Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TIME: Obama's Gay Outreach: All Talk, No Action

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 11:55 AM
Original message
TIME: Obama's Gay Outreach: All Talk, No Action
Saturday night President Obama charmingly delivered a rather bleak message to the gay community on the eve of its latest march on Washington. In a speech to the world's largest gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, Obama essentially said two things: I'm with you. But I can't do much for you.

He said the first part with remarkable comfort for a straight man, the kind of effortless understanding that gay people don't always get at home, school or work, and certainly not from most politicians. "Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person — let's say a young man — will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he has held as long as he can remember," the President said. I'm sure he didn't write those words, but in that one sentence, he accurately and movingly defined the painful confusion that begins most gay lives. He went on: "Soon, perhaps, he will decide it's time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends, his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender." The audience of some 2,000 — mostly major gay donors and activists, many of whom have been disappointed with Obama's slow movement on gay issues — stood and cheered.

As usual with this President, all the cadences were right. "It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady Gaga," he ad-libbed, again a deft and knowing line for an audience probably as eager to hear her performance as his. During one clamorous ovation, Obama said, simply, "I love you back."

Obama patted himself on the back for his party's passage earlier in the week of a a hate-crimes bill that, for the first time, includes gay and transgender people. And he used the opportunity to tell gay critics who have expected so much of him to express what he expects of them. The hate-crimes bill, he said, had become law only because those who believed in it had thoroughly educated the public about why it was important. "Countless activists and organizers never gave up," he said. "You held vigils. You spoke out year after year, Congress after Congress."

Obama is right, in a civics-class sort of way, because social change can't occur if it's forced from the top-down. But that's also a convenient argument for him, since it defers responsibility from his office.

Obama did pledge — as he has before — to end the Pentagon's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. But once again he said nothing specific about how he plans to do that and didn't acknowledge that he already has the statutory power to instruct the Pentagon that investigating service members' sexuality is not in the best interest of the armed forces. Also, he said that gay relationships can be "just as real and admirable" as straight relationships, but he did not say gay couples should be treated equally. Obama, after all, still opposes equal marriage rights.

Outside the convention center, anger simmered as gays prepared for today's march. Roughly 300 gathered at a Washington restaurant yesterday — so many that scores spilled onto the street outside — to hear speakers angrily denounce a political system they said was run by corporate interests. "Obama lost me," said Zach Rosen, 28, who came to Washington from Philadelphia. "He took a lot of gay dollars and gay votes, and then it was like Clinton — unkept promises."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929687,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. "he said nothing specific" that has been the proble all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Missed point. Attending and speaking at the HRC was action. The President sets the tone.
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 12:04 PM by thunder rising
And he do so with a full portion.

He legitimized their demands, amplified their voice and called on the LGBT to continue to stand up.

That is action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. This isn't 1990
A Democratic president is EXPECTED to "legitimize" the demands of the LGBT community. It should be a given.

The gay community poured tens of millions of dollars into this President's campaign. Two gay fundraisers were the top fundraisers of his campaign. Self identified gay voters in exit polls gave him a huge margin over McCain, second only to the black community.

This is a President who owes this community action, not words. Time will tell if he delivers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. What did he risk by speaking to the HRC?
It's a big, wealthy, white blue-blood, establishment-oriented organization, firmly entrenched in DC politics, and utterly out-of-touch with what's happening in the mainstream gay community.

HRC needs "legitimizing" about as much as the Rotary Club. And at least the Rotary does something useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. It might be more apropos to consider what the gay community gained.

He's placed himself in a position from which departure could result in the loss of a chunk of his base. He's not stupid.

He MIGHT screw it up, but he's made it that bit harder for himself to do so, in a speech he didn't have to make. Maybe he's not worried. Maybe he doesn't intend to screw it up.

I know as much as you, of course...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. The 'tone' was delays and continue as second class citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
51. "Action" is the Commander in Chief continuing to allow discharges of gay svs members for no other
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 07:35 PM by Garbo 2004
reason than they are gay and his DOJ actively defending DADT and DOMA in court. (One DOJ DOMA related court brief cited incest and marriage to children as examples....with the implication that gay marriage was a comparable circumstance.)

In regards to DADT yes, it is the law, but it also is up to the Administration how to implement the law via administrative regulations and policy. The "best interests of the armed forces" is a factor that applies here, especially given the need for troop retention. Changes can be made in regulation and policy. Or the Administration could, for example, take it full on and institute a moratorium on such discharges pending further review and (legislative) action. Most recent study on DADT policy will appear in Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and concludes that openly gay troops will not hurt combat readiness. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/30/pentagon_airs_criticism_of_dont_ask/ (As have other studies in the past http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Marine+General+Questions+Obama+Plan )

Another point for example, the armed forces currently implement stop loss measures due to need for troops during a period of national emergency and yet continue to discharge service members with good records simply for being gay. Fed law provides the President with the authority to suspend laws relating to separations from the military in such times in the interests of national security.

Continuing to discharge service members for no other reason than they are gay and to defend such discharges in court is a choice the Obama administration has made. And undoubtedly a political choice, because it's not the only choice the Administration could make and it's not the case that the Executive's power is effectively constrained and cannot do otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. I call it "the speecharound"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Very good and apt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. I love these folks making up their minds for good after 8.5 months of the first term
Think marathon, not sprint, for everything political and you'll have a better chance at achieving something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Oh, just . . . BARF!
How long are we going to hear that tired old canard?

We're NOT judging "too quickly." We're judging based on the number of opportunities he's had to make changes, and hasn't. And before you ask us to rehash all that documentation, try searching yourself for just a minute. You'll find ample threads on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. Young Mr. Rosen's words are music to the ears of the people you should despise the most
Barf indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Of course they are but
if it means more PO vitriol then latching on corporatemediawhore rags will just have to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. When they're right they're right.
I don't ascribe to someone's ideas based on the rag they work for. If they make sense, they make sense. This article does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
53. after a year it will turn into "during his first term"
you watch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. I understand the anger
I would be more sympathetic if I thought that most of those who are ripping him for not overturning this policy immediately would then be happy when he does, but we know happiness is not achievable for most of these chronically angry. Notice how certain anti-war people gave Obama NO credit for starting the pull out of Iraq and instead attack him incessantly on Afghanistan - a war that he said he would have to escalate in order to be successful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. You understand nothing.
I've given Obama plenty of pats on the back - but in this area he's off the mark by a wide margin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. Yep, we should all just sit back and accept the status quo. Thanks for the pick me up.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
47. Should have done it on the very first day and gotten it out of the way.
Why should a significant percentage of the population be denied rights others enjoy?

When is the right time to put an end to the hate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. "There is no way Barack Obama will win the Nobel Peace Prize?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Time magazine has a definite political agenda -- and it is not a progressive agenda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe see what he does by the end of this first year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. He's already given us a date of 2017.
We'll see then, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Is Time pro-gay, particularly?

I wasn't aware of it, if so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I was just wondering (and writing) that same thing......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
15. Hey:
If

"social change can't occur if it's forced from the top-down..."

OK, with you on that.

..."But that's also a convenient argument for him, since it defers responsibility from his office"

Is it the truth or a fucking excuse??

He could more assertive in setting the tone, which is kinda sorta what he is doing in a day-late-and-maybe a dollar short- sort of way here.......


But what are THEY driving at?? What's their stance on gay marriage? How do they treat domestic partners of the people that work for them??

What are their editorial stances on this?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. dunno
I'm a Newsweek reader, and I don't even read that too often. I have always thoughth Time provides their "analysis," not overt editorializing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zix Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Abso-friggin.

Are we staring at a pile of hypocritical baloney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. TIME is instigating against this President.......
They don't promote Gay issues in any way.....

but they will pile-on if it can make folks mad at our President.
It is what they do, regardless of the cause.

TIME needs to walk their walk, instead of piggy backing on the misery of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Excellent point, Frenchie..and those who want to
continue the divisiveness for their own agenda will seek out the corporatemediawhores as their "AHA evidence".

Fuck the corporatemedia rag, time mag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. What is divisive about demanding equal rights?
Why do you pound on gay people everytime they demand something from this administration?

We're speaking Truth to power. I have no idea what you're doing except chronically and wrongly accusing people of being divisive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. President Obama wants them, too..or doesn't that
fit into your divisive agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. It was my impression that DU's position is officially pro gay marriage.
Am I wrong? Do you disagree with that position? You've called John Cloud a corporate whore and ruggerson, divisive. You're the one who is behaving divisively here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. My position is that President Obama wants
everything he said he and his Team are working on in his speech last night at the HRC. The divisiveness comes from those who say he's "all talk and no action" when he hasn't waved his magic wand fast enough.

My position is that President Obama is in a postition to help and he is.

Time mag is a corporatewhore rag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. He hasn't done anything meaningful yet.
Unless you have some secret memo that we've not seen. So how are we wrong in saying he's "all talk and no action" on GLBT issues such as DADT and marriage?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. Yes, he is in a position to help and yet continues to discharge gays from the armed forces
for no other reason than they are gay when he has other options, even under current law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. He has yet to prove that
He's the president of the United States and head of the Democratic party - if he wanted a bill on his desk on DADT, he could have had one over the summer. Even Harry Reid is begging him to lead on this issue. Silence.

The clock is ticking. Once January 1st hits, the excuse will be the midterms. We had this year to get something done before we potentially lost our overwhelming margins in the House and Senate. This isn't being "divisive" - it's watching the president piss away the chance to do something that has the overwhelming support of the American public by getting rid of DADT.

I know it means nothing to you. We should just dance on our own graves, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. WHAT exactly could he have done?
O.k., well, I suppose he could've made a speech requesting (demanding) a bill on his desk by............(insert date). That doesn't mean that it would've happened, particularly with all of the attention that ended up being devoted to "teabaggers" and health care reform. There doesn't seem to be any reason that Reid can't get something together and shepherd it through the Senate and urge his house counterparts to do the same. There has already been legislation written to repeal DADT. Once a bill gets to President Obama's desk he will undoubtedly sign it. So, what exactly is CONGRESS waiting for? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. He hasn't even endorsed Murphy's bill yet
He says he's for repeal, which I don't doubt, but has not even endorsed the bill which does just that. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has pleaded with him to endorse it. Nada. How tough is it to endorse a bill and help get the ball rolling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Why does he need to endorse a bill
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 06:19 PM by Proud Liberal Dem
when he has already endorsed the essential/primary function of Murphy's bill (and Gillebrand's corresponding Senate bill), namely repealing DADT? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. because that's what Presidents do
when there is an existing piece of proposed legislation and they want to see it passed into law. Repealing DADT needs a push - it's going to need 60 votes in the Senate. If he wanted it passed now, he would lobby for the specific bill. He's done it with other pieces of legislation - by name even. Instead he keeps saying it is going to take time and refuses to endorse the specific bill. Well we have another few months before the midterm season is upon us. If it's not done then, we're in trouble.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. I don't know exactly what his strategy is in regards to DADT
We can all agree on the fact that he says that he wants a repeal and it sounds like there is some signs of movement in the Congress- or at least some more interest in getting the repeal done (i.e. Reid). My guess is that he is playing it a LOT more cautious than Clinton did back in 1993 but when he's ready to move I think he'll move. Based on what I've observed, he seems to set a lot of things into motion at the same time but then he picks and chooses his time to make the big push for something. I think that he surely must understand the need to get something done before the midterm season heats up too much because, although 2010 is NOT shaping up to be 1994, we will probably have at least a mildly diminished majority in Congress that would make a repeal of DADT more difficult. If I had to guess, I would think that he's waiting at least until he finishes with getting a health care reform bill passed before moving on DADT. :shrug: There's nothing stopping Congress from at least starting to work it through, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
45. And the cheerleading continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. We don't need Time magazine to fuel our anger
I'm not willing to wait until 2011 or 2016 or 2017 for my equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. John Cloud is gay. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. So what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. The person she responded to called him a corporate whore.
Agreeing with Frenchie that this is just an attempt to instigate shit with Obama. The fact that the writer is gay might have a little something to do with it instead, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
50. It means he didn't get his pony. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Civil rights = "pony"? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. That's what I've been hearing for the past couple of years. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. These user names kill me.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #31
58. Frenchie Cat said he was piggybacking on the misery of others.
Or did you not read her post? But, thanks for the gratuitous slam. It added so much to the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Try waking up someday.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. "Waking up"? Just bc someone doesn't agree with you?
Time mag is a corporatewhore mag and I would certainly hope someone Gay would write this..it would be really strange if he weren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. Good point. That is the corporate mediawhore "way"
They don't have to really care about any particular issue du jour, whether it be Afghanistan, gay rights, etc. If there is a pile-on going on somewhere and they smell blood in the water when it comes to President Obama, well, you can bet they will conveniently jump all over him too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. How many times have they done this?
Inumerable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
60. OMFG. People demanding their constitutional rights.
What the fuck is their problem?

Don't they "get it"?

Don't they know they're being "divisive"?

And they're doing it "inumerable" times?

Get a rope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
33. You know only "Obama haters" read TIME.
Kidding. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. that's what I've heard
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #33
49. It would appear -
Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC