Obama's gay marriage move has no impact on policies: Still Hasn't Signed Anti-Discrimination Order

[Better Believe It]

Obama's gay rights move has no impact on policies
Associated Press
May 10, 2012

President Barack Obama's announcement that he supports gay marriage brings the presidential stamp of approval to the divisive social issue but does not carry swift policy changes along with it.

Obama described his decision as a personal position. White House officials said his decision would not affect current policies. The president said he continued to believe that marriage is an issue best decided by states.

Read the full article at:

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obamas-gay-rights-move-1435384.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------



Obama Still Has Not Signed 'Nondiscrimination Executive Order'
By DANIEL HALPER
May 10, 2012

President Obama made what's being heralded as a big announcement on same sex marriage. "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told ABC News in an interview broadcast this morning. Obama's the first sitting president to come out in favor of same sex marriage.

But what this might actually mean in terms of policy is a little murkier. Perhaps most pressing is the issue of a so-called "nondiscrimination executive order" that gay-rights groups have been pushing. The president has refused—and continues to refuse—to sign it.

"The order, which has been drafted for months awaiting the president’s signature, would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity," the Washington Post reported. "It has become a major focus for gay-rights groups, but in recent weeks activists began to worry that the White House might opt against approval."

This is not the only policy issue that Obama has steered clear of. Already Obama has indicated that while he believes "same sex couples should be able to get married," he also believes states should be able to ban gay marriages. This is particularly pertinent in light of Tuesday's vote in North Carolina to ban same sex marriage. The ban overwhelmingly passed.

Read the full article at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-still-has-not-signed-nondiscrimination-executive-order_644332.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------



Obama on Gay Marriage: I Support it, and Support States Banning it
By DANIEL HALPER
May 10, 2012

This morning on ABC, President Obama said that he thinks same sex marriage should be allowed. "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," the president said.

But he also reaffirmed his belief that same sex marriage is a states' rights issue, and that it's therefore OK for states to ban the practice:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.

I think it's important to recognize that-- folks-- who-- feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as-- between a man and a woman-- many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They're coming at it because they care about families. And-- they-- they have a different understanding, in terms of-- you know, what the word "marriage" should mean. And I-- a bunch of 'em are friends of mine-- you know, pastors and-- you know, people who-- I deeply respect.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-gay-marriage-i-support-it-and-support-states-banning-it_644324.html

#!

[Cant trust em]

1. I know, right? He might as well have not said anything.

Please...

[Better Believe It]

2. Why do you think that? Do you also think an Executive Order banning discrimination is unimportant?

[TheWraith]

5. I think your posting of anti-Democrat propaganda is unimportant.

I do notice it took a couple days for them to find an adequate spin; a new play of their same old Republican talking points of Obama's actions being "just pretty words."

[FSogol]

30. +1 n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

42. That's the pattern, alright...

Poster is nowhere to be found when positive news is front and center, only to show up a few days later with negatuve spin.

Like someone else mentioned in this thread, straight out of the GOP playbook.

This poser should have been shown the door long ago.

[Rex]

131. And now the poster is no longer here.

I can't actually believe they posted the Weekly Standard trash on this website.

[mfcorey1]

146. ITA!!!!!!!

[SidDithers]

52. +1...nt

Sid

[arely staircase]

71. i know - it is so obvious

i wonder how much playing the agrieved liberal pays.

[leftstreet]

85. I think the Democratic party has become anti-democratic n/t

[paulk]

105. how is it anti - Democratic?

it seems a pretty straightforward description of Obama's position.

[DevonRex]

107. You could ask Skinner that, since

he just PPRed BBI.

[paulk]

110. perhaps it was the source (weekly standard)

while I think that Obama personally coming out in favor of same sex marriage is a major step forward, I find his support for state's rights rather problematic - in that that is basically a conservative position to take. I say that as a liberal Democrat. It bothers me. In fact, it bothers me a lot - I'm really not happy with Obama's embrace of something that would have gotten him roundly castigated just a few short year's ago - the notion that individual state's have the right to decide on what is, for me, a civil rights issue.

[DevonRex]

115. Ah, I see where the problem is...

There's a big difference in Obama saying that marriage is a state issue (which it is) and Obama saying he approves of states outlawing marriage equality (which he has not). In fact, he very clearly said he approves of the states that have given LGBTs the RIGHT to marry. That was in his statement the other day.

Unfortunately for all of us, Federal powers are actually enumerated in the US Constitution and marriage laws are not among those enumerated. That reserves them to the states. Again, unfortunately for us. So, it will take repealing DOMA and a Loving type Supreme Court decision that declares marriage equality for LGBTs. Just like Loving did for interracial marriage. Unless, of course, the court sees its way to apply Loving to LGBTs as well. I haven't studied it in detail from that perspective.

I understand your frustration. We all share it.

[dionysus]

113. i was wondering why it suddenly smells better in here!

[DevonRex]

116. I feel like we're all in an Irish Spring commercial or something.

[lillypaddle]

134. Yep, I feel fresher already!

[musical_soul]

129. So, can Obama not be criticized?

I realize he's the one we want to keep in office. However, for years liberals
have had to cower to Republicans to stay in office. It's not right.

[Pab Sungenis]

139. So, pro-gay is automatically anti-Democrat now?

I'm sorry, but Obama's interview didn't do much in the long run. He could have better spent the time signing the Executive Order and turning the pretty words into hard actions.

[scheming daemons]

3. It certainly has had no impact on your continuous bashing of him I see.....

[Bodhi BloodWave]

26. I swear, i would not be surprised that even if Obama had built BBI a new house from the ground up

and BBI had lived there for 10 years with no trouble, he'd still accuse Obama of purposefully making a dangerous house the day he got a wooden sliver in his finger.

[treestar]

77. you got it!

[bluestateguy]

4. Two articles from the Weekly Standard

...

Kay.

[SunsetDreams]

55. I know right? About the Weekly Standard

for anyone in doubt that this is a Right Wing rag.... (I'm not sure really how many people would be in doubt, but I'm offering it up anyway)


When you subscribe, you get "Conservative Intelligence" according to the "About" section. Conservative Intelligence?

Who is William Kristol? Well you see he is neoconservative political analyst and commentator. He is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.

Who is Daniel Halper? He's only a guy who recently did an Op-ed giving Romney that good old Right Wing advice on how to respond to the news that JP Morgan lost 2 billion in risky trading. Oh but hey, I guess we should trust his spin on Obama right?

Not one, but two articles from a right wing rag from a right wing hack who gives advice to Romney on how to spin things in his favor.

I guess as long as it is slamming Obama, it's ok to use a Right Wing source.

[RZM]

6. Jury results from an alert on the OP

At Sat May 12, 2012, 12:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Obama's gay marriage move has no impact on policies: Still Hasn't Signed Anti-Discrimination Order
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002677848

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Posting anti-Obama propaganda straight from the Weekly Standard.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 12, 2012, 12:51 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: First of all, I think BBI is a fraud. He or she probably won't be here much longer. But I'm not going to hide this. I think it's possible for DUers to open their minds to different sources without compromising the site's ideological identity. We shouldn't run in fear from what the right says. We should face it head on. I think it would do some people good to step outside of the bubble every once in a while.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Tough one but I vote hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I realize they used a conservative source, but in reading the articles the impression I got was that the result will benefit Obama during the elections. Because in the end, Republican voters should not feel so threatened by a decision which their own conservative paper claims is not a policy change. Let's get him re-elected first, then we'll work on the policy change. The fact that he's come out in support of same sex marriage, is a huge step forward.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DevonRex]

68. Do you happen to know if TOS was checked?

[SidDithers]

69. You can alert again and check TOS...

it won't affect the original jury result, but the TOS alert will trigger an Admin review.

Sid

[RZM]

81. I don't. Though I assume so n/t

[Son of Gob]

7. You should throw in a link to Redstate or The Daily Caller while you're at it.

[sabrina 1]

8. Reverse Psychology. Could this really be the multiple dimensional chess game

we've been waiting to see?

His declaration has forced the Conservative News Media into a position I've never seen them take before. They are slamming him for NOT signing an executive order ending discrimination against Gays

He knows, because we've heard him say it many times, that if he said the 'sky is blue' they would automatically take an opposing position. He's joked about it in fact.

Now he's done something that most decent people are happy about, but they have to find a way to make him look bad. The majority of Americans now oppose discrimination against Gays. They now risk being called 'bigots' in a climate that is rapidly changing, if they attack the principle of equal rights for all Americans.

So, their only option to try to dampen enthusiasm for Obama's declaration of support, is to attack him for not DOING MORE!!

So now he has Republicans slamming him for NOT supporting Gay Rights. Their readers will no doubt nod their heads in agreement in their partisan zeal to find any way they can to attack him. Before they know it, they will be pushing him to sign that Executive Order.

Another sign of the shift in public opinion. Ten years ago, they would simply have attacked him on 'moral' grounds.

I wonder if this was calculated, but regardless, it is a good outcome, Republicans are now fighting for the rights of the LGBT community! Hilarious!

[Tx4obama]

9. Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues

See DU OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125136967

[sabrina 1]

11. Wow, interesting, I had not seen that.

So then it is very possible that the Obama administration, who I am sure have this information, moved quickly before the Republicans tried to take the issue away from them, knowing they are in no position to condemn his public support. They tide has turned against them.

I was surprised frankly that the Weekly Standard took the position they did, basically accusing him of not signing that executive order.

But your article explains it. I wonder if the WH calculated their reaction and can now use it to take the next few steps, or at least to sign the EO? If they play their cards right now, they could make it seem like as Republican idea that Obama opposes. If they think he is against signing the EO, they will be for it.

[joshcryer]

15. That memo came out in response to Obama's position, not as a position the Republican party...

...would ever advocate.

Obama came out for same sex marriage May 9th, that memo was circulated May 11th.

The Weekly Standard accused him of not signing that executive order in order to divide and conquer.

They are not for signing the EO and will not be for it ever.

[DevonRex]

48. Sabrina, really?

[sabrina 1]

83. No, not really, but it's called 'calling their bluff'! And I see many ways in which that can

be done now.

[joshcryer]

13. Attacking Obama for "not doing more" is a move right out of all Obama detractor's...

...little play books. It's all about suppressing the vote.

[DevonRex]

24. Yes it is. The RW play book

that goes SOOO well with the RW sources he used, too.

[sabrina 1]

82. You miss the whole point.

When have you seen the Right, stand up for Gay Rights?

What vote are they going to suppress by taking this position? Who will not vote for Obama because the Right is demanding more rights for Gays than he has so far worked to get for them? If he plays this correctly, he will encourage their sudden interest in Gay Rights, then issue the EO after THEY demand it, forcing them into an untenable position where they have to either agree with him or flip flop like the hypocrites they are, or simply find another issue. But their sudden 'support' can be used against them.

[joshcryer]

121. The right is not standing up for gay rights.

They have not and will not do so to any significant extent.

This is being used to say "Ha, ha, your guy isn't doing enough" and people are eating it up because they can't see through right wing rhetoric.

You are so out of touch here, read that other guys anti-gay stuff, his article is veiled criticism of Obama but he doesn't actually support Obama doing anything progressive.

[sabrina 1]

126. Of course they are not. But they have been forced to pretend they are.

Public opinion is against their bigoted attitude towards Gays for the first time. Polls show a majority of Americans now favor the same rights for the LGBT community as everyone else.

So now they find themselves in a corner, with an election coming up. They can't use this the way they used to anymore. So, they are taking a different approach, 'slam Obama for not being pro-equal rights enough'.

Now that they are in that corner, it should be used to GET THOSE rights, shouldn't it? If you cannot see what a victory this is for Civil Rights for the LGBT community, I cannot help you. But any good political strategist would know how to use it. This is how the Right has always been dragged kicking and screaming into not opposing rights for minorities.

Their strategy is stupid, it leaves the door open for Democrats while shutting down one of their favorite wedge issues. This is a golden opportunity to finally get rights long denied to the LGBT community AND a political victory.

That is the problem with blind partisanship, even when something arises that could benefit, not just those most affected by the bigotry, but the Party itself, fear gets in the way.

Hopefully the Party leadership has more vision and will use this sudden 'concern' on the part of the Right for equal rights for all Americans.

And you didn't answer the question 'what voters will be suppressed by this phony claim they are making'?

There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune

They are swimming against the tide and flailing now to try to survive.

[joshcryer]

130. They are not pretending that they are, they are accusing Obama of not being "liberal enough."

They're trying to 1) prove to their own right wingers that Obama is throwing his own under the bus (this makes them happy) and 2) as the OP has attempted to do, disenchant liberals with Obama. It is a perfect divide and conquer tactic. And it works as we see people in this very thread spouting misinformation that they "have been force to pretend that they are" supporters of gay rights.

They were in the corner as soon as they embraced the racist, homophobic teabaggers and the fringe right wing. This was done in 2010. It is only now coming to bite them in the ass so that one of their pollsters has had to come out and warn them. They have 1) zero chance of "embracing gay rights" this election cycle, or even next election cycle and 2) they will continue moving to the right because it is the only way they can differentiate themselves.

The right will not be "dragged kicking and screaming" they will be obsoleted and fall out of favor to the American public.

Partisanship is a good thing, Obama's "reach across the isle" approach is what has caused progressives to be disillusioned with him in the first place, and ironically the right wing has used Obama's bipartisanship against him to divide and conquer even more. They have people convinced that they are even "pretending" to care about civil rights when nothing could be further from the truth, they're not pretending, they're not even considering it on any significant level, just a memo was written by a pollster who saw the writing on the wall. That's it. They're masters of manipulation.

Hopefully the party, after 4 years of obstruction by the right wingers due to Obama's naive "bipartisanship strategy," realizes that FDR-style partisanship is the only way anything progressive is going to get done. The fact that Obama has come out in support of gay rights indicates to me at least on social issues that may be the case, and it will go a long way to destroying right wingers like those who write on the Weekly Standard which was linked by the OP.

[Tx4obama]

10. The Weekly Standard is a right-wing rag rag n/t

[joshcryer]

12. The Weekly Standard, edited by none other than William Kristol himself.

Holy shit. If anyone posted a William Kristol article here they'd be PPR'd instantly. Incredible.

Daniel Halper isn't much better, what a vile piece of work that guy is.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. "If anyone posted a William Kristol article here they'd be PPR'd instantly."

It's mind boggling, isn't it? I don't get the jury decision. I don't get the admins. I just simply don't get it.

[msanthrope]

114. So it was written, so it shall be done....nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. !!!

[DevonRex]

20. And he posted TWO Weekly Standard Articles. Two of them. Using RW Bullshit

openly to discredit the Democratic president on Democratic Underground. Pretty freakin brazen if you ask me.

[Pisces]

35. This poster throws up garbage regularly and he is still here?? Why is anyone's guess. It makes me

sick to see the negativity and good feeling eroded away with anger at people posting negative things from a huge positive.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Maybe it won't affect policy directly, but this Rachel Maddow video is must see...

Obama has already been the most pro-LGBT rights President in history. Without question. That means a lot IMO.

The announcement is icing on the cake. The impact can't just be measured directly in policy. When the Prez of the USA advocated for marriage equality, it's a big effin deal.

[Better Believe It]

37. If this is "icing on the cake" what would signing a non-discrimination Executive Order be?

I take it you don't think such an order is of much importance to LGBT people.

[DevonRex]

43. You think the Weekly Standard gives a shit about LGBTQs?

They want to divide Democrats and depress the vote. And YOU brought that shit here, BBI. Shame on you.

[cliffordu]

50. What you said.

Yeppers.

[arely staircase]

75. he is just doing his job nt

[jberryhill]

17. Ah, the right wants to draw another line in the sand

...and dare him to cross it, eh?

Thanks for letting us know.

[DevonRex]

18. I'm SHOCKED that BBI would post RW articles to bash the President on marriage equality.

Just shocked!!!! NOT.

[SidDithers]

46. Shocked...

In the last month, BBI has used noted racist and Reaganite Paul Craig Roberts, "Obamanomics" author Timothy Carney, Romney health policy advisor Avik Roy, and now the Weekly Standard as sources to criticize Obama.

How much right wing nonsense is enough?

Sid

[DevonRex]

63. In ONE month posted all those RW sources? So BBI is a RWer? Who ELSE does that shit???

Promoting RW talking points? It would have to be a RWer. How the fuck could that logic be wrong? Somebody please tell me that.

[SidDithers]

64. Well, more like 6 weeks...

the Roy and Carney articles were right at the beginning of April.

Pushing anti-Obama crap published at Kristol's Weekly Standard is beyond the pale.

Sid

[DevonRex]

66. Hell yeah, that's beyond the pale.

I'm so mad I could spit.

[bvar22]

72. Check out the Right Wingers promoting the World Net Daily in THIS thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002451396

[SidDithers]

73. Yeah, that's exactly what's going on in that thread...

Keep defending the indefensible.

Interesting to see you reccing The Weekly Standard. Never really had you pegged as a big William Kristol fan. Learn something new everyday.

Sid

[bvar22]

84. Criticism from someone who will NOT be voting for Obama,

and who parades under the banner of the World Nut Daily.....is easy for me to brush off.

I actually applaud this announcement of his evolution,
but don't find anything here to ring the bells about.
He DID straddle the fence by tossing this Equal Rights issue BACK to The States
and a Republican Congress.
It cost him nothing.
Everyone who is against Equal Rights for Everyone won't be voting for Obama anyway,
and this personal announcement WILL re-energize some of the Base.
Good Politics.
Social Issue that won't alienate Wall Street or other BIG Corporate donors.
Great Risk/Reward.
Well Played!

When President Obama decides to actually Take a Stand and Do the Right Thing
for Equal Rights & Equal Protections for ALL,
like THIS Democratic President did

...THEN, I will get excited.
Obama and his Family should thank LBJ every single day that HE didn't believe that
Equal Rights & Equal Protections were an issue to be resolved by The States.

Cheers!


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Personal Evolutions.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[cr8tvlde]

90. LBJ had his moments...and this was one of them...however

I notice one black person, MLK, and no women.

In the recent contraception inquiry, if memory serves, there were No Minorities visible at "the front of the Inquiry Room", which included women...discussing graphically what and how to impose regulation on the interior of women's bodies...of all races...still in 2012

Signing papers are definitely important, but like any woman knows, our struggle began in the mid 19th century and we've still a long way to go...see above.

The black minority finally got some press in Selma, in 1965, even though the SCOTUS had ruled segregation unconstitutional 10 years earlier. Did not make it so.

"Quotas", laws on the books, have given the RW fodder for decades.

The LGBT community (and their suporters) should be proud of our President and those of us who believe in equal rights for all, as well. Again, signing a paper doesn't make it so.

It got the RW all in a dither and forced them/Romney to retreat back to their RW bunkers, where they belong...that's a great step.

He's wise to wait until his 2nd term and I agree there needs to be a written directive...along with a appointing a couple of SCOTUS.

I support applauding him and making sure he gets re-elected so he can do the real work in his second term.

[DevonRex]

76. Or you could try this totally LAUGHABLE BBI PROPAGANDA BULLSHIT

that was debunked and hidden by a jury, cited downthread in the very one YOU POSTED, dear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=481608

And by the way, I noticed you recced this Weekly Standard BULLSHIT here, too.

[joshcryer]

133. That is a blatant falsehood strawman propaganda bit.

No "right wingers" were "promoting WND" in that thread. The people there, who are left wing, were pointing out how absurd the OP there was and that in fact an even nuttier WND wasn't as nuts as that OP.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Serious question? Given that his announcement came only two days ago, how much.....

policy shift did you & Bill Kristol realistically expect in 48 hrs? I mean, on top of all the LGBT friendly policies already put in place by this administration? Are there no depths for you?

[DevonRex]

21. No.

Oh, that was rhetorical. Got it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. I can only think of one reason for this, and if it's as I suspect, Skinner is a.......

very shrewd businessman, indeed.

[DevonRex]

23. Well, damn.

I cannot come up with one. So you're both more shrewd than I am, at least at this time of morning. Oh, geez. It's almost 3:00 AM. That will be my excuse for non-shrewdness.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Get some rest, and you too can be shrewd like Skinner & me!

I won't be surprised when the Moonie Times becomes acceptable. Think about it.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. BBI, truck nuts that large are counter-productive.

When they drag the pavement like that, they tear up and you have to buy more.

[maddezmom]

33. LOL

amazing isn't it, day in day out.

[Grateful for Hope]

41. It's amazing and hard to believe.

[cali]

28. sigh. of course it does. It's called a tipping point. And it's MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Since his announcement of support, The dems in the Senate have decided to take up ENDA again- and they're discussing taking up DOMA too. Senator Reed and Senator Reid have both come out in favor of marriage equality.

Look, I'm sure the Weekly Standard and YOU would just love, love, love to see stupid people on the left get in a high dudgeon and angrily reject Obama because "he really didn't do anything". He did.

I'm sur3e YOU and the Weekly Standard would have loved it if Obama had said this must be settled in the SCOTUS and I'll appoint justices who will support my view. That would certainly lose him the election- something YOU and the fucking Weekly Standard would
love.

Oh, and do tell me the difference between "gay marriage" and "hetero marriage". Clue: There isn't one. So please stop using the bigoted phrase "gay marriage". It's MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

[Better Believe It]

39. I support gay marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage are bigots.

[DevonRex]

44. Do you think the Weekly Standard folks support marriage equality?

[maddezmom]

54. yeah, like the editor of the RW you linked in your OP

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-s-choice-and-ours_644422.html

[cali]

60. bzzzt gigantic fail, sweetheart.

now do tell, dear, how is gay marriage different from hetero marriage? Clue it's not. "gay marriage" marginalizes; makes it sound like some sub-category of marriage. It's marriage equality, honey.

[arely staircase]

79. yeah, you and bill kristol - fierce advocates nt

[salin]

29. The Weekly Standard? If I want their opinion, or others like NRO - I go to a rightwing site

of course I tend to not tend to care to read their drivel and don't go to those sites to read news "analysis" items.

[fascisthunter]

32. His Declaration of Support has set many things in Motion

I wouldn't down-play that... it's working.

[spanone]

34. t3

[Bobbie Jo]

36. More RW dumping from BBI.

Geeze....wake up ppl.

[Ikonoklast]

38. What, Stormfront mute on this issue?

The shark you are jumping makes Megalodon look like a guppy.

[cali]

40. Are you going to vote for the President? (not that you'll respond; I'm sure I'm on ignore)

I think it's time that you go, but that's just me- and dozens of others here.

[DevonRex]

45. That's just me, too.

Count me among the dozens.

[cliffordu]

51. Right there with you on this, cali.

[msanthrope]

47. Um, did you miss the ENDA annoucement? That's why no EO........

You should stick to left wing sources..then you would know what's going on.

No reason to upstage Rep. Barney Frank and the Senate....

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/senate-enda-hearing-set-for-june-12/

[cliffordu]

49. This train is NEVER late.....

I love consistency in some things.

[Swede]

53. I wished BBI would just fuck off with this rightwing crap.

Like,today.

[SidDithers]

56. You and about 20 other DUers in this thread...

Sid

[cali]

61. that would be lovely- and sooner or later it will happen.

[NavyDem]

88. Your wish has been granted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293

[Swede]

138. Now I am gonna wish for either world peace or a George Foreman grill.

[Number23]

124. But no. Tell us how you REALLY feel

[JoePhilly]

57. Hey ... I got you this ... the wheels make it easier to move.

[SunsetDreams]

58. Oh that is sweet, here I got something for you

[JoePhilly]

98. We could put the goal posts on top of that ... sans the wheels.

[SunsetDreams]

100. yes and we could add this somewhere too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293

[JoePhilly]

103. Awe ... now I'm bummed.

It looks like we've lost an endless supply of manufactured outrage widgets.

And without those, how would I have come to know that some one actually sells football goal posts with wheels!!

[SunsetDreams]

137. Never fear don't be bummed

we will just have to move your "DU Goal Post Moving Popping Wheelies Contraption" to the DU Hall of Fame in honor of this occasion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. That is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen since finding DU. I might even buy back my star.

[SunsetDreams]

136. I bet all the stars

on DU are shining even brighter now

[treestar]

80. That rules!

[JoePhilly]

99. I love the google!

[DevonRex]

104. Um, BBI's gonna need that moved over to the GOP convention where he'll be hanging out...

from now on. Oh, and he's gonna need some Right Wings put on that puppy.

[SidDithers]

59. How much right-wing bashing of Obama is too much right-wing bashing?...

Has that line been crossed yet?

Sid

[Grateful for Hope]

62. I was wondering the same thing, Sid

[zappaman]

78. No kidding.

Just fucking tiresome with this guy already...

[Jakes Progress]

97. It's a balance thing.

One post pointing out a failing in the administration's position on gay rights.

Five thousand fawning drools about how perfect the administration is on every single issue.

Which type of post is more likely to elicit the need for the administration to change?

If you have a whole site of sycophants telling you every thing is tickety boo, why would you bother to move to the left. That site would tell you that you have that group tucked in your pocket nicely. So as a savvy campaigner, you would start drifting ever rightward. So which group is more helpful to the right?

[SidDithers]

65. BBI: "I don't visit any right-wing websites like WND...

for my news nor for any objective critique of Obama"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=453953

Sid

[SunsetDreams]

67. Nice find!

[joshcryer]

122. Nail in the coffin right there. Excellent find.

[arely staircase]

70. see your a weekly standard reader

i guess that explains why you never have anything positive to say about president obama.

[Prism]

74. I did not know Carnival was offering a Bruisin'

Even if I'm sympathetic to pressuring the President on an EO, using the Weekly Standard is ensuring the point gets lost entirely. This is unhelpful.

[DevonRex]

86. DING fucking DONG, BBI.

Peddle that bullshit somewhere else.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Seriously.

This one had "Come and get me!" written all over it.

[DevonRex]

87. Thank you Mr. Skinner!

[11 Bravo]

89. What? You couldn't figure out how to link to Storm Front or Free Republic?

They have LOTS of cool shit you would no doubt like to share!

My post will probably get hidden because of this, but it needs to be said anyway ... Fuck off, clown.

[Son of Gob]

91. He did!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293&sub=trans

[11 Bravo]

93. I'm glad arrived in time to offer him/her a hearty farewell!

[FSogol]

95. 54 ignores!

[sharp_stick]

140. That was just star members

I'd love to see a total count. This has to be a record number of ignorers.

[cali]

92. ding dong

the bell has tolled for BBI.

[DCBob]

94. BBI = PPR !!!

[ProSense]

101. Wait

the source is the Weekly fucking Standard?

The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative[2][3][4][5] opinion magazine[6] published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible".[7][8] Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch.[9] Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute. Some individuals that have written for the magazine include Elliott Abrams, Peter Berkowitz, John R. Bolton, Ellen Bork, Ed Gillespie, Roger Kimball, Harvey Mansfield, Joe Queenan, Wesley J. Smith, David Brooks and John Yoo. The magazine's website blog, titled the "Daily Standard", is edited by John McCormack and Daniel Halper and produces daily articles and commentary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard

Nothing like a so-called progressive supporter of the necon standard bearer.

Proud?

You're no progressive. After condescendingly belittling others as somehow less progressive, now this?

Good riddance!

[SunsetDreams]

102. I don't think

you will get a response.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=217293

[great white snark]

106. Wow. Was wondering what happened to that strange odor.

Enough was finally enough. Thank you skinner et all.

[SidDithers]

108. Byeeeee....

Sid

[dionysus]

112. vaht? vas you say shumthing, about BBI being tombstoned... to meeeee? ... vaht?

[BumRushDaShow]

109. OMG finally.

The spew is silenced!

[dionysus]

111. sleep well, sweet, sweet Prince...

[JimGinPA]

117. Thank You Skinner!

[grantcart]

119. Is DU getting better day by day

You Better Believe It.

[Tarheel_Dem]

120. Skinner, I owe you for this!

[cliffordu]

123. THANK YOU, SKINNER!!!

best news all week.

[Bobbie Jo]

127. FINALLY!

Thank you Skinner!!

[musical_soul]

128. Obama can't have it both ways.

If he's going to give the lip service, then he needs to sign the non-discrimination order. I'm hoping he's just trying to buy time.

[book_worm]

132. why don't you stop the charade and admit you're going to vote third party in November

I can't imagine you will vote for a president you constantly find fault with. It's going to be a close election. I hope if Romney wins you enjoy him.

[SidDithers]

135. Kick...

Sid

[Rowdyboy]

141. Sorry, I've been out of pocket for four days at a gay campground and returned to find this thread...

Its about fucking time. Thank you Skinner for making this a much better place.

Buh bye BBI.....

[Tarheel_Dem]

142. Ditto!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

143. Our long National nightmare is over.....

Thank god they finally pizza bombed this dbag.....

[inna]

144. incredibly repugnant display of The Two Minute Hate in this thread

- plus the apparent failure to read things in context... pathetic. truly, truly pitiful.


belatedly recommended in memoriam.

[inna]

145. at least Hannah got her tributes. no such thing on DU3; what a fucking waste.