This Forum is Not a Donnie McClurkin Forum. Please stop crowding out DU'ers on other subjects.

[David Zephyr]

It is rude and petulant to continue to keep posting thread after thread on the single subject of Donnie McClurkin's actions nearly 6 months ago, especially since nothing new is being added. It's just a piss poor attempt to fill up the entire forum with a single argument. Have some sense of proportion.

There are breaking news stories about the primaries and caucuses that merit attention. There are breaking stories regarding the campaigns that merit discussion. Donnie McClurkin seems to be the only thing a very small handful want to discuss over and over and over. It is really too much.

As a gay guy, I imagine it must be becoming more than tedious for our straight brothers and sisters to see this forum being filled with repetitive threads that don't bring a single new thing to discuss and that are filled with the same dozen people bickering. It is disgraceful.

Now, I'm sure to be flamed, but my intentions are for the best of the forum. If this is still such a burning issue, then for Pete's sake try to limit it to a thread or two at most a day. Nothing new at all is being brought forward.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Easier to rehash McClurkin than to talk about the Clintons' legacy of DOMA and DADT

We are called hate mongers for daring to remind our fellow DUers that it was the Clintons who did a lot a harm to LGBT community, harm that continues on to this very day.

[FrenchieCat]

2. At this point, I'm tuning it totally out......and hiding those threads....

It's like not even about one issue...it's about one singer person who was associated for a hot minute with a candidate, who I believe has gotten the message!

I'm Black and go to a Black church, and I don't even know who this guy is! :shrug:

[Bicoastal]

3. Delete...some might misinterpret.

PS: I'm straight, and love musicals (well MOST, anyway). The answer was Spring Awakening.

PPS: Go Obama!

[IndianaGreen]

It was such a nice post!

Just because one listens to Streissand or Doris Day....

[Bicoastal]

21. I'm not a fan of Streisand, actually.

That's my dad. :shrug:

[cbayer]

4. Who's Donnie McClurkin? nt.

[Lex]

13. and what's google?

nt

[WritingIsMyReligion]

5. Really. You'd think there were nothing else to discuss.

You'd think that Obama had never done anything else besides associate with Donnie McClurkin, that dumb political moves suddenly equal his deepest motives and secret loathing of the GLBT community. Insane.

[Skip Intro]

6. Time to stop crying in our teacups? Shut up and quit spoiling the parade? Back of the bus, and STFU?

who the hell are you?

[jackson_dem]

11. This is the "change" Obama is bringing to our party. No wonder rethugs love him

[Skip Intro]

15. We are in a fight for our party. Obama is a trojan horse. So many fools.

[Barack_America]

50. A little overly dramatic, perhaps?

Sheesh.

[TexasObserver]

7. I automatically hide any thread with McClurkin in the title, because it's usually some Hill Shill

slinging the same old tired hash

I'll hide this one, too, as soon as I'm done with this post, even though it's not.

[QC]

8. Probably makes it easier for you to get your 1,000 posts a week quota.

Don't think people don't know what your little game is.

[David Zephyr]

9. Unfortunately newcomers and visitors can't hide the threads like you can.

But it is a you say, "slinging the same old tired hash." :thumbsup:

[QC]

10. Click the X next to the thread title.

I find that it works nicely on your threads, so it will probably work on the McClurkin ones, too.

[mondo joe]

12. Who died and made you Skinner? If you don't like the thread you can hide it, like everyone else.

[David Zephyr]

18. How many "Donnie McClurkin" threads would satisfy you?

This is not the forum to crowd out all other discussion which is what is being done.

Visitors can't "hide" the threads. They must think that this is the Donnie McClurkin asylum.

Have some sense of proportion.

[mondo joe]

24. I don't give a shit. I don't start them. The whole GD:P forum is full of bile, shit and trash

anyway.

[NashVegas]

89. If Visitors Want to Hide Threads, They Can Donate

Membership has its privileges.

[pnwmom]

100. This is actually the first one I've noticed in a long time. I don't think

they're crowding out other threads.

[Neecy]

14. it's this week's "cult"

Funny how the theme changes weekly, doesn't it?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[David Zephyr]

22. You write to me: "GO TO HELL ASSHOLE!" What a class act you are.

I wonder what visitors here must think.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[David Zephyr]

26. Where did I say "get over" it? I'm asking for a limitation on redundant threads.

Since your language seems particularly limited to vulgarities perhaps I should have included a few in the OP so you would have understood it which you clearly didn't since you are posting something I didn't say.

[jlake]

29. You don't run the board - anyone who feels the need to post a McClurkin thread

is free to do so. And if you want it to stop - then ask Obama to make an apology for his horrendous error.
We don't ask for much.

[dailykoff]

17. Looks to me like part of the "internet strategy"

and just as effective as the rest of the trainweck.

[smalll]

19. Wow. I wonder, I wonder, which pic sums it up the best -

Under the bus with you!

Or...


At the Altar of the strange new god, Obama.

[Yossariant]

20. Sure, I agree that Obama's "special" censors should dictate what is posted.

:rofl:

[hulklogan]

23. Senator Obama would be proud of you for shutting down debate about bigotry

It's so easy just to stick your head in the sand and pretend that GLBT Americans are first-class citizens in this country. Hooray for ignorance!

edited spelling. must use the preview button!

[IndianaGreen]

28. The faux outrage of the Clintonistas on LGBT issues

when it was the Clintons that brought so much grief to LGBT Americans, in and out of uniform.

[hulklogan]

30. The faux support of the Obama campaign for LGBT issues

which says one thing, does another, and doesn't want any incriminting photos.

[mondo joe]

31. The majority of GLBT dems favor Clinton. We care about our issues.

It's plain you do not.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Many LGBTs are ignorant of Hillary's record

and I have taken great pains to educate as many as I can about her true nature.

[mondo joe]

35. We're not ignorant. We disagree with you.

As usual you're off on some weird psycho tangent, just like you were with Terri Schiavo.

[IndianaGreen]

36. What's this "we" shit?

Since when has orthodoxy ruled the LGBT community?

[mondo joe]

37. Most GLBT dems support Clinton. We disagree with you.

[IndianaGreen]

45. I beg to differ

the community is split between those that still remember the pain and the hurt the Clintons caused, and those that are in denial that the Clintons won't do it again.

[mondo joe]

48. You're as wrong on this as you were on Terri Schiavo. That is all. NT

[Barack_America]

52. Hey, did you know that Obama regards that as his greatest mistake.

Yeah, he admitted a mistake. Crazy, eh?

[mondo joe]

53. That's a good start. He has a ways to go. NT

[David Zephyr]

39. Are you capapble of making your case without personal insults to a great DU'er like IG.

You need to cool off.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[David Zephyr]

47. You have name called enough. It says a lot about you.

Another poster called me an "asshole" here.

IG's intellect is well established and believe me, she is no "fool". Shame on you.

[mondo joe]

51. If that's what you think constitutes a "great" DUer, it makes sense of your other posts.

That is all. Goodnight.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Fuck that

Just cause it's not an issue for you, doesn't mean it isn't for other people. It's the height of arrogance to declare some topics off-limits.

[David Zephyr]

32. Again, your breathless hyperbole shows you did not read my OP.

I have not "declared some topics off limits". I am suggesting restraining the number of repetitive threads on the same subject with nothing new in them whatsoever that crowd out the forum.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. I did read it

it was bullshit, and offensive. If you don't care, hide the threads. But it's really arrogant to try to tell others what topics they should be discussing.

[totodeinhere]

33. I would have agreed with the OP before, however...

I have been discussing this subject in several other threads and I have come to the belief that this is such a compelling issue to our GLBT brothers and sisters that they should be allowed to discuss this all they want. After all, this is what a discussion forum is all about. I am an Obama supporter but I am coming to understand the angst that this topic has caused for so many GLBT's.

But like others have said you can hide these threads if you want to.

(Edited for typo.)

[Olney Blue]

44. I agree with you.

[Neecy]

58. I'm not feeling angst

Some of these people posting the redundant McClurkin threads aren't even gay.

And honestly, it's getting silly. All of this hand-wringing and wailing about how this one individual is going to shatter our world, destroy our lives, blah blah blah - this raging at anyone who doesn't agree that McClurkin is the worst thing ever - jesus christ. And then to portray HRC as some kind of gay savior, even though her record supports none of this worship, is even more ridiculous.

To the straight people here: not all of us are having hysterics about this. Some of us are looking at the whole picture and while the McClurkin invitation was wrong - as is McClurkin's message - it isn't destroying me inside or causing me to weep and wail. I remember things that have really hurt us, like DOMA. And we should all just support who we support and stop this bullshitting.

[crispini]

81. Thanks.

Very refreshing point of view.

[theHandpuppet]

38. And of course the irony is...

The two McClurkin threads on the front page are calls for us to shut up about Donnie McClurkin!

Hypocrites.

[HughMoran]

41. SSDD

I'm tired of you

[The Straight Story]

43. She has her own McClurkin.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4155339

[Horse with no Name]

46. Everybody has THREE posts that they can use any way they want

So sit down and have a nice cup of STFU! This is NOT your forum.

[Malikshah]

49. Homophobic bigotry and supporting self-hatred in a segment of the

population in which teen suicide rates are quite high.

To call a candidate on this is out of proportion?

How very far some of us have to go in terms of humanity.

Quite sad, really.

More importantly, it underscores the need to educate those among us who feel that
this issue is so six months ago.

[Barack_America]

54. Thank god for the 3-post limit.

That way we're guaranteed no more than 36 McClurkin threads per day by those dozen people you spoke of.

:eyes:

In any case, thanks for speaking up.

[David Zephyr]

60. LOL! I think you have it about right. 36 posts.

Maybe we could petition for an honorary "Donnie McClurkin" forum as an alternative to this one. LOL!

[Barack_America]

62. I would certainly welcome that.

I see that a couple of new ones have just sprung up.

This McClurkin thing is months old and yet we must suffer it anew every day. Where is the outrage for the people who are dying daily in Iraq?

A little perspective, please.

[mondo joe]

63. There are gay kids driven to kill themselves every day by the likes of McClurkin.

And Obama facilitated more of it.

There's some perspective for you.

[Barack_America]

67. Just start a thread about it and leave me alone.

That does not represent Obama's personal views and you know it.

What about all of the shit that the Clinton camp has put out about race and the subtle suggestions that a black man can only go so far? You don't think that internalized racism (which they played upon) doesn't kill young black men every day? Come hang out in my neighborhood if you'd like to see this first-hand.

[mondo joe]

71. Doesn't matter if it represents his views. It's what he facilitated by giving a platform for it.

And I don't give a shit if you don't like being reminded of it.

[Barack_America]

83. Then same with the Clintons and the promotion of internalized racism.

What's worse, some of the most egregious comments came from their very own mouths!

And yet, what did recall hearing at the time of the "MLK vs. LBJ" and "Jackson won South Carolina"? "That doesn't represent their personal views!" -and- "Get over it!"

[mondo joe]

85. You're free to believe whatever you like.

And vote accordingly.

[Barack_America]

88. And also to start several threads a day on the subject.

Even though most people here would like to think of them as isolated incidents and move on.

[mondo joe]

91. If posters don't keeo threads alive, they sink and die. I'm not starting them.

If the threads are here it's because DUers want to talk about it.

And if non GLBT people would stop telling us to get over the problem, or that it doesn't matter, it would be less of an issue.

[pnwmom]

104. I don't get it. If you're not interested in a thread, then don't participate.

Everyone probably passes by dozens or more every day. Big deal.

[pnwmom]

103. As I recall, the MLK vs. LBJ statement was about the fact that MLK, the

religious leader, and LBJ, the political leader, TOGETHER accomplished the civil rights gains in the 60's. That didn't strike me as racist.

And wasn't Jackson the most recent Democrat to have won in South Carolina? The point was that winning in South Carolina doesn't guarantee a win in the general, and the point would have been equally as valid if it referred to Jimmy Carter, had he been the most recent candidate to win there.

[pnwmom]

101. Can you point me to those "subtle suggestions"? Seriously, I haven't

seen them and I don't know what you're referring to.

It would be reprehensible if they were doing that, just as reprehensible as if people in the Obama camp were implying that women could only "go so far." But I haven't seen either side saying or even implying that.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. While there's still a viable alternative, this is a fair--if festering--issue to raise

This was three and a half months ago, exactly.

For many of us, the overt pandering to religious zealots to pull them away from another candidate in a overt act of race identification is sticky enough, but to tickle their fancy by slaking an unfortunate cultural streak of prejudice is truly beyond the pale. The stiff-arming of critics and the Clintonian multi-sidedness of ameliorating dissenters with a token gay preacher is one thing, the misrepresentation of Donnie Dorko as merely one of the acts instead of the MC is another, the insistence that the gay preacher be caucasian is an extremely unpleasant maneuver and the bull-headed disavowing of anything being untoward is a harbinger of the juggernaut that may be to come.

Quite simply, if this inclusive and hopeful person can so cynically fan the flames of hatred for tactical advantage and fluff any criticism, he's suspect to many of us pluralists.

Yes, some people are fixated on it. Some of us have receded a bit into the background on this and other issues out of respect for others and party decorum, but others still have it stuck in their craws. It's human nature; this was a truly ugly ploy, and it rankles the chirpy chorusing of oneness and joy that some would have us take their word for.

In short, it's a legitimate issue, and it's disheartening.

Sadly, it's taking its course and dying out, but to claim some vague "right" to be freed from the pesky bleating of the outraged is not something to be all that expected in a pluralist forum. Accountability should be the price of a public life, and since much of his earnings have been from the people's money, he and his supporters have an obligation to face the music.

What degree of fixation is justified? Opinions vary, but to declare it "off limits" or something like that is hardly cricket.

It was a despicable, racist bit of exclusionary dancing that was most likely completely unintended, but that's what happens when you go mixing religion and politics.

Ignore it, fight it if you please, ridicule it, marginalize it or change the subject, but calling upon some kind of ethical point of fairness for it to cease is a tad high-handed.

In perspective, the election is almost three times as far away in the future as this is in the past. I'm sure people will obligingly ignore it if he's nominated.

I have no candidate now; I have a party. Although I'm restricting my customary blather and derision, this is still an issue to note and one that's quite fair to raise when considering a standard-bearer. It's called character, and although she's shown many instances of her failings in mild and medium ways, he barfed forth the big ugly with this one and many are disgusted by the willingness of so many to blithely ignore such a thing, especially when it's in clanging discord to the very core of his message: oneness.

Don't like this post? Remember: it wouldn't have been made had there not been a thread started to whip up support to quash the subject. It's better in your position to wince at the hits and let them sputter and die out; drawing attention to them sparks responses from those who will not be stilled.

It's a fair issue while the nomination is still in dispute, and after that, it'll be largely over, regardless of the outcome.

Endorsement of such chicanery is not to be expected from the sentient.

Want it to die? Don't bring it up and don't respond.

[David Zephyr]

59. I did not "claim a right". You know better.

Read my OP and tell me where you see that.

And I did not say I wanted it "to die" either. Where did I say that?

Who are you making your speech to?

Anyway, I hope you feel smug now that you've charged me with something I didn't say. I thought I knew you better than that.

[tammywammy]

56. And that's why we have hide thread

If they offend you so much, hide them or don't click on them. It's not that hard. It obviously is and issue to posters on here.

[mondo joe]

57. Keep your self loathing off the rest of us. You can get on your knees and lap up the bigotry

and learn to like it, but I'm not doing it.

[Barack_America]

61. That was unnecessarily harsh. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

75. i've read enough of your hateful trash.

on ignore you go.

[mondo joe]

77. Good. Enjoy your echo chamber.

[Lucinda]

64. So post the topics YOU want to talk about and stop trying to be the Content Police

McClurkin was the final nail in Obama's coffin as far as I am concerned. His actions not only offended GLBT DU'ers, it offended those of us who support our family and friends in the community. If people want to post about it every damn day until this site is no longer around, it's fine by me.

[David Zephyr]

68. Read the OP and tell me where I suggest "content police".

Your exaggerations undermine any argument you wish to make.

I am asking for some restraint and grace. There are other subjects here. Feel free to use your three posts a day on McClurkin if you wish.

[Lucinda]

69. You want examples? Here ys go:

"This Forum is Not a Donnie McClurkin Forum. Please stop crowding out DU'ers on other subjects."


"It is rude and petulant to continue to keep posting thread after thread on the single subject of Donnie McClurkin's actions nearly 6 months ago, especially since nothing new is being added."

"Donnie McClurkin seems to be the only thing a very small handful want to discuss over and over and over. It is really too much."


"If this is still such a burning issue, then for Pete's sake try to limit it to a thread or two at most a day. Nothing new at all is being brought forward."

[grantcart]

102. they are not trying to persuade you they are trying to persuade themselves

[miceelf]

90. FINAL nail?

What were the other nails?

[Lucinda]

97. My research on his record and proposals.

[Duncan Grant]

65. Gay people asked Obama to remove McClurkin from the program: Obama refused.

The next day, Obama offered a misleading statement that wasn't an apology. Simple enough?

So, as a gay man who has some self-respect, I'll acknowledge that there is something disgraceful about all this -- but it's not the actions of your gay brothers and sisters.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

80. what was misleading about his statement?

and when has Obama's opponent ever gone in front of an "anti-gay" crowd and made a statement supporting GLBT causes?

[Hoof Hearted]

66. YOU don't get to decide the purpose of this forum, but thanks for your concern.

[Prism]

70. They have to do it. They have nothing else.

Let's be honest, if you were put in the position of convincing people that Hillary Clinton is better than Obama on gay issues, what argument would you make? The man has spent his career being about as friendly and supportive of the gay community as politicians get. Not only that, but he trumps Clinton in terms of confronting the religious community on their bigotry. In addition, Senator Clinton is dogged by the albatross of DADT and DOMA - while adding the extra baggage of not supporting a full repeal of the latter. Sure there have been very weak explanations on DOMA ("They had to do it! To stave off the amendment!") Yes, DOMA, the reluctant move of an administration who then went into religious communities and bragged about how they alone stopped those evil, family-oriented gays. Truly our heroes.

How to make the case against Obama in gay terms?

Well, pre-McClurkin, there was almost nothing in Obama's record to hammer. The man has been exemplary on the community's issues. So a self-loathing gospel singer was like a gift from the sky for many Clinton supporters. It's the *one* thing they have, and they're going to ride that into the ground. And how.

Look, I think McClurkin was a mistake - and a hurtful one. I think it was probably the single greatest act of political stupidity in the entire campaign. But I believe it was just that - stupidity. Certainly there was an element of cowardice. The Obama campaign's stupidity put them in a difficult situation, pulled by two different constituencies. He tried to wiggle, and squirm, and split the difference. He couldn't.

What many LGBTers wanted was for him to unequivocally support us. Even if that meant alienating a number of voters vital to his primary chances in a crucial state. He wouldn't. No politician would have done that. Let's be honest and rephrase that. No *viable* politician would have done that.

Hillary Clinton wouldn't have done that. No way, no how, and she continues to accept the support of homophobic ministers and play footsie with them in a way that most major politicians do.

Is it disappointed? Hell yes. Is it unusual? Not particularly.

But McClurkin is the one incident gay Clinton supporters have over him, and they're going to ride that into the ground. Unless you count the Newsome nonsense. A man who safely grandstanded in a community disproportionately gay - the national consequences of a heavily anti-gay campaign season be damned. I saw someone refer to him as "Our MLK" which is just embarrassing.

Obama's problem is that he is not Bill Clinton. Clinton could sign DOMA, brag about it to the religious community, and convince the gay community that creating a permanent legal wedge to their creation of loving families was the best thing for us. That's political talent of the highest order. If Obama had that, it'd not be an issue.

[Divernan]

74. Excellent post, Prism. Coming from Chicago, you have personal

knowlege of Obama's history of being "as friendly and supportive of the gay community as politicians get." Your read of the political realities is right on point.

[okasha]

96. So stupidity and cowardice are traits desirable in a potential President?

Besides his lack of integrity in pandering to homophobes? Do you pay attention to what you write?

[Tektonik]

72. It must hurt to hate yourself

[ruggerson]

73. Hey, can you get us tickets for the next Mary Mary concert?

We can go and pretend like we're into picking up girls. You know, down low and all.

[kdpeters]

76. Agreed. There once was a legitimate greivance. Not anymore.

It has lost all meaning, but for another political talking point. There goes that opportunity to actually educate anyone. They were so quick to exploit it for its political attack value. The professional victims for Hillary can take full responsibility for taking a serious issue and completely wringing every last drop of credibility from it.

Thank you for posting this, David Zephyr. I feel the same way you do.

[More Than A Feeling]

93. IMO, if Obama supporters had not been so quick to label the anger a political ploy

by Hillary supporters, this might have healed by now, at least among DUers.

[Eurobabe]

78. Thank you.

While I respect that some members of our community were ticked at this incident, it's time to stop beating a dead horse.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

79. amen - nt

[terrya]

82. How nice...you spoke for me without asking! AND an apology!

That was SO unnecessary. Really, it was.

[MethuenProgressive]

84. So David, as a gay guy, do you want to be cured by Donnie McClurklin?

Or do you choose to stay gay, even though you'll burn in Hell?

Some one who doesn't like McClurkin/Obama threads starts one and claims his "intentions are for the best"? Donnie feels the same way about his intentions for you, David.

[K Gardner]

86. Well reasoned post. And yet, today the same topic is multiplying exponentially.

[pnwmom]

105. I guess it depends on your perspective. This is the first such thread

I've bumped into today.

[Kittycat]

87. The subject has jumped the shark. I was just referred to as a Nazi in another thread.

a "good German soldier" to be exact.

[MethuenProgressive]

92. Now that you mention it, David's post is like asking the Jews to stop talking about Hitler

..in 1933.

[NoPasaran]

94. So is this the Donnie McClurklin Thread to end all Donnie McClurklin Threads?

Good luck with that.

[DS1]

95. GD-P would cease to exist if redundant threads weren't allowed

That being said, the McCLurkin issue is really really really tired.

[Califooyah Operative]

98. You're interfering in a smear campaign.

sssshhhh.

[Chovexani]

99. Chicken to endorse KFC

LMAO

[Cha]

106. Thanks, David, for asking

for "proportion"..I put it all on Ignore after the first 5 months so I see it's still going full throttle. It's a shame it had to happen but there are more winning ways to go about getting resolution.