Witness (and don't be deceived)

[susankh4]

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. 404: Not Found

is the message I get when I click on the link.

[susankh4]

2. Try it again.

[AX10]

3. k/r

A "uniter" indeed! :eyes:

[Fearless]

4. So we're down to reading hate mail then?

[Clintonista2]

5. Huh?

Since when is the SF chronicle "hate mail"?

[Fearless]

10. Nothing is sacred.

[Tyo]

17. Nothing in sacred?

I assume you mean Barack and his Fundie buds.

[Fearless]

18. No, I meant newspapers are not sacred.

And then there's Hillary using old republican fear-mongering techniques against Obama and you justify that because you are blinded by your apparent love for her.

[troubleinwinter]

6. Links:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/as-god-is-my-witness-obama-snubs-newsom-gays/#more-1662
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL&type=politics

[Beregond2]

7. Newsome Picture

The anti-Obama people are always saying that the Republicans are going to eat him for lunch in the GE, swiftboating him with old stories and pictures. Here's an example of him thinking ahead and avoiding one such picture that they could have used in that way...and your bitching? You can't have it both ways.

[susankh4]

8. It is beyond me how

he can share a stage with McClurkin. But not Newsom.

I am just flaberghasted that anyone thinks this is OK.

[NMMNG]

14. It just goes to show where his priorities--and loyalties--lie.

:shrug:

[mondo joe]

11. I don't consider "thinking ahead" of how to not be associated with GLBT issues to be a positive.

Thanks. :hi:

[mitchtv]

12. hahahahahaha

you just won't get it.I guess you are ashamed of us also. Being brave is its own reward, I get the feeling he really dislikes gays and his wife is no friend of ours either.

[Fearless]

13. Truly you are out of your mind.

[readmoreoften]

15. Isn't that amazing. I'm anti-Obama and I don't think the Republicans are going to eat him for lunch.

I think that Obama is going to win because he's exactly the kind of God-pandering, triangulating, strong military, pro-privatization, ashamed-of-but-not-totally-excluding-the-gay moderate "compassionate" Republican that the Republicans are actually looking for.

So why don't you stop bitching. You'll get your Republican-with-the-D-after-its-name. As I see it, this election is between a very conservative Democrat and a moderate 'new style' Republican--and the winner will go head-to-head with John McCain.

[MuseRider]

20. That could not be

a more perfect response. Thank you. IMO you hit it head on.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. That this might demonstrates Obama's narrow -mindedness couldn't be a possibility, right? n/t

[NorthCarolina]

9. Neither Candidate is What I Would Consider "Stellar"

on GLBT issues. An intelligent poster once commented to me that when it comes to HealthCare and GLBT issues, they're playing ping-pong with a turd and we're getting shitty in the process. I believe she was right-on in that observation.

[Fearless]

19. To all of you I ask...

Will Hillary support equal rights for GLBT people? Well she's made it clear that she doesn't support equal marriage rights, so I guess that means no not really... But oh yes, SHE should still be voted for, SHE is better. You're out of your minds, tricked by blind obedience. You equate the economic boom of the late 90's with Clinton and think that she, in a clearly different situation, will do just as "good" as her husband did... You know like signing or implementing NAFTA and DADT. Of course there was good, but the bad is what is wringing clear today, the cave ins to Congressional Rethuglicans.

In actuality, neither candidate will harm GLBT rights. Compared to Bush, they will be godsend. So by all means keep spreading your hate and fear amongst yourselves but make no mistake about it, you cannot have it both ways. You claim that Hillary or Obama will bring a new era into Washington where the politics of fear are exposed for what they are and then you go and use the same tactics against one of our own. That isn't the definition of democracy; that is the definition of hypocrisy!

NTF

[okasha]

21. Geez, I just love being lectured by straights

who have no idea what I actually think or why I think it.

Go back under your rock.

[Fearless]

24. Gay actually, by all means look at my past posts.

[Fearless]

28. And further...

Your comments just go to show everyone that there are bigots and intolerables within every group. You assume that because I believe something that you don't that I am somehow predetermined to be straight, something that apparently you see as a bad thing. I don't. And as I said, I'm not. The presupposition that you come to shows that even amongst ourselves there are those who act just like those we are trying to fight. Yet another example of hypocrisy.

[okasha]

40. Maybe you are gay. After all, there are Stonewall Republicans, so

I'm sure we have a certain proportion of self-hating gays in the Democratic Party who are willing to kiss ass to those who cozy up to the ex-gay movement. But when you write things like this:

"You're out of your minds, tricked by blind obedience."

you sound suspiciously like the straight little Obama wah-wah's who blindly follow their cult leader and who have been rather vocal in telling LGBT people where their own advantage lies--whether we agree or not.

By the way, you do know Obama's not for equal marriage rights, don't you? Does that make a difference to you, hypocrite?

[Fearless]

43. I think it's about time to tone this down a bit...

I don't mean to be hurtful or to accuse and I'm afraid that I can't hold my tongue very well. That is my failing. I won't trade barbs any further. We are getting nowhere.

[mondo joe]

22. Your guy has already caved to religious bigots and he's not even in office yet.

No thanks.

[Fearless]

25. My "guy" was Dennis Kucinich.

But now I base my vote off of who has the best foreign policy. And Clinton's inability to talk to other nations is not helpful. We need to talk. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. And all that jazz. That is why I will and have voted for Obama. GLBT rights has nothing to do with it. Both candidates fall short in that arena, but both are better than John McCain and nearly identical. In the end, GLBT issues are going to progress regardless of which one beats McCain, and Obama has the best chance, but foreign policy is most pressing at this time. Maybe you don't like that, but that's what I think. I'd rather re-secure our former rights as well as gain new ones. I believe that Obama will be less divisive and maybe we'll be able to get some legislation passed and some investigations procured.

[mondo joe]

27. Your current guy. And if you want to regard GLBT issues as the lowest tier go ahead

but don't ask us to fucking agree with you.

[Fearless]

29. I didn't ask you to agree with you... and as I said he isn't "my guy"

But I do understand that sometimes there are things that need to be done before we get what we want. We cannot possibly gain rights if the Bush Administration continues to influence politics, and John McCain has shown at worse that he will be that extenuation and at best that he cannot make up his mind. We cannot possible create a genuine equal rights amendment without a fillabuster proof majority in Congress. We cannot get DADT overturned with a republican president. And we cannot hope to win the end of DOMA in the courts without a democratic president to replace the next wave of retiring justices. We have to look to the future and we have to realize that we cannot make the change that we desire without greater representation. I see Obama as a man who can get republicans to cross the aisle. I see Clinton as a divider. I see McCain as a foolish old man and Mike Huckabee as the anthesis of what we want (thankfully he can't win). We need all of America to want to turn away from the policies of the BushAdmin, and until we can get in the very least, a solid majority represented in Congress, one that isn't divisive and is willing to accept all voters, we will not have any hope to overturn DOMA or DADT or finally get a genuine ERA.

[mondo joe]

32. Then what ARE you asking? Why do you keep beating your drum?

If you don't ask others to agree with you what ARE you asking?

[Fearless]

33. I'm not asking anything...

I was merely stating what I believe. I saw something I disagreed with and posted what I believed was true so that people can make up their minds by themselves. That is the definition of the democratic process itself and that is certainly what this forum is for.

[mondo joe]

35. Well, this subthread began with you ASKING a question. You got several answers.

If you want to disagree that's of course your right, but I don't much see the point in asking others what they think just so you can use their response as a vehicle to state your own opinion.

If you don't care or respect what others think why ask them?

[Fearless]

36. I see what you meant now... and to be fair I asked only one question...

and far be it for me to ask a rhetorical question and then answer it myself. But if you'd like to answer that question: Will Hillary support equal rights for GLBT people? Keeping in mind that she has already said, documentedly, that she does not support marriage for gay and lesbian people. Then by all means answer that question directly.

[mondo joe]

38. My answer:

I don't believe either candidate has said they will support what I consider full equality. And HRC givs them an identical score.

I have, however, heard Clinton say that she supports the state's right to make marriage decisions and if states decided same sex marriage that's fine with her. And I have heard Obama say he does not agree with same sex marriage on reigious grounds.

As a practical matter, that may put them on, again, identical footing.

But I very much dislike and mistrust Obama's kowtowing to religious bigots, and his religious justifications to policy matters. I trust him less on LGBT matters, because regardless of what a candidate says they'll do the degree to which they will uphold it has to depend on where it is in their heart.

[Fearless]

39. And I think it's best we leave it there...

You've got your opinion and I've got mine. Clearly it was a judgement call for both of us and we've chosen differently. So be it.

[Fearless]

34. Typo in the last title: I didn't ask you to agree with **ME**

[Tyo]

23. What you have just told me is that...

I need to accept my status as a second class citizen and just be glad that it's not worse. Screw that. Your guy has said that the dream must not be deferred but he has made it very clear that it will be deferred indefinitely when it comes to us. Your guy has no problem getting down on his knees for bigots homophobes and theocrats in return for their votes. Your guy has an awesome God who doesn't believe that we deserve equality under the law and so he doesn't either.

Your guy's approach to our rights is to leave it up to the states to provide them or not as they choose and his ideal arrangement is separate-but-equal. George Wallace would have been proud. And in the face of all this he somehow expects us to believe that he is on our side and that he backs our aspirations and will work with us to fulfill them. All i have to say to Obama is that I have more respect for an upfront honest bigot than I do for a pandering hypocrite.

[Fearless]

26. What it boils down to is trust...

Does one trust that Obama is going continue to fight for civil rights as a president or is he going to forgo his past beliefs and go the other way. I choose to believe the prior and you clearly believe the latter. So be it. I believe that he is trying to convince disillusioned republicans and independents to vote democrat. You believe that he is becoming their puppet. So be it.

For what reason you and many now believe that working with our fellow Americans is wrong is beyond me. It seems to me that if one feels they were wrong voting republican in the past and decide to vote democratic, we should welcome them not shun them for the mistakes of their past. We need a filibuster proof majority and a democratic president to replace retiring Justices. Only if we get that majority soon and that president NOW will we be able to affect change over the next 20-30 years. We cannot afford a further swaying of the high court. And we cannot further afford Congressional incontinence.

[Creideiki]

30. Do you mean the past beliefs

That led him to fight for the repeal of the DOMA in Illinois?

[Fearless]

31. I intended to mean his work as a lawyer and his voting record in state and federal legislatures...

There are plenty of lists regarding his record floating around this place... links welcome.

[Creideiki]

42. Yup. And Illinois still has a DOMA.

He wasn't up to challenging that.

[Tyo]

45. A lot about majorities and not one word about principle

In order for Obama to keep all this together, assuming that he can put it together in the first place, there are interests and aspirations that are going to get sold down the river because they conflict with other interests and aspirations that are deemed more important or more generally popular. I will guarantee you that our rights will be among the ones that get tossed. Sounds to me like what Obama is shooting for is an American version of a coalition government. In other words, a government that is based on expediency rather than conviction and which once in power will burn itself out trying to keep itself together.

[Zuiderelle]

41. At least Clinton won't use her religion against us.

With Barack, there's nothing except his prejudice. He himself has admitted that he is prejudiced against us. We do not deserve the sacred word "marriage" to describe our unions. We are all sinners, don't you know? But being gay, we're Super-sinners, who don't even get the rights of you normal sinners.

[Fearless]

44. Please provide link evidence of all this...

I'm eager to continue but we need to argue substance and not rhetoric.

[Zuiderelle]

46. No. I'm tired of you.

[Fearless]

49. Of course, onward and upward then.

[Tyler Durden]

53. Direct quotes:

Clinton: "Homosexuality is not immoral."

Later in the argument:

Obama: "Homosexuals are not immoral."

Do you see the difference? One is a preface to changing a paradigm. The other could be part of a pamphlet for recruiting Catholic Priests. No offense meant to Catholics.

WORLD of difference, and don't think for one second he doesn't know the difference. He's a LAWYER and a pretty fair ORATOR. Most of the time he's planned what he will say and what it means.

[Fearless]

55. Do you have the full speech? Context is hard to divine from two lines.

Otherwise, I've heard Obama's post election speeches promoting equal rights for gays. If you don't believe me so be it.

"Barack Obama and Gay Rights in Illinois: Barack Obama supported gay rights during his Illinois Senate tenure. He sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

From: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm


"Both Clinton, 60, and Obama oppose same-sex marriages while supporting civil unions. A major difference between the candidates is that Obama supports full repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a law signed by Bill Clinton -- under pressure from a Republican-dominated Congress -- that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and permits states to do the same. Hillary Clinton wants to roll back only part of the law."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080229/pl_bloomberg/a_wg4hpi71wu


And then... "And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity...

And he said that "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate."

"While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.

Obama also said that he supports the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

"The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic," the letter said.

"When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception."


http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022808letter.htm



--------

And?

[Fearless]

37. Further to my previous arguments... read this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4840415

[Tyler Durden]

47. To paraphrase your Franklin quote:

Those who would surrender their RIGHTS to obtain other perceived benefits deserve neither their rights nor those benefits.

If you cannot see that to defer EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW is a catastrophe for all citizens, then I can't help you see the light.

[Creideiki]

48. Well, to be fair

It is a big light--really bright, and sort of scary to some.

[Tyler Durden]

51. Change is frightening

Isn't Obama preaching Change? Then he should be trying to scare the HELL out of us, not let the old prejudices have a voice.

It's why I don't have a horse in the race. NOBODY is championing the REAL CHANGE that is necessary. I could say more, but I want to remain neutral on just that particular issue.

[Fearless]

56. Evidence would be helpful... a quote or a link...

You seem to want to convince everyone not to vote for him, and while that is valid and perhaps admirable, your efforts so far amount to gossip and nothing more.

Convince me with proof.

[Tyler Durden]

58. I'm sorry. You want "Proof," look up the transcripts of the debates.

That's where it was said.

I'm only a LITTLE miffed that you've inferred I'm a LIAR. Also, as I said, I don't have a horse in this race. I am neutral on this subject alone, with the exception that he is wrong about this issue, AND HIS SUPPORTERS SHOULD TELL HIM SO EN MASSE.

If you have, fine. If not, you should.

[Tyler Durden]

59. I think both of us are referring to the two quotes above.

Those are the ones from the Debates.

Still a little miffed. It will pass.

[Fearless]

60. Well I'm glad it will pass... but I'm unclear as to what quotes you speak of...

And honestly I'm ecstatic that there are still people left who are willing to keep a civil tone during the election. All or nothing campaigns will hurt us in the long run.

[Tyler Durden]

64. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=66271&mesg_id=66649

spoken in one of the numerous debates. Feel free to look it up.

[Fearless]

50. I do see that...

but I also see the damage that the Bush Administration is doing and I think that right now that is more important. That's all. I know that others think differently and I'm fine with that. That's what's great about this country.

[Tyler Durden]

52. Every brick placed in the wall is another one to chip out after the mortar hardens.

Sometimes you have to stand your ground. I think this is one of them. We may have to do it after there is a candidate, but we MUST NOT let the candidate feel they don't have to devote every fiber of their being to upholding the oath of office, and that includes EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.

Funny. We don't even need new legislation or amendments to make this happen. We just need an executive with the mazel to do what we hired them to do.

[Fearless]

54. I agree in theory with everything you've just now said...

However, I believe that the Bush Administration has placed a great number of bricks in the proverbial wall. Allow me a metaphor: For this country to regain its health after the plight it has suffered these last seven years, we must first stifle the blood gushing from the wounds inflicted on its Constitution and then move from there into surgery to fix the ills of this nation.

The crimes of the Bush Administration are killing people and destroying the economy. The crime of not passing an ERA is a bad one, but what country will we have left if we don't focus on the bleeding wound first?

[Tyler Durden]

57. Will what we have left be worth anything if there are 2nd class citizens?

What I hear is the same argument put forward before the Civil War: that the UNION must be preserved at all hazards: that if we can preserve it by leaving some free and some in bondage, then we will do it.

Inequality is Immorality! Preserving this nation completely intact at that hazard is no longer to be tolerated. We have seen what can be done to us by speculation and prevarication. Time to simply COMPEL the government to SERVE and no longer to RULE or LEAD. This is a REPUBLIC. WE are the bosses. WE are in charge. NO ONE CANDIDATE of ANY STRIPE will take us to the place we will not go ourselves.

"Virginians! Virginians! WHO WILL FOLLOW ME?" MUST BE THE CALL OF EVERY PERSON. (attributed to Major General Lewis Armistead, at Pickett's Charge, Gettysburg, July 3, 1863)

[Fearless]

61. I agree completely... but as there is no candidate who promises a solution...

to all our problems (Kucinich in my opinion being that candidate) we have to settle. Someone once said of democratic elections that it isn't who your first choice is that matters but who your second is that is important. I forget who said that. I don't want a compromise either. I want equallity now. But I'm also pragmatic, it's just not going to happen like that. I, being young still, would prefer to take a little time and take baby steps instead of risking everything on one try. But I also understand those who are older than I and that they are impatient and I know that it isn't fair to suggest they continue to wait, but I'm stuck between ignoring what I believe to be true and irking a bunch of people I don't know on a internet forum. I guess you can see why I choose what I do.

[Tyler Durden]

63. I hope to DOG you aren't having a conversation in 35 years....

...with someone your age NOW, who is saying "...take a little time and take baby steps..." when you are my age.

We have heard that for more than the 35 years difference in our ages. Do not take offense at this, but it is largely the opinion of activists who have spent their entire lives fighting for the meager crumbs we have managed to wrest from the clenched fists of the "powers that be" that any one saying "patience" and "...take a little time and take baby steps..." is holding us back.

It is far past time that we take the words of Frederich the Great to heart: "L'AUDACE! L'AUDACE! TOUJOUR L'AUDACE!"

Personally, if you're an Obama supporter, that's what he claims to be all about, except on this one issue, which gives the rest of us much pause.

[xchrom]

62. kick