Republicans before Gays in the Obama administration.

[last1standing]

Rick Warren opens the next four years of the Obama administration and the repub Ray LaHood gets a cabinet post.

The GLBT community gets nice words as we're shoved to the sidelines.

I supported Obama, I gave him my money and I gave him my time. This is how he shows his gratitude.

Even mouth-breathing repubs are more important than us gays to this administration and now we know. Don't expect us to get fooled again four years from now.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

10. Yeah.... Clinton, at least, had a midget.......

It's just a joke, people.


I love Robert Reich. Best Labor Secretary ever.

[GarbagemanLB]

14. ...

:rofl:

[Neecy]

2. but we get to be in the parade!

[jonnyblitz]

4. they let us sing showtunes for them!!!11

:bounce:

[Neecy]

7. maybe we can do their hair, too!

[last1standing]

5. We're still good enough to be the entertainment. Great.

After that maybe the marchers can get a meal in the kitchens.

[crappyjazz]

8. I'm urging any that care to get the band to pull out of the parade

Here's the contact information:

Robb Blackwell [phone]
Judy Ames [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

[last1standing]

9. Thank you. I'll write them now.

n/t

[Neecy]

11. excellent

Writing them now.

[T Wolf]

19. Replace sexual orientation with race and you can see the emptiness of the Obama position.

Many have said, "show us the difference between having Warren and David Duke" but those supporting bigotry never respond to that.

Having the group in the parade is the same as asking a Sammy Davis-type to come do a soft shoe routine to entertain up at the plantation house.

[MADem]

22. Pull out? They should play a FUNERAL DIRGE as they pass in review.

I think that's a better statement. You wanna protest, you gotta show up.

You don't miss something that isn't there. A replacement could be gotten in a snap, anyway.

[Neecy]

35. I would normally agree....

But Obama has stated that this group is 'representing us' - laughable and sad, really, when you think about it - at the Inauguration.

If they truly DO represent us, then they'll pull out of the event. That sounds like a far greater message than anything else they could do - which they won't, because activism is seldom employed at something like this.

[MADem]

48. Well, we'll have to agree to differ. I think they have an opportunity to make a point.

No one will notice if they're not there. Do you think Katie Couric or Campbell Brown or whoever is doing the "color commentary" will even MENTION a dog that didn't bark? Get serious! To make a point, you have to show up.

I think they ought to turn their backs and play this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgty3qGCcY

The point won't be lost.

Hey, if people could toss eggs at Bush's limo, why not let this "new guy" know that his attitude needs adjustment, too?

It's the top job--it DRAWS HEAT. I say give him some. He's wrong and bigoted on this issue. Anyone with at least half a brain knows that.

[Neecy]

54. But will they do that?

I'd love it if they did, but I'm guessing they won't. And to announce, publicly, that they're pulling out of the event because of the Warren invitation will get plenty of press and for weeks prior to the event itself.

There are good arguments both ways, but what I DON'T want is them marching around like happy sheep. That would be entirely unacceptable.

[MADem]

105. If they were going to pull it off, they'd have to keep it to themselves

It would work best if they marched up, stopped, turned their backs, played the dirge, and marched off in silence. It would be quite stunning, and deserved, too.

They probably won't do it. It takes guts to do stuff like that.

[zipplewrath]

41. I've got a different idea

They should play "we shall overcome" while they pass the reviewing stand, and unfurl a banner of Warren's most objectionable quote, with the addition "he spoke to God on your behalf".

[T Wolf]

12. Maybe if Obama switched parties, he would reach across that aisle back to us?

He certainly is not (showing his Democratic or liberal credentials) from the Democratic side.

That has been obvious from the beginning of his campaign. With all of the talk about bringing the right into the tent, he never mentioned that the left was going to be evicted.

[ananda]

21. Yeah, can you imagine McCain doing the Reep equivalent..

.. of appointed liberals and moderates
to all his cabinet positions and asking
a Gay preacher to give the invocation
at his inaugural?

[jenmito]

13. Nancy Sutley is openly gay and she was chosen to lead Obama's Environmental Council. n/t

[last1standing]

17. And it's not a cabinet level position. We've been through that.

Ray LaHood is in the fucking cabinet. We were sidelined.

[jenmito]

20. I know. But she was chosen to be in his admin. That's more than just offering nice words

to gay people. He said he was going to pick the best person for the job. He said he was going to be inclusive. He's keeping his word.

[last1standing]

23. So repubs are better than gays to Obama. He's made that clear.

And that's what I said in the OP.

[jenmito]

28. Your words: "The GLBT community gets nice words as we're shoved to the sidelines."

He chose someone who is gay to be in his admin.

[last1standing]

31. To a lesser position. It's not the same and you know it.

Or at least you should. If Obama couldn't find one GLBT person who could have filled a cabinet spot but he could find a repub then it shows where he was looking.

[jenmito]

34. Your OP implies all he offered to gay people is nice words. That's false and you know it.

He's not filling quotas. He's picking people he feels are best for the jobs.

[last1standing]

36. So you think that the repub LaHood was better than any gay person could be?

And until Obama appoints a GLBTer to a cabinet position, or rescinds DOMA and actively pushes for marriage equality, it's nice word and a big stick up the ass to gays.

[jenmito]

38. In his mind, yes. Just like he apparently thought the gay woman Nancy Sutley was better

than any straight person for HER position.

[last1standing]

40. So we're good enough for the lesser positions but repubs rank higher.

I'll remember that.

[jenmito]

46. Please. Get real. It has nothing to do with that. How many disabled people has he chosen for his

cabinet? I guess we're not even good enough for his admin. at ALL! I'll remember that.

[last1standing]

51. You have laws protecting you. We Don't.

Maybe you should remember that.

[jenmito]

53. Huh? He hasn't chosen any disabled people in his administration so he obviously

thinks lower of disabled people than gay people according to your logic. You're now changing the subject.

Not to mention, he DID work to pass laws for hate crimes against gay people and he said he will repeal DOMA and DADT.

[last1standing]

55. We need representation because we are completely left out at the moment.

There are no laws to protect us and we are legally discriminated against for jobs, homes and associations. It is illegal to do so to those with disabilities. You are free to marry the person of your choosing, we are not. You are not in danger of being beaten for being who you are, it happens all the time to us.

We need support and have found none from this president and none from people like yourself who only want to excuse the hatred against us. Go enjoy your Obama fanclub, but we won't be there with you.

[jenmito]

58. You changed your argument. Your logic was that because Obama didn't offer

gay people anything other than "nice words" re: his ADMINISTRATION, he doesn't care about gay people or gay rights. When I pointed out that he DID choose a gay person for his administration, you said well, that's not as good as a cabinet position.

Then when I pointed out he didn't choose anyone disabled for his administration, you changed your argument AGAIN to talking about laws.

You're blind if you think Obama doesn't support gay people and gay rights. And you really have some nerve saying I want to excuse the hatred against you. I'm not a FAN-I'm a SUPPORTER. Go ahead with your ever-changing arguments, though. You knew Obama's positions when you voted for him as did I. If you didn't vote for him and don't support him, you shouldn't be here.

[last1standing]

61. No, you changed the focus.

We need senior level representation and did not get it. You want to focus on trivial details so that you can justify your cultish worship of a man who has let down the gay community. You choose personality over actions because you are a fan.

[jenmito]

70. No I didn't. I compared apples to apples. I want senior level representation, too,

and did not get it. If you think I have less of a right to want someone like ME to have a place in Obama's administration than YOU do, that says a lot about you.

And if you think I'm a fan, I think you're ignorant.

[last1standing]

75. You're a fan. You can think whatever you like about me because I don't respect your opinions.

n/t

[jenmito]

78. Then you're an idiot who tried to change the subject.

[last1standing]

80. And you're trash.

Go find a dumpster and stop stinking this place up with your fanclub mentality.

[jenmito]

83. Get lost. You can't defend your position so you change your argument and then personally attack me.

[last1standing]

84. You started the personal attacks so fuck off.

You're on ignore now, trash.

[jenmito]

86. I'M trash? I started the personal attacks? I challenge you to point that out and if not, I

challenge anyone who agrees with you to do the same.

[CreekDog]

94. you just called a disabled person "trash"

really.

[jenmito]

97. Thank you for noticing that.

I don't think I deserved that. :hi:

[CreekDog]

110. I don't know if i trust that person to stand up for anybody if he so quickly calls you "trash"

when all you did was call him on his shifting argument.

[jenmito]

112. Thank you for following our discussion...

and for seeing what he said and did. I HATE being accused of things I'm not, from "homophobe" to "fan" to "trash." It seems like all that poster cares about is himself. Thanks again. :)

[yardwork]

69. A couple of days ago you were posting that Obama had appointed several gay people to his cabinet.

I've repeatedly asked you to back up your statements - which you posted repeatedly - by telling us which gay people Obama has appointed to his cabinet. Please do so now, as your statement has been taken as truth by many DUers.

[jenmito]

73. That's a lie. I posted that Obama had appointed ONE gay person to his cabinet and was

corrected that she is NOT in his cabinet but in his administration. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

[yardwork]

93. Maybe so. I know that several DUers have been repeatedly posting that there are "lots"

of gay people in Obama's cabinet and therefore we are all hypocrites. If it wasn't you I apologize but I thought it was.

[jenmito]

96. Thank you. It WASN'T me. n/t

[Clintonista2]

71. Don't blame me, I supported Hillary.

[T Wolf]

26. Does "best person" mean competent and effective? Great, but not if the goals pursued

are not good.

Bush and the pukes have been the best people to control the media. Does that mean they were the best people for their positions?

[jenmito]

32. So Obama's goals are not good? You're comparing him to Bush??

[T Wolf]

56. No. What I am saying is that competence in the pursuit of a "bad" goal is not a good thing.

To throw another example that will annoy people - the efficiency of the Nazi extermination machinery was outstanding, in terms of competence.

Does that mean that he and his party were the best people for that position of power?

And, to push the point even further, if the Nazis had not been so efficient and such good record keepers, the millions who were murdered in the camps would be unknown. They can be traced and their families can have some closure because of that German efficiency. Isn't that something good that came out of the atrocity?

[jenmito]

63. So Obama's goals are not good? What goals are you talking about?

[T Wolf]

88. Continuing the war on the ME for another year, or two, or more; NOT going after the bushies for

their many crimes; doing so much to indicate that he will continue the center-right policies of the Clinton/Bush administrations; and NOT giving liberals any glimpse of the corridors of power.

NOW, if in the first 100 days (that many have instructed us to wait and see) he shows that any of the garbage spewed by the pukes (about being the most liberal Senator in HISTORY) is true, I will come on here and effusively apologize to all.

Maybe he is rope-a-doping everyone into thinking he will govern from the right. But I don't think so. I believe that his values, as shown by policy statements and his nominees, are too far right for any real to be made. Sure, things may not deteriorate as quickly as they would have under McCain, but that is little comfort.

Put it this way. An immediate end to the wars and an immediate withdrawal is my preference. Anything less is a sell-out to the anti-war side. But many here would tell a mother whose daughter is killed in Iraq in December 2009 that things are going well because by the end of 2010, some more of the troops will be brought home. I would hold that that Mom would take little comfort in that "improvement."

[jenmito]

95. He said he's going to bring the troops home in 16 months.

He laid out his goals and I don't see him lying about anything he campaigned on.

[T Wolf]

That mother's daughter still "will die" a year after Obama takes office. But she should be

happy with that?

And how many will be left there as "support" or "trainers" or some other bullshit reclassification scheme?

[jenmito]

104. So now you're blaming him for not bringing them home sooner than he promised? If it was

up to him, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

[WeDidIt]

18. Not a cabinet post n/t

[jenmito]

24. Not the point. The OP was talking about Obama's administration. n/t

[MADem]

27. Well, her boss doesn't think she should have the right to be married.

So much for change you can believe in....sounds like same old, same old to me.

[jenmito]

30. And we all knew that all along, didn't we? We also know his position on other gay rights.

[MADem]

43. Yep. He said it often enough. He doesn't support gay marriage.

Consequently, he isn't qualified to be a member of DU, because the current rules say that members here MUST SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

Funny, that rule apparently isn't enforced.

[jenmito]

47. I wasn't aware Obama is a member of DU!

:shrug:

[MADem]

49. I didn't say he was.

I said, if you will go back and read each word one more time for comprehension, that he wasn't QUALIFIED to be a member.

Neither is ANYONE who does not support gay marriage.

It's in the DU rules.

[jenmito]

50. "Funny, that rule apparently isn't enforced." How is it not being enforced???

[MADem]

64. There are people on this forum who plainly do not support gay marriage.

They're calling on the people who DO support it, and who are disappointed in Obama's Warren fiasco, to STFU and go along and get along. They're offering up second rate alternatives (call it civil union, call it "wed" instead of marriage, call it "domestic partnership") and they're telling our pissed off gay friends and neighbors to "Get Over It."

If the rules were enforced even-handedly, these people would be given the bum's rush, like those who didn't support Obama for the Presidency were, before the convention even took place.

[jenmito]

76. Can you name someone here who doesn't support gay marriage?

I hope you're not implying I don't support it.

[MADem]

91. Why yes, I could, but that would be a "call out" and that's against DU rules.

I am implying absolutely nothing about you, FWIW.

If you are truly interested in the subject, scroll through the many, many, MANY threads on this issue that have cropped up in the last two days. The people who oppose gay marriage, or who think gays should be happy with crappy, second rate, state level (not federal) benefits, will become immediately apparent by their commentary. And there are a surprising number of rather mean-spirited comments, too. I must say, I was a bit surprised.

[jenmito]

98. OK, but just know I'm not one of them.

And a review of my posts would show that.

[jenmito]

60. Hello, MADem?!?! WTH did you mean by the DU rules not being enforced?

[MADem]

65. I just told you. You've replied twice to the same post. NT

[bvar22]

113. Obama's Environmental Council.....

Isn't that office in the same basement where the Republicans forced Conyers to hold his hearings?

[MADem]

15. He made no secret of his anti-gay marriage view. The thing was, too many people wanted to "BELIEVE."

Well, this is what you get for "believing." I don't see much "CHANGE" happening either--it looks like Bill Clinton picked the cabinet, actually!

The one solace--there's some seriously good company under that bus....you're not alone!

In the future, perhaps people will BELIEVE Obama when he says something like "I do not support gay marriage."

[jody]

16. 4% GLB among voters and 32% Republicans. What would you expect? n/t

[ananda]

25. You have an ally here!

I so appreciate your anger and outrage.

I feel the same about the regressive policies
regarding women's reproductive rights.

Grrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[last1standing]

29. Thank you.

And you should be outraged by that. This is turning into a clusterfuck of an administration and all the fanboys at DU want us to shut up and get back to ogling at dreamy Obama and his wonderful family.

They don't give a fuck that this guy is promoting those who have ripped families apart.

[thereismore]

33. Stop hating yourself. If I were president, "gay" or "staright" would not enter my thinking

about cabinet posts.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Who would you have preferred be appointed? nt

[last1standing]

42. Bullshit argument, like always.

It's up to him to pick people who represent us. That's why we picked him.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Okay. So who would have been better?

You can't say "I'm not happy," and then when asked what would make you happy, reply "that's not my problem." If you can't think of any better appointments, then why do you assume Obama did and then shunned them out of homophobia? Isn't that an awfully big assumption to make?

[last1standing]

52. Once again, I hired Obama to do that and he failed.

n/t

[Occam Bandage]

57. If you voted for Obama because you thought that

he would appoint gay people to posts regardless of their qualifications, then that was a stupid vote. Otherwise, I'll continue to ask you why you believe that Obama turned down more-qualified gay people from cabinet posts. Do you just take it as an article of faith that, say, the best-qualified person for Energy secretary must secretly be some unknown but outed gay person somewhere?

[last1standing]

59. Just like your avatar, you talk in nothing but circles.

I've said what I meant and I'm done. You can misread it all you like to justify your crush on Obama.

[Dawgs]

62. Huh? Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?

Are you saying that Obama should have appointed a gay person to his cabinet, even if someone else was more qualified? Because, that is what you're saying by not answering.

Wow!!

[last1standing]

66. Aww...Did Occam call in his posse?

n/t

[Dawgs]

No, just responding to an idiot.

And you're acting like a three year old.

[last1standing]

107. Fuck you.

How's that for a three year old?

[last1standing]

68. Aww...Did Occam call in his posse?

n/t

[Occam Bandage]

67. No, you're dodging the question.

Do you have evidence that Obama has turned down a more-qualified gay person? Do you believe that Obama should be appointing gays regardless of their qualifications? Or do you simply take it as an article of faith that the best-qualified person for a particular cabinet spot must be an unknown homosexual that Obama had a duty to find?

[last1standing]

74. Because it's a bullshit question like I said from the beginning.

How much more clear do I need to be for you?

[Occam Bandage]

77. So it's "bullshit" to ask you to back up the claim that Obama has turned down more-qualified gays?

Why? I don't believe that's so obvious a claim as to not require any evidence whatsoever.

[last1standing]

79. I didn't say he turned them down. He never gave them a chance to compete.

You are the one twisting the story here.

[Occam Bandage]

82. All right. What evidence do you have for that?

How do you know that Obama never even considered any gay people for any posts? Were there names you were expecting to see leaked?

How many leaks occurred for, say, Energy secretary? None, as far as I remember. Does that mean that Obama considered nobody on Earth but the previously-unknown Stephen Chu? How do you know that the #2 candidate was not a lesbian somewhere?

[last1standing]

87. If he did then you're suggesting he found absolutely no qualified gay candidates.

I guess you just think we're inferior to you brilliant straight folk.

[Occam Bandage]

100. So it isn't possible that the most-qualified person for Sec. of Labor is straight?

Perhaps you believe that it isn't possible that the most-qualified person for Sec. of Transportation is straight.
Perhaps you believe that it isn't possible that the most-qualified person for Sec. of the Interior is straight.
Or the EPA. Or Homeland Security. But you must believe one of them requires a homosexual person to be run appropriately.

After all, you seem to believe that Obama has not even considered a gay person, based only on the belief that he did not appoint one. Does that mean that homosexuality is such a boon for at least one of the cabinet positions that nobody could even consider a gay person for that job without hiring them? Given the relatively low incidence of homosexuality in the population at large, and given the fact that social pressures make it harder for gay people to advance to the top of organizations (you'll note that you cannot even think of one person who you believe would be better), isn't it possible, instead, that the best-qualified persons for each cabinet post happened to be straight?

Also, I'm not straight. I reject the notion that GLBTs must demand GLBTs be appointed to positions regardless of their abilities.

[last1standing]

103. So it isn't possible that the most qualified person was gay?

You really think so little of as that?

[Occam Bandage]

111. That is also possible. It is indeed possible that

Obama is a homophobe and did not appoint the best-possible person because he or she was gay. However, there's an enormous difference between "it is possible that Obama is a homophobe" and "Obama is a homophobe."

[last1standing]

114. I never said Obama is a homophobe.

I believe he's making some very cynical choices at the expense of the GLBT community and that he has no real plan to do anything to improve our situation. On top of that he's insulting us in his very first actions as president.

Hell, I don't believe nearly anyone on this board is a homophobe. I'm just fucking sick of people telling me to 'hold off' or 'get over it'. It's very easy to say that when you either have your rights or don't care about them. For the rest of us, it fucking hurts.

[Politicub]

85. There are lots of qualified gay people out there

Your argument doesn't hold water.

[Occam Bandage]

102. Sure there are. But there can only be one deemed most qualified.

Should Obama handicap the United States government by hiring a candidate he knows would be worse at the job than another candidate, purely on their basis of their respective sexualities? I don't think that's good government.

[Politicub]

117. I disagree with you that someone is "most qualified" based on

the fact that qualifications are subjective, especially for a public service post.

Someone's entire record should be considered, as well as ideology.

And, your post is offensive because you jump to the conclusion that a gay person would somehow handicap the US gov't because they would be worse at their job. Did you honestly mean to imply that?

[jenmito]

89. He did the same to me, then accused me of being a "fan," then got more and

more obnoxious, then put me on ignore.

[Ozma]

90. Excellent point! I'm just amazed and the irrational arguments some of my

fellow gay people are making... that there MUST be someone better qualified who is openly gay out there.. and Obama ignored them.

Then you ask folks to name names and they say "that's what I hired Obama to do".... yeah right.

[Jennicut]

45. Oh boy.

:popcorn:

I am not saying a word on this.

[DevonRex]

72. *snort* I brought some butter and a 2 liter bottle of Orange Crush.

:popcorn:

[Jennicut]

81. LOL. I love orange soda, inf fact I am drinking some now. Has to be diet though

I have diabetes.:( DU sure is becoming "interesting" to say the least these days.

[DevonRex]

92. I don't do well with sugar, either. So sugar free it is!

I actually wrote to Skinner, on a thread that was asking for donations. Probably won't make any difference.

[Jennicut]

99. Oh well. I posted something about ways to be constructive about the Warren thing

and stop tearing each other down and I got like one response. I guess people would rather argue back and forth then do something to actually solve anything. My 3 and 4 year olds are more mature.

[DevonRex]

115. Now I'll go find that post. Thanks. :)

[apocalypsehow]

101. I guess you'll be voting the Palin/Santorum ticket, then. Good luck with that.

:eyes:

[last1standing]

109. Maybe when you're suffering as much as we are you'll get the point.

Maybe not. We'll just have to see.

[anonymous171]

106. OK then. Just make sure to change your registration. We don't want you to fuck up the polls.

[last1standing]

108. I don't take orders from the likes of you.

n/t

[jenmito]

116. After reading this thread (and taking part in it), I can see how people would come to the

conclusion that you are a very mean person. Being gay, like being disabled, or any other minority, does NOT give you the right to curse everyone out who simply asks you questions. :eyes:

[New Earth]

118. Did anyone ever think of this Warren dude....

as a way of a saying GOODBYE to the 'last 8 years'?