “posses within him the ability to actually formulate any ideas and articulate them or does he just concoct elaborate snide sneers”? Amazing maturity. Truly amazing!
DavyJG at #37:
That wasn’t the issue in Dan’s post, my most mature adult friend Davy. The issue was reflexive bowing and scrapping that gays do before the Democrats. You are the one who turned the thread into a the Dems vs. the Repubs fight.
And why when considering a party to support, does a homosexual have to give the most wait to gay issues? Does being better for gays outweigh being better for the country? All a person, gay or straight, has to do to give his support to the Republicans is to consider them better for the nation than the Democrats. That doesn’t entail liking the GOP or supporting everything the party does. (See my points in posts #41 and #50.)
You understand being gay and being conservative? Hardly. If you did you wouldn’t need me lecturing you on the above.
And supporting the socialist and anti-freedom, anti-humanist and anti-life, anti-national defense and sovereignty policies of the Democratic Party is just so highly irresponsible that all gay Democrats must be weak-minded fools in perpetual need of having their egos stroked.
I have to be thankful (tongue in cheek) for Bloggers like DavyJG. Their supposed righteous indignation is designed to cow the weak willed, uninformed proletariat. Unfortunately, DavyJG, the individuals who read and respond to this website are not impressed. Oh, and you probably noticed, they are pretty intelligent and very capable of dialogue (even quoting facts) instead of being emotionally uncontrolled. Check the facts that they present you and stop whining.
DoucheyJG:
I suppose that you would want us to believe that Republicans forced his beloved lord BJ to refuse to contribute an amicus in the Romer v. Evans case.
Perhaps Republicans forced him to sign a law barring HIV+ folks from entering the country or booting HIV+ folks from the military.
Or maybe Republicans forced Bill Richardson to call a guy maricón on the Imus show.
Or maybe Republicans are forcing Chairman Maobama and Holder to fight the LCR DADT lawsuit tooth and nail.
Or maybe Republicans forced the Breck Girl to say “I’m not comfortable around THOSE people“. [emphasis mine]
Hey, maybe Republicans forced Chairman Maobama to tour with Donnie McClurkin!
Or maybe they forced Pete Stark to call a Republican a “little fruitcake” on Capitol Hill.
Or maybe it was Republicans who forced liberals to use the “Everybody knows gays are pedophiles” meme during the Foley kerfuffle most notably Patty Wetterling.
Yeah, it had to be that “Vast right-wing conspiracy”. That’s the ticket.
Can you show us any evidence besides his fellatio of the “gay community”? As Senator, there was nothing stopping him from getting the ball rolling on ending DADT. He could have if he’d done anything other than pushing Rosa Parks postage stamps and voting “Present”.
I was listening to Hannity the other day. He said, in reference to gays, that he doesn’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?
I listen to Rush pretty frequently and he gets a fair amount of callers who state right off the bat that they are gay or lesbians. Can you provide any evidence that he’s a “bigot”?
[Citation Needed]
Didn’t you just say that we all live in NYC? Besides, if you look at the county by county election maps for 2000 and 2004, EVERY state had a fair amount of red counties.
And what of the “homophobic” blacks who vote liberal? How do you square that? Or do you even care as long as they stay on the liberal plantation?
DavyJG opined…
If this young man’s previous emotional outbursts are any indication, he’d be well advised to not cast aspersions upon anything yours truly posts here. Tossing about the broadest of generalizations whilst in the heat of a petulant fit, then expecting a reasoned response is akin to the unfortunate woman who summons law enforcement when her order of McNuggets proves unsatisfactory.
That said, I’ve never been one to attach myself to a particular party in the blind hope of having all my dreams and desires made manifest. As an openly gay conservative Objectivist, I maintain that in the 36 years since becoming eligible to vote, not a single elected official my support helped into office shared every single one of my values, nor did I expect them to. Thus, I find the practice of becoming a disciple of any one politician or political party highly disingenuous, and the attempted marginalization of those who don’t share that adoration thoroughly repugnant. Such behavior is not only ignorant, but does nothing more than reveal a complete inability to think for oneself.
I will say, however, that as a former Army officer during the Cold War and Desert Storm, I personally would like to see DADT repealed. Having been housed in a myriad of B.O.Q.’s (bachelor officer’s quarters), I never had occasion to witness open displays of hetero sex, nor any situation reminiscent of a frat house. In addition, while I cannot speak for the enlisted personnel under my command (who were housed in far closer quarters), military SOP dictated a level of personal discretion all were expected to show, enlisted and commissioned alike.
However, I remain professionally unconvinced that arbitrarily and capriciously rolling back DADT is a particularly wise idea. We have yet to see the reasoned and thoughtful debate this issue demands from either side of the aisle, and until I am reinstated as a member of the Joint Chiefs, I choose to defer my judgement to the commanders responsible for the welfare of the military, and NOT the public at large.
One last thing, as for the “hateful, self-loathing queen” remark, I’ll ask you to leave my mother out of this discussion…